Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

reply to post by Becker44


erm no
I've never said the west is evil - i may have implied it about bush and blair, but the west as a whole?
no

As a UK citizen I have every right to express the disgust and angerI feel as my country and its ally slaughter millions in the name of "freedom" when what they really want is control over resources (at the very minimum)

Any aspect relating to extremism is fair game when discussing extremists, and in that is included western extremists - they do exist, you know.

I don't apologise for not being a warmongerers apologist.

reply to post by Becker44


Hmmm, you do realize that we by and large are responsable for the rise of extreem islam right? One only has to look as far as the last Democratic regime in Iran (Mossadeq). We deposed him in Operation Ajax and placed the Shah in power which let to the rise of the good old Ayatollah etc etc.

So in terms of the middle east its a mess of our own making plain and simple. Bush has made it 1000 times worse

To simply bash Bush does not even begin to cover the debacle he has fostered

reply to post by budski


The US and UK have not slaughtered millions. They most certainly don't indescriminately attack civilians.

Originally posted by budski
Any aspect relating to extremism is fair game when discussing extremists, and in that is included western extremists - they do exist, you know.

Its kind of funny that way. Its easy to ignore extremist in our midst so to speak, yet lable and decry other as just that.

The right to life groups are an extremist organization that use terrorist tactics (assasination, firebombs, etc) within the US. Where is the complaints about those? Neocons? Yet another extremist group,

As always, its a matter of perspective. One mans terrorist is another freedomfighter.

I can't remember where I read it, but it was along the lines of bush sr. being the only ex president to demand his right as an ex-president to daily security briefings.

I'd really like to know if he is pulling dubya's strings.

That aside, I agree with fredT - a bit of bush bashing does not come anywhere near to addressing the debacle he has presided over.

Iran has allegedly supported hezbollah for many years with arms and money - can anyone seriously tell me the US and UK have never done this, in other countries?

And therein lies my problem - the massive hypocrisy of our governments.

[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

reply to post by BlueRaja


Really?
did you read the links on the first page?
I'll post them again for you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a read first, then come back and make the same statement, after reading of the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in civilian area's, not to mention other atrocities.

You think one day, in the USA .. people that are loud and flag waving and stick on bumper stickers .. can be ..whats the word.. tranquilized, .. that would be a big step towards the future harmony of usa with other nations ...people outside the US just dont get nor supports the exceptionalism of the usa they purport. But it is a dying american idealism anyway , the world is no longer americas imperial playground , a world that is not going to be subservient to the half wits of usa for much longer .

reply to post by FredT


There was Islamic extremism long before Bush, or the Shah for that matter. To say that it's more extreme now is a bit simplistic. The causes of the extremism can be tied to a number of things, but a big contributor is the appearance of weakness and complacency. Islam's goal is to spread, and not necessarily voluntarily(i.e. that's why the term Islamofascism has come about). When we sat by and didn't respond credibly to attacks, they saw that as weakness and were emboldended.
Whether it be Beirut, Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, countless kidnappings/executions, the '93 attack on the WTC, we didn't respond decisively. That has as much or more to do with the rise of extremism as anything else.

reply to post by budski


You may want to refer to this site as it's based a lot more in reality than either of the other 2 links.


www.iraqbodycount.org...

and if you read this thread, you see more on this-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by FredT


I was born at the start and rise of the provo's in NI and in Ireland and well remember all the bombings by the PIRA and other groups and murders on both sides.

The hypocrisy of the blair government as it appeased the murderers and in the same breath condemned those who were further from our shores has always irritated me.
Something needed to be done to stop the bloodshed, but we now have former members of an extremist, terrorist organisation debating policy in the area (NI).

I'd really like blair to tell me just how the "freedom fighters" in the middle east are any different to those he released from prison over here.

Or is it that the US was attacked, and in his rush to bush's lap he forgot his principles of peace?

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
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!!

You've been caught up in the hype. Iran isn't full of extremists. Pakistan is.

But everyone isn't that interested in Pakistan. Not enough oil there I guess... even if they already have nukes which Iran is allegedly after...

reply to post by BlueRaja


Ah yes - a "mere" 85,000 - 90,000 civilian deaths according to a government sponsored site.

Ah well, that's different - I feel so much better now


Seriously though, most estimates range from 600,000 to over 1.5 million, and this does not include civilians who are affected indirectly by the war, in both afghanistan and iraq.

None of the figures are acceptable in what is essentially an illegal war.

