Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

reply to post by BlueRaja


Yes, I read your post, but I fail to see how this makes murder OK.

And that's what it is, pure and simple murder

You think al'qaeda aren't laughing their collective behinds off as the US kills at the very least tens of thousands and at the worst, over a million?

Do you not think that this policy plays right into their hands?

Do you not think that the geneva convention has a spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law?

FACT - civilians are dying in vast numbers.
FACT - UK and mostly US policy is responsible.

YOU may want to excuse our leaders, and apologise for them.

I choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

I don't see anyone saying that civilian deaths aren't a tragedy. The complaint is when grossly inflated numbers are thrown around with a definite political agenda, trying to paint a picture that just doesn't exist in reality.

My point was, "a serial killer is still a serial killer, people can debate if the guy killed a hundred or only 50, but in the end it doesn't change anything, he's still a killer."

Originally posted by danwild6
Well from an America perspective we were fighting a foreign invader. We had declared independence as any subject nation has a right too do.

You are having a laugh, the british were not 'invaders' to the americans during the war of independence , where did you glean your history from, you have to stop that kind of opinion , you will infect generations to come with your absurd misrepresentations of history , invaders ..there were a lot of english actually on the rebels side during that war, one naval captain even made it to a cornish beach and raided the town, he knew where to loot, he was born there.

The british were there before the war of independence , from the perspective you describe.. they cannot be invaders.. i agree they can be to the native indians of usa thou.

It is like USA sends a colony up to the moon, years later they (from moon or other planet etc) say, go away we dont want your kind anymore , but they wouldn't call them invaders, they decended from them.

Declaring independence only identifies an enemy if one exists against that agenda , it doesn't alter their status of wether they invaded or not.




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

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

I don't see anyone saying that civilian deaths aren't a tragedy. The complaint is when grossly inflated numbers are thrown around with a definite political agenda, trying to paint a picture that just doesn't exist in reality.

Maybe it doesn't exist in your reality, but I've noticed a definite apologist polint of view from you.
In the reality of dead people due to an illegal occupation/war/bombing campaign there HAS to be politics and agenda's are part of politics.

My only REAL agenda is the fight against hypocrisy in our governments.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by xmotex

Q: when was the last time Hezbollah attacked a US target of any kind?
If you can find anything within the last decade, I'll give you a cookie

Youtube Hezbollah in Iraq 1

Youtube Hezbollah in Iraq 2

Originally posted on Hebollah's now defunct website.

Theres lots more evidence than this. Where's my cookie?

Hahaha, you put a stamp of ownage upon his confused head. AlQueda regularily calls Hezbollah their "brothers" in video propaganda. Hezbollah is in fact a proxy army of the Iranian govt. Cut off the head and the apendages are useless.
As for the ever present Geneva warfare arguments that always pop up from idealists, the Geneva convention only applies to uniformed soldiers of a state entity and civillians. As an example, spies are historically summarily tortured and then executed in all wars since its inception. Spies do not gain the same protections as uniformed soldiers. Terrorists and other non uniformed combatants are not covered in the same way. Civillians are covered but spies and terrorists are not. Enemy propagandists will drag the non uniformed unconventional fighters bodies out in the streets to be photographed and try to claim them as civilians. Naive kids who sit in the warm safe classrooms of America, far removed from war and shaking in their collective nike shoes, will eat that propaganda up because in the back of their mind they do not have the balls to be called up for war if there was a draft.

reply to post by SectionEight


Surely a civilian is a civilian in any theatre?

I don't buy all the rubbish and propaganda that goes on - remember saddams baby milk factory?

I just have to ask about one part of your post - my not wanting to fight a corporate war does not make me a coward, it means I have principles.

If the UK government ever tried to draft me, they would get nowhere - if they want a war, let them fight it, and you'll find that they are the ones without the nuts.
Governments have always been good at getting others to do the dying - not from me though

reply to post by Britguy


Heritage means family and its ties to a particular area and way of life. Trying to call out a race card is just a pathetic grasp at straws as you slide in over your head. Given your desperate play on race, I can only conclude that your British service record is another desperate plea on false pretenses.

reply to post by makeitso


Nice try, but no cookie

Brigades Hezbollah is a militant wing of the Hezbollah Iraq shia political party, and is not affiliated with Hezbollah in Lebanon. "Hezbollah" simply means "Party of God", and there is more than one Shia organization in the Mideast calling themselves Hezbollah.

There have been some reports of Lebanese Hezbollah members training Shia militants in Iraq (though Hezbollah claims it's fighters are forbidden from operating in Iraq), none at all of them engaging US forces.

