Turn on thread page Beta

Is Nasrallah a terrorist? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is Sheikh Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, a terrorist?
    Yes, and I'm Christian, and center-left to left politically.
    4.55%
    Yes, and I'm Christian, and center-right to right politically.
    8.33%
    Yes, and I'm Muslim, and center-left to left politically.
    0
    0%
    Yes, and I'm Muslim, and center-right to right politically.
    3.79%
    Yes, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-left to left politically.
    15.15%
    Yes, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-right to right politically.
    17.42%
    Yes, and I'm Jewish, and center-left to left politically.
    3.79%
    Yes, and I'm Jewish, and center-right to right politically.
    5.30%
    No, and I'm Christian, and center-left to left politically.
    3.03%
    No, and I'm Christian, and center-right to right politically.
    2.27%
    No, and I'm Muslim, and center-left to left politically.
    8.33%
    No, and I'm Muslim, and center-right to right politically.
    12.12%
    No, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-left to left politically.
    9.09%
    No, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-right to right politically.
    3.03%
    No, and I'm Jewish, and center-left to left politically.
    0.76%
    No, and I'm Jewish, and center-right to right politically.
    3.03%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think you need to read a newspaper Jonathan.
    I do, and not all of them propagate the doom and gloom idea.

    (Original post by Howard)
    Afghanistan is a complete balls up.
    I simply disagree. Certainly there has been a recent spike in trouble, but that cannot remove the achievments. The Taliban were removed from power, the terrorist networks were mostly dismantled, Afghanistanis have more rights than ever, democratic elections produced a government. All these successes have not been undone and certainly do not point to a "balls up" - they point to an operation that went quite well. Oh, and the British losses have been very small.

    (Original post by Howard)
    told the Guardian last weeks that his troops could only just cope with the demands placed on them
    British troops are not the only ones in Afghanistan - the status of British troops is not the be-all and end-all of Afghanistan's success. NATO and US troops are there in the tens of thousands, as well as the constant process of training Afghan troops. Britain's soldiers may be a tad stretched (but still coping), but that hardly means Afganistan is a 'balls up'.

    (Original post by Howard)
    and Defence officials have admitted that the situation in Afghanistan was far worse than military commanders had anticipated.
    5 years on from the initial invasion, it was probably unexpected that there would be sudden emerging problems, but the situation being "worse than anticipated" does not either undo all that has already be achieved or mean that Afghanistan has turned in to an irretrievable mess.

    (Original post by Howard)
    Rebuilding programs in Helmand have been shut down because of a wave of uncontrollable violence
    It'll pass. Additional troops are being sent and NATO operations continue. Such troubles are inevitable, but hardly overwhelming.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I do, and not all of them propagate the doom and gloom idea.


    I simply disagree. Certainly there has been a recent spike in trouble, but that cannot remove the achievments. The Taliban were removed from power, the terrorist networks were mostly dismantled, Afghanistanis have more rights than ever, democratic elections produced a government. All these successes have not been undone and certainly do not point to a "balls up" - they point to an operation that went quite well. Oh, and the British losses have been very small.


    British troops are not the only ones in Afghanistan - the status of British troops is not the be-all and end-all of Afghanistan's success. NATO and US troops are there in the tens of thousands, as well as the constant process of training Afghan troops. Britain's soldiers may be a tad stretched (but still coping), but that hardly means Afganistan is a 'balls up'.


    5 years on from the initial invasion, it was probably unexpected that there would be sudden emerging problems, but the situation being "worse than anticipated" does not either undo all that has already be achieved or mean that Afghanistan has turned in to an irretrievable mess.


    It'll pass. Additional troops are being sent and NATO operations continue. Such troubles are inevitable, but hardly overwhelming.
    Your cup overfloweth with optimism. Here is a symbol of what we've achieved........


    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/wo...20&oref=slogin
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, I see the NYT has taken a break from plastering National Security secrets across the front pages. Still, I hardly think that's a symbol of what's been achieved, it's more a look at problems, which happily ignores everything that has been achieved. Still, it does pick up on some pretty good achievements:
    "Despite an active insurgency, he said, 1.6 million Afghan girls are attending school, 730 miles of roads and 1,000 schools, clinics and government buildings have been reconstructed, and the country has its first democratically elected president and Parliament."
    And that doesn't even touch on the ousting of the Taliban from power, the dismantling of terrorist camps, increased rights for all etc.

    Basically, I'm not prepared to declare everything a total failure because the road has become bumpier again. And I'm also not prepared to declare that the large achievements that have been made in the last 5 years are invalidated by present troubles. I'm not an optimist, but neither am I the pessimist you appear to be, who is so keen on failure he seems on the point of willing it on.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    Your cup overfloweth with optimism. Here is a symbol of what we've achieved........


    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/wo...20&oref=slogin
    Very informative website - thanks, Howie.

