It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

They do not share common personnel.

Lebanon's Hezbollah is not attacking the US.



They do, and I showed you the evidence.
Pictures, documents, the whole ball of wax. All verifiable.

Come on.
A cookie isn't that expensive.


Trying to starting a new war.


I'm just trying to get the cookie you said I could have if I found evidence of Hezbollah attacking the U.S. in the last decade. I have provided that.

Now, wheres my cookie you cheapskate?




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
If Hezbollah is so thrilled why don't they get in the fight? Because they don't want to loose everything they have now. They are scumbags and will die like the rest sooner or later.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
You've posted unverified reports from a right-wing blog, which can probably be traced back to Debka or some other similarly reputable source


I would not be surprised that Iran has tried to mold Hezbollah in Iraq based on Lebanon's Hezbollah, who have been extremely successful.

That doesn't mean they are the same organization, and you know it, but you continually attempt to cloud the issue.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
So, are you trying to say that Daqduq was not Lebanon Hezbollah bigshot, and that he was not captured in Iraq with document etc?


Not clouding the issue.
Showing evidence so I can get my cookie!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I second the motion for Makeitso's cookie. He got you by the balls , pay up.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
No I'm, trying to say that they are still distinct and separate entities.

I think I've said that three or four times already, but you keep trying to reframe the argument to serve your purposes.

The fact that two miltant Shia organizations might cooperate is not shocking.

But Hezbollah, the Lebanese organization people think of when you say "Hezbollah", has not been engaging US forces in Iraq.

If they were, I think we'd be in a lot more trouble in Iraq than we are now.
Lebanon's Hezbollah is quite a bit more formidable & competent than what we've been dealing with there so far. Ask the Israelis



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


So you agree that Lebanon Hezbollah staff lead attacks on U.S. in Iraq less than a decade ago.

Wheres my cookie?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I don't dispute that a single member of Hezbollah from Lebanon was apparently captured in Iraq. Though the jury seems to be out as to whether he actually participated in the Jan 20. attack or was merely training the militia members that did.

Regardless, even US intel claims he was working on behalf of Iran's Quds force, not Lebanon's Hezbollah, capish?

Thus Hezbollah is not attacking US forces.

No doubt they support those who do, were I an Arab I probably would too, frankly. We are the invaders after all - and historically invaders just about anywhere tend to get killed in ugly ways by annoyed locals and their friends. It's one reason among many invading foreign countries is generally considered a bad idea unless absolutely necessary... but I digress.

No cookie.


[edit on 1/15/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Reply to yahn goodney

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.

These guys worship Allah (the creator of everything) and to die fighting as a martyr against the invading Jews is indeed a great honour for them.

Always remember Muslims die defending their lands and the Jews die extending their lands.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kangjia57
Reply to yahn goodney

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.

These guys worship Allah (the creator of everything) and to die fighting as a martyr against the invading Jews is indeed a great honour for them.

Always remember Muslims die defending their lands and the Jews die extending their lands.

Killing civillians is not Islamic, I see them as scum.
Also hiding behind civillians doesn't seem very nice to me, both them and the Iraeli goverment only care about themeselves, they dont care what innocent people die in their path to their personal politcal needs.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Reply to _Phoenix_

Killing civillians is not Islamic, I see them as scum not muslims.

Yup you are right anyone who kills civilians are indeed terrorists and anyone who defends their lands against Jews is also indeed a freedom fighters.

That’s why I wouldn’t Label Hezbullah or Hamas total terrorists.If these groups didn’t exist to resist,Israel would have had a full share of Palestine and Half of Lebanon.

Its all part of the Israeli extension plan by using the US as the shield.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 

Yes, Im sure there are good people joing them for a good cause, but there are bad people doing bad things too, but I would agree the Israeli goverment is much worse, because the Israeli goverment is known to cause a lot more murder and deaths. But they both need to sort themselves out. Because in the end the innocent people are in the middle of it all. And thats what side I'm one.




[edit on 15-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
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"?


You mean, like calling someone a member of "the axis of evil?"

It's schoolyard name-calling, from either side, and transparent pandering to the lizard brain of mindless supporters.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Perhaps you missed the point - I was attempting to demonstrate that there is more to what makes someone an extremist than what the media tells us.

I've stated my position on what an extremist is, maybe reading the whole thread instead of cherrypicking may prove more usefull with regards to actually discussing the subject.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
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.



