Is Nasrallah a terrorist? Watch

Poll: Is Sheikh Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, a terrorist?
Yes, and I'm Christian, and center-left to left politically. (6)
4.55%
Yes, and I'm Christian, and center-right to right politically. (11)
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. (5)
3.79%
Yes, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-left to left politically. (20)
15.15%
Yes, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-right to right politically. (23)
17.42%
Yes, and I'm Jewish, and center-left to left politically. (5)
3.79%
Yes, and I'm Jewish, and center-right to right politically. (7)
5.3%
No, and I'm Christian, and center-left to left politically. (4)
3.03%
No, and I'm Christian, and center-right to right politically. (3)
2.27%
No, and I'm Muslim, and center-left to left politically. (11)
8.33%
No, and I'm Muslim, and center-right to right politically. (16)
12.12%
No, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-left to left politically. (12)
9.09%
No, and I'm agnostic/atheist, and center-right to right politically. (4)
3.03%
No, and I'm Jewish, and center-left to left politically. (1)
0.76%
No, and I'm Jewish, and center-right to right politically. (4)
3.03%
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#461
Report 12 years ago
#461
(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
And what about the rest of prisoners in the wiki source?... surely having a dispute about their accuracy does not mean they don't exist
Besides the 3/4 at the top of the page? Beyond that, the accuracy of the actual article is disputed - so they may very well not exist or at least not exist as detainees but may have ahd another fate. In fact, there appears to be very little evidence beyond accusations made by a clearly one-sided source - which is the place where all that information is drawn from. It is entirely uncorroborated by other evidence and there appears to be very limited evidence that such people either were or are in Israeli custody. Most of the stories stem from at least 2 decades ago.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#462
Report 12 years ago
#462
(Original post by JonathanH)
Number of reasons. 1 - There are plenty of those, like you, who do not value national security and would be further outraged by prosecutions. 2 - Any public court case surrounding national security issues would potentially lead to more revelations and even worse compromising of such schemes - something the government would be keen to avoid. Damage has been done already, but turning it in to a media circus and having even more revelations would make things even worse.
Oh, so one of the reasons the Federal government did not throw the book at the NYT is because they put not upsetting people like me in front of national security. Sure.
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#463
Report 12 years ago
#463
(Original post by Howard)
Oh, so one of the reasons the Federal government did not throw the book at the NYT is because they put not upsetting people like me in front of national security. Sure.
Look at it from their perspective - the damage has been done, they can't un-do it. So what does a trial achieve except for annoying lots of civil liberty types, getting lets of negative press (which is undoubtable, seeing as the media would be on trial),splitting opinion and threatening to cause more damage and expose more secrets? There's no up-side to taking them to court, though there a lot of commentators who think they should.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#464
Report 12 years ago
#464
(Original post by JonathanH)
Look at it from their perspective - the damage has been done, they can't un-do it. So what does a trial achieve except for annoying lots of civil liberty types, getting lets of negative press (which is undoubtable, seeing as the media would be on trial),splitting opinion and threatening to cause more damage and expose more secrets? There's no up-side to taking them to court, though there a lot of commentators who think they should.
This is an absurdely speculative argument. And take them to court for what exactly? You need to breach a law to go to court Jonathan.
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#465
Report 12 years ago
#465
(Original post by Howard)
And take them to court for what exactly? You need to breach a law to go to court Jonathan.
What, you mean like this law:

Section 798 of the US Criminal Code, approved by congress in 1950:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information ... concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added]."

I find it hard to think of a Statute that could more clearly be applied...
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#466
Report 12 years ago
#466
(Original post by JonathanH)
What, you mean like this law:

Section 798 of the US Criminal Code, approved by congress in 1950:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information ... concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added]."

I find it hard to think of a Statute that could more clearly be applied...
Was it classified or not? Surely if it was it became public knowledge as soon as Bush was questioned on the subject and answered the question. Perhaps charges should be brought against him?

Is there anything in the US criminal code that says the government can also knowingly and wantingly break the law and then classify it? I don't think so.
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#467
Report 12 years ago
#467
(Original post by Howard)
Was it classified or not? Surely if it was it became public knowledge as soon as Bush was questioned on the subject and answered the question. Perhaps charges should be brought against him?
What are you talking about? It became public knowledge when the NYT published it on the front page.

(Original post by Howard)
Is there anything in the US criminal code that says the government can also knowingly and wantingly break the law and then classify it?
It was then, and still is, unclear whether the government broke the law - but what is damn clear is that the NYT did. The information was secret - they published it.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#468
Report 12 years ago
#468
(Original post by JonathanH)
What are you talking about? It became public knowledge when the NYT published it on the front page.