Did you know Lebanon's Hezbollah formally condemned the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11?

I bet you didn't.


[edit on 1/14/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by SectionEight

 

Surely a civilian is a civilian in any theatre?

I don't buy all the rubbish and propaganda that goes on - remember saddams baby milk factory?

I just have to ask about one part of your post - my not wanting to fight a corporate war does not make me a coward, it means I have principles.

If the UK government ever tried to draft me, they would get nowhere - if they want a war, let them fight it, and you'll find that they are the ones without the nuts.
Governments have always been good at getting others to do the dying - not from me though

You could always choose to spend the rest of your days incarcerated breaking big rocks into little rocks, but that would be your only choice. In America you can save yourself from that fate by claiming to be a consciencious religious objector, but you will still be drafted and end up serving meals and cleaning latrines.

reply to post by SectionEight


For one thing, I'm too old to be drafted.

For another, can we get back on topic?
The various merits of breaking rocks VS serving meals may be fascinating to discuss, but that's for another thread

Hezbollah, the mid east, extremism and what constitutes it, the war in iraq.

Thoughts?

reply to post by SectionEight


If I'm not mistaken it was you who brought up the heritage issue, implying I was probably some foreign johnny with an allegiance to some swarthy terrorists.
As for whether you believe I served in the British forces, I really couldn't care less if you believe it or not. Your own desperate attempts to belittle anyone who has the temerity to have a different point of view and a sense or morality only serves to portray you as some armchair warrior who thinks death is great, as long as it's someone else getting killed.
Apart from pointless and pathetic sniping you have yet to really add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Anyhoos, back to the topic

reply to post by Britguy


You may want to read this thread regarding common tactics designed to annoy/derail.


Back to the subject, I find it hard to believe anything that bush says (blair too when he was leader) but that doesn't mean I buy into the opposition propaganda either.

IMO the whole mideast mess is something we should have never got into, and we wouldn't have if blair hadn't been so determined to go down in history as some sort of worlds saviour.

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by SectionEight

 

If I'm not mistaken it was you who brought up the heritage issue, implying I was probably some foreign johnny with an allegiance to some swarthy terrorists.
As for whether you believe I served in the British forces, I really couldn't care less if you believe it or not. Your own desperate attempts to belittle anyone who has the temerity to have a different point of view and a sense or morality only serves to portray you as some armchair warrior who thinks death is great, as long as it's someone else getting killed.
Apart from pointless and pathetic sniping you have yet to really add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Anyhoos, back to the topic

No I used the word heritage for its meaning. Why are you espousing things against your heritage? "our side" is mentioned by you then in the same post you deride "our side" as the bad guy who got it coming to him.
It is a confusion who's side you are really on, and it was you who posted in such left or right terms as "our side".

With all due respect, can we discuss the topic at hand please?

Back and forths may be amusing at times, but they don't really add anything to a discussion and usually just end up in a fight with warnings for all concerned, and I have no intention of going down that road.

Thanks


[edit on 14/1/2008 by budski]

I think there is more to Blair's betrayal of the english . He is bought and paid for, by the israelis, like all english PM these days . That is the way , there are no uk politicians that can be free of their motives, except the likes of george galloway, and look what happened to him .

reply to post by Rahl Darc


Except it's not just the english, but the UK as a whole - and betrayal is the right word.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that recent british PM's have been controlled by the israeli's - perhaps you could expand on this?

I really can't see thatcher being a lap dog in any way, shape or form.

Galloways motive BTW was oil money - he made a tidy profit from supporting saddam - and at the end of the day, saddam was a mass murderer, so in my eyes that makes galloway less than trustworthy.

Some seem to be in a state of denial and intellectual dishonesty?

From Human Rights Watch-

...Hezbollah must immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. Entering the fourth week of attacks, such rockets have claimed 30 civilian lives, including six children, and wounded hundreds more...
... “Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war.”...

From Human Rights Watch-
...“We assert to you,” Nasrallah declared on al-Manar television on August 9, “that these rockets were guided by God and are guided technically and are not fired indiscriminately.”...
...But alongside the strikes on military targets, Hezbollah made abundantly clear that it was also aiming rockets at villages, towns, cities, moshavs and kibbutzes in northern Israel...

Source...Hezbollah's Dangerous Ball Bearings
By Michael Kraft

In a rather unusual story, the Reuters new agency reported that the Human Rights Watch criticized Hezbollah’s practice of packing ball bearings into the rockets it fires at Israel as a violation of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes.

The Reuters report said that some of the Kutyusha rockets fired into Haifa Sunday and Monday contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but “cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.”...

