It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by budski

You keep saying that cluster munition are routinely used in civilian areas-

please give citations for the number, locations, dates.

Additionally, you keep saying the war is illegal. Who is the authority that gets to make that call? Whose permission do we have to get in otherwords? Russia, China, Kofi Annan, What authority is higher than that of a sovereign nation's government, with regards to these sorts of questions?

You keep on with this "warmonger" rhetoric too. Does this mean that if one supports any war they're a warmonger, or is there some threshold where one can support military action before falling into that category.
I reject the notion that if one isn't a pacifist, then they're a warmonger, just like you reject everything I have to say. You claim that I and those of similar views are toadies/tools for the government, but you and those of similar views just parrot Al Qaeda/Anti West propaganda.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

I have provided enough evidence regarding the use of cluster weapons - if you don't like them, that's your problem - their use has been proved to my, and other right thinking peoples satisfaction.
Can you prove that they haven't been used in civilian area's, citing credible sources?
Can you prove anything you have stated?

The UN is the arbiter of justice on an international scale, according to the US, when they get what they want.
When they don't get what they want, the UN somehow becomes un-important.
Your point is moot - the war is illegal according to international law.

This really made me laugh:

What authority is higher than that of a sovereign nation's government, with regards to these sorts of questions?

Is your countries sovereignty the only one that matters to you?
It has been shown time and again during this thread that bush and the israeli leaders have only contempt for the sovereignty of other nations.
The mere attempt to make this point stinks of hypocrisy.

The use of the word warmonger does not amount to rhetoric - if you support an illegal war, where civilian area's are routinely targetted you are a warmongerer - simple really.

Military action is acceptable only when completely justified - at no point has the justification for this war been met or shown to be true.
That's why it's illegal

I am not against the judicious use of military action in exceptional circumstances - can you give any examples of any type of exceptional circumstances that can be used to justify this war, bearing in mind the lack of wmd's and any credible links to al'qaeda?

I would consider the Falklands conflict as justifiable use of military force - the invasion of a sovereign country whose population had expressed their desire to remain part of the UK was an open act of aggression for political gain.

I don't and have never used al'qaeda or anti-western propaganda - unlike yourself. You have and continue to use spurious bush propaganda.
More than once you have tried to turn my arguments into some kind of anti-american rant, and as I have previously stated, this is not the case.

If the best you can do is your previous post, then you have made my point for me.

Sovereign nations have the right to conduct their internal affairs as they see fit - it applies to the US and UK, why should it not apply to those that bush see's as standing in his way.

Saudi has more connections to al'qaeda than iraq or hezbollah ever have, yet because they are friends of bush and he stands to make money from them , saudi are allowed a nuclear power programme and yet they cut heads and hands off criminals, they stone people to death, they have a poor record on human rights and womens rights, not to mention that they are extremely intolerant regarding sexuality that they deem "evil", they condone torture and have little or no regard for due process.
This is bush hypocrisy of the highest order.

Having failed miserably to make any coherent points you again resort to personal attacks with no foundation or basis in truth.

This is not only the hallmark of the warmongerer, but also of the bigot.

[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:59 PM
Hesbolla just attacked the American embassy in Lebanon today them dirt bags. Get them G.W. Time for regime change in Lebanon

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Hezbollah did it?
Not what I've read, but it might not be up to date

The U.S. State Department says a bomb blast that struck a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Lebanon's capital, Beirut, has killed four people.

Lebanese security officials put the death toll lower, at three.
There has been no claim of responsibility.

Television footage showed damaged cars on streets in a mainly Christian suburb of north Beirut (Qarantina), and smoke rising over the city.

A series of bombings in Lebanon in recent years mainly has targeted prominent anti-Syrian politicians. Syria has denied involvement in any of the attacks.

Last month, a car bombing killed Lebanese Brigadier General Francois al-Hajj on the outskirts of Beirut. He played a a key role in the army offensive against al-Qaida-inspired militants at a Palestinian refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared, last year.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.