Murder by definition is a premeditated and unlawful killing of another. The US never intentionally targets civilians to be killed, therefore your accusation of murder doesn't meet the standard of that definition. I have never once said that premeditated killing of innocents was okay. I do understand that in combat, some innocents will be killed inadvertantly. This is not murder. A war's popularity has nothing to do with how one defines a killing(i.e. killing in a popular war is justified, but killing in an unpopular war is murder). I understand your point of view, which is a pacifist view(all killing is wrong and murder). That's not what the legal standard set by Treaties and the Law of Land Warfare has to say about it though. The only time where an action would be called into question is if a disproportionate amount of force was used to subdue the enemy, resulting in needless suffering by civilians. Military necessity is considered defensible so long as proportionality is used.

Now getting to the figures of Iraqis killed. I simply don't believe the 600,000-1 million plus figures. They weren't based upon hard evidence, or scientifically arrived at. About 1000-1500 Iraqis were polled as to their opinions on how many people they thought had been killed, and then the figure was multiplied by the sample size. This is completely anecdotal, and not based upon numbers of bodies in the streets, hospitals, etc.. or health official claims. There was no measure to make sure that folks polled weren't including deaths that another of those polled was also including. Additionally, since the US pays monetary reparations for civilian deaths, you have quite a bit of fraud going on, where Iraqis will claim a relative was killed, to make some money(or they'll try to get paid mulitple times for the same death, throwing off the stats for totals).
The higher figures would require that 300,000 Iraqis per year were being killed/25,000 per month/800 per day. That level of violence just has not been seen. There's no way that level of violence could've been hidden, because it would have to occur in areas of high population densities. This means there'd be a lot of witnesses, and high likelihood of media on the scene to report. You'd also overload every hospital, in just a few days, which would be impossible to miss.

Using your logic, I can see how you blame Bush/Blair. Nobody would've died if we weren't there, right? Well, it would've just been Saddam killing them rather than us, so that's much better. The fact of the matter is that well over 95% of the civilian casualties are due to insurgent/terror attacks, and they are solely to blame for that violence. The US takes great precaution(to include risk of friendly casualties) to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties. The civilian populace has grown tired of that, and that's why you see them helping us against the insurgents now, as they know who their real enemy is. The insurgents and terrorists are not freedom fighters for a noble cause. They are predatory criminal thugs seeking to hold onto power and relevance.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


What one is saying when they say the US has killed 1.2 million Iraqis, is a lot different than when one says that 80,000-100,000 Iraqis have been killed, mainly by insurgent/terror attacks. It's not even an apples to apples comparison. One assertion is that US forces are just going around indescrimately killing vast numbers of innocents, and that's BS. The other is that insurgents/terrorists have caused most of the death, and the US has caused some, in its fight against the insurgents. These are entirely different accusations.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I'm not an apologist. I'm a realist. I understand that war is horrible, and that suffering occurs. I also believe war is necessary in certain situations.
I believe that if war happens, the best scenario is to fight to win, and make it last for as short a duration as possible. This is how you minimize suffering. Arguing and debating during a war is not how you win a war. Solidarity is how you win, not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's one thing to debate strategy and tactics, but once the war starts, the camel's nose is in the tent so to speak. That's something the anti war crowd never grasps. They want to blame their side, and defeat is acceptable to them. From my perspective, there is no nobility in defeat. Not when many good men have paid the ultimate sacrifice.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 


So you're saying that Muslims have never tried extending their lands? You might want to read a bit more about Islamic history, the Crusades, etc.. before asserting such things about Israel.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
yahn goodey,
erm
they pray to the same god we do, said god being one of vengeance and violence



you are wrong---the extremist muslims do not pray to the same G-D.they themselves name their god allah.moses asked the G-D of the israelites what His name is (exodus 3:13).the answer he received was I AM=HAYAH=Yahvah in hebrew which is the name the sopherim hid from common knowledge by using the lable Lord instead.

the G-D of the israelites is the same person that manifested Himself as the Messiah of the new testament john 1:1-10.

G-D would have fought all the battles of the israelites for them if they would have totally had the faith and trust to rely on Messiah---since they chose to do it their way G-D did give them rules of engagement for dealing with enemies.


when Messiah returns He will kill our enemies for us-----zechariah 12:9/14:12-13 revelation 14:20.G-D hasn't changed--same rules still apply----these unrepentent murderers are worthy of death and will be executed.makes no sense to me why some people insist on fighting Yahvah but they are going to find out that it is a big mistake.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


And yet the koran states repeatedly that jews, muslims and christians all pray to the same god.

It would be one thing if all sects/religions were saying different things, but they ALL pray to the same god.

FYI the koran is well known for saying that god has many names.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join