Source
...April 18, 1983: Hezbollah attacks the U.S. embassy in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 63 people, 17 of whom were American citizens.

Oct. 23, 1983: The group attacks U.S. Marine barracks with a truck bomb, killing 241 American military personnel stationed in Beirut as part of a peace-keeping force. A separate attack against the French military compound in Beirut kills 58.

Sept. 20, 1984: The group attacks the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 2 Americans and 22 others...

I contend that two wrongs, in fact, do not make a right. I also contend that defending any entity by saying someone else did the same is both childish and an indicator of a positive bias toward the action.

It used to be if I did a search, mostly articles about the Terrorists crimes against humanity would come up. Now they have been overwhelmed by hits on articles making excuses for and defending the actions of Monsters. Obviously these defenses of the indefensible are being used by these Monsters to further their cause, thereby contributing to their heinous acts.

Condemn both sides if that is what you believe; but why defend the actions of any of these Monsters? It will be seen as supporting them both by those here and by the Monsters who are committing these crimes. It may even aid them in their butchery as it can be used as a Media tool and to recruit more Terrorists to strap bombs to children or launch missiles into Civilian neighborhoods.

Only hate can explain much of what I read and that kind of hate is what led to this in the first place. How many have to die for Allah before Allah is happy? How many brainwashed children have to strap a bomb to themselves before Allah is satisfied? Why does Allah hate his own people so much?

Well gee, people tend to do bad things when their country repeatedly gets invaded and bombed.

What a shock!

Should that still be coming as a surprise to us in 2008?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Hezbollah's politics.

But if I were Lebanese, I think I'd be pretty gung-ho about killing Israelis myself, frankly.

[edit on 1/14/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by makeitso

 

Nice try, but no cookie

Brigades Hezbollah is a militant wing of the Hezbollah Iraq shia political party, and is not affiliated with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Not affiliated?

Iran funds Hezbollah in Lebanon up to $1 Billion a year, and they fund Hezbollah in Iraq up to $3 Million a month.

When Iran built the the Ramazan Corps in Iraq, they mirrored Hezbollah in Lebanon so closely they even had Nasrallah's chief of guard, the commander of Hezbollah in Lebanon's special forces, Ali Mussa Daqduq to run them, until he and his documentation was captured in Iraq.

"In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hezbollah leadership to go to Iran and work with the Qods Force to train Iraqi extremists," said Brig Gen Bergner. "In May 2006, he traveled to Tehran with Yussef Hashim, a fellow Lebanese Hezbollah and head of their operations in Iraq. They met with the Commander and Deputy Commander of the Iranian Qods Force Special External Operations." Daqduq made four trips into Iraq in 2006, where he observed the "Special Groups" operations.

Upon his return to Iran, "he was tasked to organize the Special Groups in ways that mirrored how Hezbollah was organized in Lebanon," Brig Gen Bergner explained. Daqduq began to train Iraqis inside Iran. Groups of 20 to 60 recruits were trained in the use of Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), mortars, rockets, and sniper rifles, and instructed on how to conduct intelligence and kidnapping operations.

Brig Gen Bergner also explained that numerous documents, including a 22-page planning document, Daqduq's journal, and other items, along with the corroborated interrogations of Qayis and Layith Qazali (or Khazali) and other captured members of the Special Groups networks detail Qods Force's role in the Shia terror cells inside Iraq. "What we've learned from Ali Musa Daqduq, Qayis Qazali and other Special groups members in our custody expands our understanding of how Iranian Qods Force operatives are training, funding and arming the Iraqi Special Groups," said Brig Gen Bergner. "It shows how Iranian operative are using Lebanese surrogates to create Hezbollah like capabilities."

Meanwhile, Hezbollah in Lebanon's media wing, al Manar.
promote these videos of Hezbollah in Iraq's attacks on U.S. forces.

Not affiliated?

I think I've been ripped off. Where's my cookie.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse to drum up support for another war or what.

Here, lets go back into history a little bit...
Iraq and Syria were both run by Ba'athists right?
So I guess they were bosom buddies, right?

Err, not quite... I seem to recall Syria's Ba'athists going to war on our side against Iraq's Ba'athists or something like that back in 1991... How can some Ba'athists be our allies and some Ba'athists be our enemy?
Oh it's so confusing

Hezbollah in Iraq gets support from Iran (as does, to some extent or other, nearly every single Shia group in the ME.)

Hezbollah in Lebanon also gets support from Iran.

However, the two organizations are separate and distinct.
They do not share common personnel.

Lebanon's Hezbollah is not attacking the US.

Period.

Thank you for trying, but no cookie.



[edit on 1/14/08 by xmotex]