[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by budski

I know some nice Lebanese people here and they say that Hesbolla controls everything over there. Hesbolla would not let someone step on its toes and risk what they have invested.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:39 PM
This whole issue is easily solved if those siding with the "America Haters", "Bush Haters" and all things "Western are Satan" just left their imprisoned western countries and moved to Pakistan, Iran, Syria and a host of other non-democratic "West is Evil" countries. I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.

That would be too simple though, eh? Not only that but those seeking to cry "foul" at their countries "war crimes" would be the first ones to cry "foul" if and when those rights to free speech are removed by Islamic "freedom fighters". Oh,, they would just be killed because they don't agree with their new and improved Islamic leaders.

It's great to live in a society where one can openly criticize their own leaders and not worry about being dragged off into the night and never heard from again but many of those same people also forget that that freedom comes at a high cost.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Funny, his statistics were surprisingly close to what was rated the most accurate figure (by the NY Times). NY Times article (Again since you missed it)

The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.

So 151,000. That was a conservative number. Could be more, could be less.

Of course if you take a mean of that and the 600,000 by Johns Hopkins 375500.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by SilverSmith

The difference is we live in supposed democratic countries where elected officials are supposed to listen to the wishes of the people.
There was no mandate for war.
There was no reason for war - the reasons given by bush/blair have been shown to be outright lies.
This war has nothing to do with the war on terror and everything to do with ambition and money.

The world is no longer groups of separate countries but is a global community - certain leaders need to learn that they can no longer impose their will on other sovereign nations for their own purposes.

Even 10 years ago, they would have got away with this, but thanks to the net and other open media sources they no longer can, and I applaud this.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by budski

You clearly stated that civilian targets are routinely attacked with cluster munitions, and have yet to provide any evidence of this. You haven't even provided evidence that civilians are regularly(or ever targeted) by any weapon system. You have claimed high casualty figures in an effort to paint a distorted picture, but these figures are based on speculation. The actual figures may be higher than what says, but at least they can back up their numbers with actual reported accounts. The other figures cannot be verified with hard evidence. As I have said before, and this comes from personal experience downrange, casualty figures get inflated regularly, in attempts to get monetary reparations from the military. I've seen this, and know that is an absolute fact. I have yet to see anyone explain where the bodies are in the high casualty account stats. That has to be taken into account when speculating too. Were they all vaporized? I have never said that civilian casualties aren't tragic. Any caring person would be concerned about this, and that's why we in the military take great precautions to try to prevent civilian casualties. I know we disagree on the legality of this conflict, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
When I say anti America/anti West, what I'm referring to is that the assertions you(and others are making), are the same talking points that those who ARE anti America/anti West are using. Your personal view may not be anti American, as you have said, but when you make the same assertions, it's difficult from my perspective to see those fine distinctions.
You say that all I do is repeat what Bush/the MSM says, yet when you merely repeat what other media sources say, all that is happening is each of us is putting forth the "propaganda" that we most closely agree with.
My experience down range was that the MSM was more negative than what was actually reflected by reality. Your opinion is that the situation is more negative than what the MSM states. This is why I take much acceptions to your claims. It was never my experience that the MSM was sugar coating the news, rather than trying to be sensational(and embarass Bush when possible).


[edit on 16-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

Those numbers are still nothing more than statistical manipulations, and not based on hard evidence. Where does one stop when making their guestimations? It's far too subjective for anyone to say-"this is how many casualties that there have been." It's even more subjective to say "the US has killed X number of Iraqis," and trying to make it appear that the military as a matter of practice, engages in wanton killing. There have been specific incidents of wrong doing, but these are certainly not what happens routinely. I do condemn when an injustice has occurred, as it gives the rest of the military a black eye. I will argue whenever I see inaccurate portrayals being made though.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by budski

Did they themselves lie or could it be that the intelligence they received was incorrect?

