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

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Your system can be flawed - I'll tell you why.

    A biased source passes a news story onto Reuters who then sends it around the world for all media to repeat.

    If you look closely at the wording of various newspaper reports you see it's identical with the others.
    "Closely"? Heehee, I'd have thought a cursory glance would be enough. I take your point, but that doesn't apply if what you draw on consists of the Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph and Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung. They're not going to go sharing stories.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, even BBC admitted to blatantly plagiarizing other sources. Apparently it's permitted as long as the other party signs a contract allowing it to happen. BBC doesn't even have to admit to using another source as the basis for their own article.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    So why did they?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is my last response to you. I am tired of your ignoring my corrections of your factual mistakes, of your feigning ignorance of things I have told you multiple times, of your blithering ignorance of the topic, your brazen lies and the fact that you don't get your information from a source more reliable than some brainwashing "service". You're going on ignore - don't waste your time responding, I won't see it.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I contest. Identify where I have lied.
    Everywhere where I've written "you're lying".

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Dude, right from the begining I have explained that my arguments are based on logic, justice, morals and ethics. These are by default paralel to facts and the truth.
    You have not based a single word on any of those things. Your knowledge is abysmal, your reason non-existent and your hatred palpable.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    No I'm not and yes they are.
    See, you lie right there! They are not simply Israeli accusations. Many are American, Argentinian, German etc. And many are simply factual.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Correct. The newly founded Hezbullah at the time were there because Israel ILLEGALLY INVADED their land with the Support of the US and the US Armed forces in the Barracks.
    You really know nothing about Lebanon do you... This is just the last in a LONG LINE of glaring nonsense that you spout.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    This was not a terrorist attack but an act of retaliation within reach of Hezbullah who at the time had minimal, limited means. NOT TERRORISM.
    Sorry, targeting a civilian target (such as an embassy or housing annex) in order to deliberately kill civilians for political ends is terrorism. You cannot escape that by trying to say "that's all they could manage" - that's still terrorism.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I have not found any substantial proof that Hezbullah have kidnapped 'westerners' though more detailed sources as to the incidents you are referring to will surely identify where I am going wrong.
    Anyone with even a passing interest in recent Middle East history knows about Lebanese hostage-taking in the 1980's. The fact that you seem utterly unaware just proves how ignorant you are on the topic. The name Terry Waite not ring a bell anywhere? Brian Keenan? John McCarthy?

    Are you actually SO ignorant that you don't know about Lebanese kidnappings?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Absolutely no Substantial evidence was given for this. .. Again, what you bring forward is the Opinion of Israeli agenda and its followers, no substantial evidence.
    Your attitude is bizarre. The educated and knowledgable world knows all about Hezbollah's terrorist activities throughout the 1980's - there are many books on the topic, try picking one up. However your denial is so absolute you seem to be intent on pretending Hezbollah spent the 1980's drinking tea and planting flowers.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    In reality that could have been any random islamist terrorist organisation, or even just a crazed evil dude who enjoys the death of innocent people.
    So the fact that a known Hezbollah member was identified by Argentinian police and the FBI as the bomber doesn't dent your ridiculous denial then?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Absolutely not, or in your words, LIES. Forget the last few decades. The past four weeks will tell you WHO is targetting civilians. Retaliation is NOT Terrorism, its Retaliation.
    Ah, now we have to forget over 20 years of Hezbollah terrorism? And the past 4 weeks do tell you who targets civilians. Hezbollah fired about 3,000 rockets at exclusively-civilian targets in Israel. ISrael did its utmost to try and limit casualties (hampered by Hezbollah's attempt to maximise collateral by using civilians as cover). And sorry, how does Hezbollah starting a war make them the retaliating party?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    1. Land was given to the Jewish people in the homeland of another group of people who were residing there for a thousand or more years.
    Ahaha! What are you smoking? What 'people' would that be then? The palestinians who only declared themselves a "people" in the 1960s?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    2. The illegal land occupiers known as Israel then took over MORE LAND that was not given to them, nearly wiping out the existnce of Palestine.
    READ A BOOK. The British Mandate of Palestine WAS REMOVED BY THE UN. There was never any independent State of "Palestine". Israel was created on the former Mandatory lands - it couldn't expand to "wipe out Palestine" because no such place EXISTED after the British gave the land up. Where the hell do you get such crap from?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    3. Israel further went on to take control of Syrian Land
    I have now reminded you numerous times that that was in a war with Syria and was an Israeli action designed to stop Syria attacking Israel. It was an entirely legitimate military objective and result.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    4. Israel illegally invaded Lebanon and stayed there for 2 decades.
    Israel went in to root out PLO terrorists and stop attacks on Israel. And this time it went in to root out Hezbollah terrorists and stop attacks on Israel. Maybe the way to keep Israel out is to have Lebanon stop harbouring terrorists who want to destroy Israel?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Again, more angry people. That is why Hezbullah was Created. You also fail to accept this truth. Freedom Fighters.
    Their goal is to destroy Israel and kill Jews and they attempt to do this through what are undeniably and objectively terrorist methods. That makes them terrorists. Your ranting doesn't change that fact.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I would hope any country in the world would do the same for the sovreignity of their land, in the name of Justice, freedom and human rights.
    AHAHAH! Is that what you think Hezbollah fight for? Human Rights?! Oh wow, what colour IS the sky in your world.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Which acts of Terror has Hezbullah taken responsibility for.
    Aside from firing 3,000 rockets at Israel? And aside from shooting and mortar attacks across the border? Aside from the kidnappings and the bombings that defined 1980's Lebanon?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Please provide sources. I really would like to know because as far as my research goes I find none.
    Your research apparently extends to Al Manar. Your knowledge is so limited on the topic I doubt you've ever read a single book on anything to do with the situation.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Jews are Good people. Zionists dont seem to be.
    The vast majority of Jews are Zionists. Zionism is a Jewish cause.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    They may well have been, but that is an act of retaliation in War, not a terrorist attack.
    Hezbolah are not the army of any state, they are not uniformed and do not fight in the name of any State. Thus they cannot take such actions and claim it's part of war - their actions are terrorism. Anyway, it wasn't "retaliation" - the US troops were not invading Lebanon - they were based there.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I can fairly say however that the vast vast majority of peace loving, hard working, muslims around the world who hate terrorism and know how all terrorists (regardless of whether they are muslim or not) will burn in the deepest hell, do not believe in the legitimacy of Israel based soley on the methods used in the creation of Israel.
    Israel was more legally created than pretty much any other State in history. It was pretty much the ONLY State actually given land by the UN on which to be legitimately constructed. That makes it more legitimate than most UN member states. Anyway, what a load of rubbish. Please, Muslims have no principled or reasoned basis for their hatred of Israel - Muslims single out Israel for venom and hatred for one reason alone and we both know what it is.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Any fair and non-ignorant person can see how the creation of Israel was in return for the slaughter of the palestinians.
    1. Jews were given land by the UN to have an independent State.
    2. The palestinians didn't exist as any sort of coherent national group till the 1960's.
    3. Israel invited Arabs to stay when it was created - many did - so to say Israel was founded on slaughter is absurd.
    4. One of the reasons Israel was created was because of the rising Arab-Jewish violence with many Arab attacks and massacres on Jews.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Its Syrian land no one has doubted that.
    Many of those arguing your side on this forum refute and "doubt" that on a regular basis.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    However It was given to utilise by the Lebanese and it provided much of the life and food required by the south.
    Doesn't make it Lebanese or give them any territorial claim.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Israel just took it. Again, Illegal and Terroristic.
    Look, I'm not going to talk to you any more if you ignore what I say to you repeatedly. I have now explained the circumstances to you several times. The Israeli capture was neither "illegal" or in any way "terroristic", in fact such a claim doesn't even make sense. You are yelling words and ignoring truth, it's ignorant and pathetic.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    So since then they haven't left? Dude, take the land, demilitarise it, but it doesnt belong to you, give it back.
    What do you not understand about it's status being pursuant to peace treaties between Israel and Syria. Is the concept too much for your evidently minuscule intellect?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I'm interested in hearing your response to this... If Hezbullah take over Israeli land by the border where troops are stationed, what do you think would happen?
    Well, seeing as Hezbollah are not a legitimate army and would therefore not have been fighting any sort of legitimate war - I'd expect Israel to kick them out.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    You lack of knowledge about Hezbullah
    This coming from the guy who seems utterly oblivious to the whole of 1980's Lebanese history!