    I've registered for membership and will look forward to news alerts etc. with antici.........pation!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Ah, I see the NYT has taken a break from plastering National Security secrets across the front pages.
    Which were? They can't have been very big secrets if they are made known to the journalists at the NYT who then publish them without being prosecuted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    First there was the NSA wire-tapping revelations, and more recently the exposure of the Treasury's monitoring of terrorist funds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    First there was the NSA wire-tapping revelations, and more recently the exposure of the Treasury's monitoring of terrorist funds.
    Which (in the case of wire tapping the country's civilians) were probably illegal anyway. Are you suggesting that the press should be curtailed from reporting this sort of thing? I thought it was called "good journalism" Is there no price you are unwilling to pay for the illusion of security?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Which (in the case of wire tapping the country's civilians) were probably illegal anyway.
    Possibly technically "illegal", though it's not entirely clear. However, it was undoubtedly a major national security issue.

    (Original post by Howard)
    Are you suggesting that the press should be curtailed from reporting this sort of thing?
    Damn right. Could you imagine if press had published sensitive national security secrets at other crucial points in history? The date, time and place of the D-Day landings for example? Would you have been fine with that? I'm not saying this is entirely equivalent, but I am demonstrating a point - the fact is, there are some things that NEED to be kept a secret for security purposes and you are essentially advocating that this not be the case. Can you not see the damage such an attitude would do to national security - if everything done was splashed across newspapers?

    (Original post by Howard)
    I thought it was called "good journalism"
    Some call it that. Some call it treason to reveal national security secrets in a time of war. See above - is there nothing you wouldn't condone the publishing of? Counter-terrorism operations? Identities of spies? Military secrets?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    No-one is buying this rubbish.
    They fired 3,700+ rockets at Israel the vast majority at Haifa, Kiryat Shemona and other civilian areas with no military or strategic value whatsoever. Would you like to explain how firing hundreds of unguided rockets at no specific target except "the middle of Haifa" is not trying to kill civilians? If I launched a thousand rockets at no-more-precise a target than "the middle of London", could that be called anything other than deliberately targetting civilians?
    They do not have the technology to target military bases. Hezbullah is a group with it's very limited capabilities... however they make their best out of them. They cannot know if their rockets will hit civilians/military or not... but they attack geographically as a response to every attack by Israel. What else are they capable of doing? They have tried the exchange of prisoners solution (wich was their main plan) before but it became an excuse of war by Israel. So you want them to just surrender to Israel's attacks?

    Again you always ignore the fact that Israel refused to exchange prisoners and chose blood and war instead. So Hezbullah respond. They cannot surrender to Israel's attacks. Israel and the U.S. saying that Hezbullah is a terrorist organisation does not make it a fact. They are a resistance group against Israel, that's what Israel doesn't want. I really don't know why Israel refuses to set the thousands of prisoners free.

    Israel wants to carry out Zionist plans without obstacles, and Hezbullah is a major obstacle for them. Their previous illegal invasion of south lebanon and their current illegal occupation of jerusalem, not Zionist plans? You can give me a giggle by telling me Jerusalem was sold to Jews. :rolleyes:

    Besides, according to your arguments... Israel's attacks are extreme terrorism. The same applies to Israel... what else have they attacked but civilian populaces?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You are such an ignorant moron it beggars belief. In fact, I've wasted enough time dealing with your cretinous posts, brazen lying, denial of fact and other crap, I'm putting you on ignore - you contribute less than zero to this board except confirming for us all to see what deluded, ignorant fools you and those like you are.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    They do not have the technology to target military bases. Hezbullah is a group with it's very limited capabilities...
    Right. I'm taking that as an admission that you cannot support your patently bizarre statement that Hezbollah doesn't target civilians and so are attempting to obfuscate the issue.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    They cannot know if their rockets will hit civilians/military or not...
    They can know whether they'll hit Haifa or not. Katyushas may not be guided, but they still go where you point them, and a city the size of Haifa is a big target.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    So you want them to just surrender to Israel's attacks?
    Considering they STARTED the conflict, there wouldn't have been any Israeli attacks were it not for theirs. So that makes no sense. That's like saying about German bombing of Britain - "so you want them to just surrender to Britain's attacks?"

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Again you always ignore the fact that Israel refused to exchange prisoners and chose blood and war instead.
    Hezbollah committed a blatant act of war. They do not get to choose the response - Israel was free to respond how it liked. This is a simple point that you idiots cannot seem to understand - saying "Hezbollah only wanted a prisoner swap" does not somehow make Israel the one who started the war. Hezbollah's cross-border killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers - whatever the motivation - was an act of war. Israel was started on, they were thus free to respond with war.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    They cannot surrender to Israel's attacks.
    They brought Israel's attacks on themselves.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    I really don't know why Israel refuses to set the thousands of prisoners free?
    Which prisoners would those be? The thousands of Lebanese prisoners that don't actually exist except in the minds of lying terrorist-lovers like you? The ones who you can actually produce no evidence exist?

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Israel wants to carry out Zionist plans without obstacles, and Hezbullah is a major obstacle for them.
    Israel wants to live in peace within secure borders. Hezbollah is a major obstacle to that. Quite amusing that you have to resort to such meaningless and empty rhetorical phrases as "Zionist plans" (OMG EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY RUN etc.) to cover up the fact that Israel, 6 years after withdrawing from Lebanon, was started on by Hezbollah.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Their previous illegal invasion of south lebanon
    The one that they ended in 2000? Sorry, what exactly are you saying? That Israel PULLING OUT of Lebanon was a "Zionist plan"? You're making no sense, you ignorant, irrational fool.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    and their current illegal occupation of jerusalem
    You consider Jerusalem illegally occupied by Israel?