If they did lie what then should we do now? Just get out and let Iraq become a vacuum?

Also, do you acknowledge that the freedom you have to express your thoughts comes at a price. Freedom is not free, would you agree?

In all differences common ground must be first found for if not there can be no movement forward.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by BlueRaja

You're actually getting really boring now.

What have you provided to support your view?
Personal opinion and nothing more.

I've provided links, stats, news reports and othe information pertaining to what I say.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.

And now, in an attempt to have the last word you produce more opinion.
This still does not make you right.

Opinion is not fact, despite what you may think.

Contrary to what some people may think, shouting loudest does not make you right.

You have contributed nothing to the thread except contrary opinion. And repeated assertions that have no evidence to back them up are known as trolling, I ask you to stop.

If you have no evidence, it's pointless posting.

I stick by what I have posted, and await evidence rather than what you "think"

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by SilverSmith

The intel was provided that stated iraq had no wmd's, but because blair didn't want to believe it, an innocent man was discredited and hounded to his death.

Google Dr David Kelly

Everything has a price, but this war is based on lies and only lies.

I will not back down from my position that everything I have posted is true.
The only dispute in my mind is the actual numbers of civilian dead and this is much higher than bush would have us believe.

I am firm in my assertion that this war is illegal and the civilian deaths amount to murder because of this.

I googled the following words - civilian deaths iraq cluster bombs - try it and read the articles - you may be surprised and horrified by articles such as this from this week,

Relief workers say the problem is far worse in Iraq than it was in Afghanistan because the Iraqis sited military installations—primary targets for U.S. bombs—near civilian centers. Karbala is typical. At al-Hussein hospital, 35 bodies have been brought in since the city fell April 6, many dismembered by a cluster-bomblet blast, according to chief surgeon Ali Iziz Ali. An additional 50 have been treated for fractures and deep, narrow puncture wounds, typical of the weapons. Karbala civil-defense chief Abdul Kareem Mussan says his men are harvesting about 1,000 cluster bombs a day in places Myers said were not targets.

Human rights activists say that until the military clears the air about the full extent of the bombs' use, it will be that much harder to round them up and stop the damage.

Time Magazine

Other posters have provided no evidence and refuse to read or believe the evidence I and others have cited despite the fact it comes from very reputable sources such as john hopkins hospital and the bbc.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:04 PM
Insane people make insane comments that cause insane reactions...

When they do dumb things like chase our ships and then communicate they are gonna blow us up and go "boom"- then they wonder why we bomb the hell out of their country.

They instigate and we react to threats accordingly. I hate bush but I'd rather be on his side than some crazy extremist who wants to kill himself and everyone else around him for a ludicrous belief that they are all ready to die for. You can't reason with stupid. Lets just bring our troops home so they can continue blowing themselves up for a stupid unrealistic god.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by dj05544

Sorry, I may be missing something here, when did hezbollah buzz US navy ships?
That's a bit of a non starter really.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by dj05544
When they do dumb things like chase our ships and then communicate they are gonna blow us up and go "boom"- then they wonder why we bomb the hell out of their country.

#1: That was Iran, not Hezbollah. There's more than one "them" in the area.
#2: The Navy is now saying that the "you will explode" was probably not the Iranians, but a well-known local radio prankster.
#3: Other than the radio conversation, the encounter in question was a pretty routine high-seas encounter - our patrol encountered theirs, each side documented the vessels encountered, their course and speed, and went on their own way.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja

I've provided links, stats, news reports and othe information pertaining to what I say.

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.

You have contributed nothing to the thread except contrary opinion. And repeated assertions that have no evidence to back them up are known as trolling, I ask you to stop.

If you have no evidence, it's pointless posting.

I stick by what I have posted, and await evidence rather than what you "think"

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

You absolutely have not provided links showing that civilians are regularly targeted, or that cluster bombs are routinely used in civilian areas. So am I to understand that opinions contrary to yours are trolling. That's a nice way to control debate.