It was then, and still is, unclear whether the government broke the law - but what is damn clear is that the NYT did. The information was secret - they published it.
How secret can it be if Bush talked about it in public?
0
quote
reply
~ABR~
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#469
Report 12 years ago
#469
(Original post by JonathanH)
Besides the 3/4 at the top of the page? Beyond that, the accuracy of the actual article is disputed - so they may very well not exist or at least not exist as detainees but may have ahd another fate. In fact, there appears to be very little evidence beyond accusations made by a clearly one-sided source - which is the place where all that information is drawn from. It is entirely uncorroborated by other evidence and there appears to be very limited evidence that such people either were or are in Israeli custody. Most of the stories stem from at least 2 decades ago.
And why should I believe you?
I mean like if you have something to prove what you are saying then post it.
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#470
Report 12 years ago
#470
(Original post by Howard)
How secret can it be if Bush talked about it in public?
After it was already revealed?
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#471
Report 12 years ago
#471
(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
And why should I believe you?
I mean like if you have something to prove what you are saying then post it.
Once again, you switch the burden of proof when by all rights it should be on you, you really need to learn the difference between positive and negative statements and where the burden of proof lies. In this case, you are making a positive accusation - that these people exist and are detainees. Thus the burden is on you TO PROVE that. You cannot place the burden on me to prove they don't exist, because that is asking me to prove a negative - something that is often logically impossible to do absolutely. It's like the existence of aliens - if you believe in them and I do not, the burden is on you to prove to me that they exist, it cannot logically be my burden to prove to you that they don't exist. So, if you have something - beyond the largely unsupported allegations of a single group - to prove your case, YOU should post it. And then I can go about refuting that. But for me to try and refute an allegation that has virtually no supporting evidence, is an absurd idea. You may as well ask me to prove that the royal family are not secretly space-lizards from another planet.
0
quote
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#472
Report 12 years ago
#472
(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
And why should I believe you?
I mean like if you have something to prove what you are saying then post it.
Then why are you posting here?
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#473
Report 12 years ago
#473
(Original post by JonathanH)
After it was already revealed?
Can't have been very closely guarded can it? Look, are you going to show me that the (possibly illegal) wire tapping scandal was in fact a state secret protected by law or are we going to spend all day on this roundabout?
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#474
Report 12 years ago
#474
(Original post by Howard)
Look, are you going to show me that the (possibly illegal) wire tapping scandal was in fact a state secret protected by law or are we going to spend all day on this roundabout?
I've shown you the relevant law which clearly prohibits the publishing of "any classified information ... concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States". That information clearly falls under that description - it was undoubtedly communciations intelligence activity and was obviously classified information - it was a secret scheme. What more is there to present? Are you trying to say that the scheme wasn't classified? That NSA surveillance activities of this nature aren't secret? Christ, for decades the US government refused to even admit that the NSA EXISTED and you're trying to tell us that their most secret activities aren't secret?
0
quote
reply
~ABR~
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#475
Report 12 years ago
#475
(Original post by JonathanH)
Once again, you switch the burden of proof when by all rights it should be on you, you really need to learn the difference between positive and negative statements and where the burden of proof lies. In this case, you are making a positive accusation - that these people exist and are detainees. Thus the burden is on you TO PROVE that. You cannot place the burden on me to prove they don't exist, because that is asking me to prove a negative - something that is often logically impossible to do absolutely. It's like the existence of aliens - if you believe in them and I do not, the burden is on you to prove to me that they exist, it cannot logically be my burden to prove to you that they don't exist. So, if you have something - beyond the largely unsupported allegations of a single group - to prove your case, YOU should post it. And then I can go about refuting that. But for me to try and refute an allegation that has virtually no supporting evidence, is an absurd idea. You may as well ask me to prove that the royal family are not secretly space-lizards from another planet.
Cut this... and just tell me what will make me believe that those were stories which stemmed 2 decades ago? Or are supported by weak evidence?

Instead of all that... you could've just told me: I don't have proof, at least currently.

Seriously man... I want to know why or how are these "Stories which stemmed 2 decades ago".... I can't just believe comments like that without evidence. You don't like to be requested for evidence then DONT DO THE SAME
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#476
Report 12 years ago
#476
(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
and just tell me what will make me believe that those were stories which stemmed 2 decades ago?
The fact that if you read the stories in the (in my view, quite unreliable) source you gave, all but one of those people was allegedly captured in the 1980s or earlier? Hence the stories stemming 2 decades ago.

(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
Or are supported by weak evidence?
It's not so much "weak" evidence as an absence of evidence.

(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
I don't have proof, at least currently.
I did tell you that, all that stuff about "burden of proof" was intended to make the point that you need to produce convincing evidence but have failed to do so.

(Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
Seriously man... I want to know why or how are these "Stories which stemmed 2 decades ago" I can't just believe comments like that without evidence.
I assumed you READ YOUR OWN SOURCES and would mentally retain the information within them, without me having to point you back to them when I say something...
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#477
Report 12 years ago
#477
A source is something you use to back up a claim.
0
quote
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#478
Report 12 years ago
#478
Did he ask what a source was?
0
quote
reply
789654123
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#479
Report 12 years ago
#479
(Original post by JonathanH)
Did he ask what a source was?
Paranoid or something?

I said o0MorseyMan0o didnt write/record the source so how can you say its his own source? or something along this line anyway.
0
quote
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#480
Report 12 years ago
#480
(Original post by JonathanH)
Did he ask what a source was?
Yes although he has subsequently deleted his post.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (205)
18.81%
No (661)
60.64%
Not really bothered about them (224)
20.55%

Watched Threads

View All