Turn on thread page Beta

Is Nasrallah a terrorist? watch

Announcements
  • 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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 789654123)
    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.
    I challenged the part of the sentence;

    READ YOUR OWN SOURCES and would mentally retain the information within them


    - mentally retain the information within them doesnt make sense!!!

    If I guessed what you were trying to say - o0MM0 is using the info from that source?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Something isn't really "a source" if you wrote it... Clearly "your own sources" refers to sources that he has used or quoted. Maybe the "own" was tortological, but it's commonly used in such a context to emphasise a point, so I don't feel bad about it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8epm1aRAHFk
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He's not really a terrorist himself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *titanium*)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8epm1aRAHFk
    :rofl: That was so funny.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abra)
    He's not really a terrorist himself.
    Hitler never killed anyone either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    People like you will refuse to call someone a terrorist unless they kill Muslims and don't hate the US.

    Answer this easy question. Does Hezbollah try to kill civilians? A yes or no will do.
    Are you implying that Israel has never tried to kill innocent civillians? It's the only thing they do!!!! Because they did not manage to get rid of Hezbollah and because they couldn't win against Nasrallah, the Israelis turned to civilians, bombarded cities and killed innocent, defenceless civillians as a compensation. How do you know that Nasrallah is a terrorist? Have you checked for yourself or do you think that you know he's a terrorist because it is what the media says? Give me unquestionnable proof that he's a terrorist.
    Why is it that a muslim trying to defend himself, his country and his religion is called a terrorist, but when it is a non-muslim that does the same thing, it is called freedom fighting??!??!??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itzme)
    How do you know that Nasrallah is a terrorist? Have you checked for yourself or do you think that you know he's a terrorist because it is what the media says? Give me unquestionnable proof that he's a terrorist.
    Why is it that a muslim trying to defend himself, his country and his religion is called a terrorist, but when it is a non-muslim that does the same thing, it is called freedom fighting??!??!??
    Hezbolah are not freedom fighters, their stated purpose of exsistance is to take control of Lebanon. They are terrorists since they cary out terrorist attacks. Are you now going to tell us that the hijacking of a civilian plane was indeed not a terorist attack?

    With the amount of firepower Israel used, they would have killed a lot more had they used those weapons to try and do so. Nasralah on the other hand stated a few years ago, something along the lines of saying hes happy that the Jews come to Israel, it means they wont have ot chase them around the world, so now not only does he want to destroy Israel he wants to kill all Jews, very nice guy he is 3 cheers for the fredom fighter hiphip...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Hitler never killed anyone either.
    The next time I hear someone resort to reductio ad hitlerum I swear to God I am going to scream. Would it be so hard to substitute another name? It's not like murderous despots are rare in the pages of history.

    :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Hitler never killed anyone either.
    But i don't think Hitler is a terrorist. :p:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It depends how you define the term.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    The next time I hear someone resort to reductio ad hitlerum I swear to God I am going to scream. Would it be so hard to substitute another name? It's not like murderous despots are rare in the pages of history.

    :p:
    I hit 6 random keys and it just turned out that way... they're too close together.

    (Original post by Abra)
    But i don't think Hitler is a terrorist. :p:
    Neither do I, I think he's a murderer. But by your definition he isn't, purely because he didn't do anything to physically harm anyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Neither do I, I think he's a murderer. But by your definition he isn't, purely because he didn't do anything to physically harm anyone.
    Wait, who did Hitler murder for you to think he's a murder?

    I think he is a racist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abra)
    Wait, who did Hitler murder for you to think he's a murder?

    I think he is a racist.
    You don't have to pull the trigger to be a murderer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    You don't have to pull the trigger to be a murderer.
    -.-
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abra)
    -.-
    Being the mind behind a plan is enabling it to happen, and is treated as a far worse crime than actually pulling the trigger, and rightly so. Stalin is also a murderer, and I'm guessing he went nowhere ner the Gulags.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    You don't have to pull the trigger to be a murderer.
    Yes you do. You can be an accessory to murder, or an accomplice, but "murder" means "the act of killing someone" as distinct from telling someone else to. Merely giving the order to fire the weapon, or to drop the bomb, does not make someone a murderer. It makes them a complete *******, but that's different. The same goes for the example of Stalin. He didn't kill anyone, so was not a murderer. However, the number of orders he gave for people to be killed makes him morally a worse person than the individual murderers who carried them out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Yes you do. You can be an accessory to murder, or an accomplice, but "murder" means "the act of killing someone" as distinct from telling someone else to.
    I wouldn't use that definition. I would say that murder could be constituted by intending someone to die and deliberately taking all the necessary actions to bring about that end.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    But by that definition two (or more) people could murder one person, which seems bizarre. The hitman and the man who hired him, say. To me both are equally morally culpable, but only one is legally guilty of murder.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    But by that definition two (or more) people could murder one person, which seems bizarre. The hitman and the man who hired him, say. To me both are equally morally culpable, but only one is legally guilty of murder.
    Not true. In America at least both the hitman and the employer can be charged with homicide.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
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.