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Besides, according to your arguments... Israel's attacks are extreme terrorism. The same applies to Israel... what else have they attacked but civilian populaces?
    They targeted Hezbollah. Once again, deliberate blindness and idiocy from a cretinous Muslim who REFUSES to distinguish between intention and results because they know that that would destroy their position.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    You keep going on about how Hezbullah recieves aid from Iran and Syria... First let the U.S. stop aiding Israel with even hundreds of NUCLEAR weapons, then object.

    Again, Israel and the U.S. thinking that Hezbullah is a terrorist organisation does not make it a fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    You keep going on about how Hezbullah recieves aid from Iran and Syria... First let the U.S. stop aiding Israel with even hundreds of NUCLEAR weapons, then object.

    Again, Israel and the U.S. thinking that Hezbullah is a terrorist organisation does not make it a fact.
    I wasn't aware that Israel was particularly analogous to Iran. What makes you think that it is?

    You're quite right that Israel and the US thinking the Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation does not make it a fact. What makes it a fact is that they, in reality, actually are a terrorist organisation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    You keep going on about how Hezbullah recieves aid from Iran and Syria... First let the U.S. stop aiding Israel with even hundreds of NUCLEAR weapons, then object.
    France actually, and even then it was just the reactors - not the weapons themselves. As for these 'hundreds' of nuclear weapons, the current estimate is that Israel holds between 100 and 200 warheads constructed using uranium from the plant at Dimona.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...-stockpile.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    What makes it a fact is that they, in reality, actually are a terrorist organisation.
    Took the words right out of my mouth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    You keep going on about how Hezbullah recieves aid from Iran and Syria... First let the U.S. stop aiding Israel with even hundreds of NUCLEAR weapons, then object.
    Well, there's a BIT of a difference. Israel is a democratic sovereign state, with many citizens - who need protecting. Hizbollah is not a state and has no citizens that needs protecting! at BEST it is a 'resistance' militia with ABSOLUTELY no purpose since 2000 when israel unilaterally withdrew from lebanon! If iran/syria were giving lebanon weapons, then there wouldn't be a problem.

    Again, Israel and the U.S. thinking that Hezbullah is a terrorist organisation does not make it a fact.
    Of course it doesn't. But just because israel and america think this, doesn't mean it's NOT a fact!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Possibly technically "illegal", though it's not entirely clear. However, it was undoubtedly a major national security issue.
    Haha! "Technically illegal" What's that supposed to mean? It's either illegal or it isn't and if it is it shouldn't be used by government (who are after all the people that make law, administer it, and preside over cases of infringement of it) should it?

    Major national security issue indeed. Major personal liberty issue to my mind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Damn right.
    So the press should be curtailed from informing the public of the illegal activities of their government. Are you serious?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Some call it that. Some call it treason to reveal national security secrets in a time of war. See above - is there nothing you wouldn't condone the publishing of? Counter-terrorism operations? Identities of spies? Military secrets?
    "Time of war" my smelly bottom Jonathan. This sounds like a plot from 1984 - any clown government can redefine "war" as to encompass just about anything to justify their liberty-curtailing schemes. Who are we fighting this week, Oceania or Eastasia?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Hey JonathanH, about the lebanese prisoners in Israel:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanes...ners_in_Israel

    I admit, "thousands" was not correct, according to this source. But certainly much more than two are captured in Israeli prisons. Then add to them the Palestenian prisoners too.

    Let me tell you something jonny, before you accuse people of lying clear up your ignorance first.

    According to George Galloway was that thousands were captured. Anyway see this too:
    An incomplete list obtained by Ha'aretz from the Israeli Prison Service in March 1997 suggested that Israel held 52 Lebanese, mostly captured in Lebanese territory by the Israeli Defence Force or its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (disbanded since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000). Particular concern was held for 21 Lebanese detainees, who broadly fitted two categories:

    - 11 men were tried for offences committed in 1986/87 such as military training, attacks on Israel, weapons possession and membership of banned organisations (eg Hezbollah). They were convicted by a military court and served their terms, yet were still held long after the fact under administrative detention in a Ramaleh prison. The reason for this has never been made public.

    - 10 others were captured around the same time, and held in administrative detention without charge or trial. They were forcibly taken to Israel, where they were held in a Ramaleh prison. Their presence there, initially denied, was eventually admitted. No public hearing ever took place, though this is understood to be the norm.
    Source

    Oh yeah I forget, the source is Arab Media Watch. Typically you will accuse it of being biased or some other non-sense :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Typically you will accuse it of being biased or some other non-sense :rolleyes:
    Is that supposed to cancel out any accusations of bias? Because the site clearly is.

    Not to mention Galloway, the man widely regarded as an impartial observer and moderate commentator... :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.