I'd also refer you to articles 48 and 50 of the geneva convention, to which the US and UK are both signatories.
Protocol I, Geneva Convention



[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

Ok Budski, I know it must be the flu talking but mentioning Blair and Principles in the same posting is a bit of a lapse

I think I'm coming down with something too so better be careful what I write

reply to post by budski


Most estimates most certainly don't reflect those numbers. 2 estimates out of many reflect those sorts of numbers, and Iraq body count isn't a US government site. It at least gives dates, location, cause of death, rather than asking people in a poll how many people that they thought had been killed, and then multiplying the total by the number polled.

The UK at the time, were not under washingtons 'war on terror' lie/agenda , they did things differently those days , the were more direct and specific, infiltration of IRA groups with sas officers , reconnaisance of suspects ie gibralter, these days it is more against nation geared , which is the true purpose anyway , they want to bring ME oil producing nations under anglo -us control under the reason/excuse of anti terrorism , not to actually beat terrorism itself, for that would defeat the reasons for them being there in the first place.

It was the british that taught the US how to use factions within a nation to fight against themselves for the good of the imperial power. Ever wondered why the faction killing in iraq has increased dramatically over any other time in history .

London at that time, withstood multiple bomb attacks , but the politicians of the day ( without the current agenda) didnt seek to undermine the privacy of individuals that the US and UK seem to think is so important to implement today . Perhaps the so called terrorist acts , you would call some arson a few years ago. only serve to bring in these new laws , perhaps they perpetrate these 'terrorist' events themselves as cause to enact their laws.

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

reply to post by BlueRaja

Semantics.

Are you seriously saying that because the officially reported deaths are lower that it makes all those deaths acceptable?

The numbers, in all honesty, are of no consequence.

The fact that there has been a massive loss of life in the non combatant civilian population is unacceptable.

Or are you advocating that "collateral damage" is acceptable, contrary to the geneva convention?


Rahl Darc
The point about the hypocrisy of blair remains the same, although I accept your point.



[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

Good!!!!!

As an American I'm not crying over Hezbollah's "revelation". In fact I'm proud my nation is so hated by an organization led by people who would start a war with a neighboring superpower then hide behind women and children, when it came time to reap the whirlwind. As far as I am concerned this is like Nazi Germany, Myanmar(the regime), or North Korea declaring their pride in being an enemy of America. It just shows me that I'm ultimately on the right side...... if I ever doubted it.

reply to post by danwild6


Which superpower in the region?
Israel?
Hardly - without US weapons and money they would not be anything.
I DO have some sympathy with the israeli position though.

Hezbollah was labelled a terrorist organisation by the US, not the rest of the world.

In recent years, Hezbollah has won considerable backing within Lebanon. Its social services programme was popular with the Shia community.

The group's successful hit-and-run guerrilla war on Israel's much-vaunted army assured it some support and a lot or respect from other religious communities.

While, the US listed the group as a terrorist organisation, the government in Beirut declared it a national resistance movement.

Its popularity with the Shia community - which makes up almost 40% of Lebanon's three million people - was confirmed in the 1992 parliamentary elections when Hezbollah led a successful campaign and won eight seats in parliament.

source

By your logic, the leaders of the revolution who beat the british out of america would be part of a terrorist organisation.

Originally posted by Beachcoma


You've been caught up in the hype. Iran isn't full of extremists. Pakistan is.

But everyone isn't that interested in Pakistan. Not enough oil there I guess... even if they already have nukes which Iran is allegedly after...

I never said Iran was full of extremists, I ment the ones in the whole WORLD will react. I'm not caught up in any hype, I just know this is what they want, they want the usa to attack Iran.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted 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.

Well, considering the fact that it was Hezbollah that was responsible for several terrorist attacks against US interests, including the truck bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut, your comment shows how ill-informed you are. Instead of worrying about who we label as "extremists" or "terrorists", you should be asking yourself why you are defending a known group of murderers.

Hezbollah has been the terrorist arm of the Iranian Islamofascist government for nearly three decades now. And the scary part is that while people like you buy into their propaganda, they likely have more terrorist sleeper cells here in the US than any other group. They are just waiting to be activated. But if you don't consider them to be extremists or a terrorist group, I strongly suggest that you mail them a donation in the form of a personal check. Be sure to include a letter acknowledging your support for their great humanitarian work as well as all their policies. Hopefully there will be a knock on your door afterwards and we'll have one less terrorist-sympathizer and apologist here on ATS to worry about.