My anecdotes are first hand experience, not hearsay. Your anecdotes are from what you've read. The fact is that you can't show evidence to support your claims because it doens't exist, and you now ask me to show evidence of something not happening. You want me to disprove a negative, rather than back up what you say with facts. I've answered your posts and links, and shown the figures within your links to be nowhere near the numbers you're trying to portray them to be. I'm sorry if the truth bores you. You can believe whatever you want, as that's your right. I know what I've seen, and no propaganda is gonna change my reality.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Have you looked at ANY of the links provided by myself and others?

Obviously not, because all the evidence is in there.

Anecdotes are NOT evidence, they are hearsay - in other words they could be complete fabrications - just because YOU say so, doesn't make it true or believeable. I can just as easily say I was in iraq last week and saw bush having sex with a goatherder.

Here's some info:
The tooth fairy does not exist
Santa isn't real
The easter bunny is a fake
politicians lie
cluster bombs are used against civilian area's
the war is illegal

The trouble is, you want to believe all the fairy stories bush trots out.

Well guess what, this is the real world - the one where politicians lie and cover up things they don't like with the co-operation of the mainstream media - things that may stop then getting re-elected and making money.

If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, santa and the easter bunny, go right ahead - but don't tell me I'm wrong for not believing when I've provided evidence to prove my case, and plenty of it.

I'll continue this run around as long as you want, and I will not back down and will continue to support the evidence I have cited time and again along with other posters evidence.

Do you get the idea yet?

Deny ignorance?
It seems that some people embrace it.

trolling - some definitions

Troll- a troll is a person who posts for the purpose of disruption sometimes in order to take away from the point of a thread or to derail it by repeating everything and contributing nothing. Trolls feed on other peoples frustrations.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by budski

I looked at the links you(and sublime) provided, and that's why I said what I did. According to the stats about cluster bombs in the article quoted, there were approximately 2,000 Iraqis killed or wounded by cluster bomb submunitions between 1991 and November of 2006. Are you suggesting that since then there have been hundreds of thousands killed by cluster bombs?

As for anecdotes vs. hearsay- An anecdote is recalling a story based upon an personal experience. Hearsay would be if you were to repeat what I have told you, as you weren't a first hand witness.
You can choose to whether to believe whether I've been downrange or not, or whether I saw what I saw. Of course that just reinforces my opinion on your willingness to believe what you want, so long as it doesn't contradict your foregone conclusions. What you're saying to me is that A- you question whether I was downrange. B- whether I saw what I saw.
C- my beliefs based upon A&B are fairy tales, whereas what you've read online, or heard on the news is fact(so long as it's contrary to what the US military says).

If your true desire is to deny ignorance, you may wish to consult with people who have actually been downrange, rather than rely on second and third hand knowledge. It would appear no amount of evidence will sway your opinion, because you're unwilling to accept as evidence, any contrary information.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

I have repeatedly said that civilian area's have been targetted and that cluster munitions have been used - I've posted reports from reliable sources stating this.

There have been many more than 2000 deaths by the indiscriminate use of indiscriminate weapons.

The mainstream media ought to be ashamed for not reporting on it more - but that doesn't sell papers or get ratings - and nor would the owners want to upset their political masters.

As for your anecdotes - I would only believe it if I knew you and your character. Anecdotes are NOT proof.
Show me evidence and I just might believe it. As things stand I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

I actually know people who HAVE served in iraq, and their version of events is a hell of a lot different from yours - I live in the southwest of england where there are many military personnel, both serving and non serving, from all three branches.

Your blinkered view that the US military is whiter than white is unrealistic - no armed forces can make that claim.

Your claims - with no factual evidence to back them up, are blinkered.

I've got nothing against patriotism - only blind patriotism.

It's just plain silly to think that this is not happening when all the evidence shows that it is and does - regularly.

Do you consider John Hopkins to be an unreliable source?
Is the WHO an unreliable source?

This will not end with the war either - thousands of unexploded cluster munitions are lying around in civilian area's and could go off at any time.

It's not just the US, the UK have been guilty of it as well

U.S. President George W. Bush called the war in Iraq “one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.”1 Yet thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed or injured during the three weeks of fighting from the first air strikes on March 20 to April 9, 2003, when Baghdad fell to U.S.-led Coalition forces.

Human Rights Watch conducted a mission to Iraq between late April and early June 2003 with two objectives: (1) to identify and investigate potential violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) by the parties to the conflict, and (2) to identify patterns of combat by those parties which may have caused civilian casualties and suffering that could have been avoided if additional precautions had been taken.

The widespread use of cluster munitions, especially by U.S. and U.K. ground forces, caused at least hundreds of civilian casualties. Cluster munitions, which are large weapons containing dozens or hundreds of submunitions, endanger civilians because of their broad dispersal, or “footprint,” and the high number of submunitions that do not explode on impact. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it used 10,782 cluster munitions,2 which could contain at least 1.8 million submunitions. The British used an additional seventy air-launched and 2,100 ground-launched cluster munitions, containing 113,190 submunitions. Although cluster munition strikes are particularly dangerous in populated areas, U.S. and U.K. ground forces repeatedly used these weapons in attacks on Iraqi positions in residential neighborhoods.

Most of the civilian casualties attributable to Coalition conduct in the ground war appear to have been the result of ground-launched cluster munitions. In some instances of direct combat, especially in Baghdad and al-Nasiriyya, problems with training on as well as dissemination and clarity of the rules of engagement (ROE) for U.S. ground forces may have contributed to loss of civilian life.

Written dec 2003

In over 4 years since this report the use of cluster munitions has increased exponentially

Did the U.S. military use cluster bombs in Iraq in 2006 and then lie about it? Does the U.S. military keep the numbers of rockets and cannon rounds fired from its planes and helicopters secret because more Iraqi civilians have died due to their use than any other type of weaponry?

These are just two of the many unanswered questions related to the largely uncovered air war the U.S. military has been waging in Iraq.

What we do know is this: Since the major combat phase of the war ended in April 2003, the U.S. military has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of air-delivered cluster bombs in Iraq -- the very type of weapon that Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW) calls, "the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use." We also know that, according to expert opinion, rockets and cannon fire from U.S. aircraft may account for most U.S. and coalition-attributed Iraqi civilian deaths and that the Pentagon has restocked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of these weapons in recent years.

Unfortunately, thanks to an utter lack of coverage by the mainstream media, what we don't know about the air war in Iraq so far outweighs what we do know that anything but the most minimal picture of the nature of destruction from the air in that country simply can't be painted. Instead, think of the story of U.S. air power in Iraq as a series of tiny splashes of lurid color on a largely blank canvas.


Even among the least covered aspects of the air war in Iraq, the question of cluster-bomb (CBU) use remains especially shadowy. This is hardly surprising. After all, at a time when many nations are moving toward banning the use of cluster munitions -- at a February 2007 conference in Oslo, Norway, 46 of 48 governments represented supported a declaration for a new international treaty and ban on the weapons by 2008 -- the U.S. stands with China, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia in opposing new limits of any kind.

Little wonder. The U.S. military has a staggering arsenal of these weapons. According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, the Army holds 88% of the Pentagon's CBU inventory -- at least 638.3 million of the cluster bomblets that are stored inside each cluster munition; the Air Force and Navy, according to Department of Defense figures, have 22.2 million and 14.7 million of the bomblets, respectively. And even these numbers are considered undercounts by experts.


Also see this thread

Will you now deny these sources because you don't like what they say?

You have been consistently proved wrong on every aspect of your "argument"
Face facts - it has happened, and it continues to happen.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in