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    yet your insistant slander on them both amuses ad suprises me.
    Hehe! Slander a genocidally inclined terrorist group?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Hezbullah as an organisation declare that they have nothing against Jews.
    Might want to read their Charter - it makes quite clear they want to kill Jews.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Still sticks and stones compared to the weaponry used against them.
    Hardly. Anyway, this is relevant... how?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Why should they? its their land they were letting the Lebonese utilise. See the above response.
    Indeed, it is Syrian land. So what the hell have Lebanon and Hezbollah got to do with it?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    If my mate needs somewhere to stay I'll lend him my house. That doesnt allow you to take over the house saying it wasn't his in the first place. I let him use it, not you!
    Please read my numerous responses regarding the Six Day War instead of ingoring them.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    The UN is basically what its called. United Nations. They can see what is going on and my friend ( ), THAT is why the UN never seem to take the side of Israel. Because Israel seem to be war mongering.
    I'm sure the domination of the 53 Islamic countries and their oil-whipped allies has absolutely nothing to do with it, right?

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    I Disagree. lol, what more can I say. Provide sources for what you say from now onwards. I will do the same.
    Would those be the kind of sources that explain to me how Israel captured the Shebaa Farms 19 years before they actually captured them? Those will be interesting.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Classic evidence of being out of your depth. When all else fails, get personal. :congrats: hehe
    Considering how very many times I have so far exposed your lies and manifest factual ignorance of the topic to say such a thing looks stupid.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Explain that to the families of over a thousand people dead in the past four weeks. Explain that to the whole world who saw Israel use guided missiles to kill these people.
    I can't talk sense in to a mind like yours, it's simply not of high enough caliber to udnerstand.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    Man, you once again kid yourself. It gave back land? It shouldn't have taken it in the first place.
    Taking land in defensive wars is a recognised and legal method of gaining a final peace deal.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    The majority of Mulsims care about facts and truth
    Oh please. You lie through your teeth, consistently and unrepentantly. And when caught you ignore it and move on.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    so sending a personal attack to Muslims is pretty low but what else can they really expect from you based on your posts so far.
    Considering the terrorism that Islam spouts forth so readily, I really couldn't give a crap if I insult Muslims.

    (Original post by Rayan83)
    It was two sundays ago when they were discussing this issue at service.
    Ah! That's where you get this ****. It's taught to you at "a service". That explains everything and verifies all my ideas about why Muslims and Arabs all spout and repeat the same lies and rubbish. Try picking up a book.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    OMG your always like that jonathanH, you accuse anyone of lying, but im afraid its only u.

    This is how you argue: First someone puts an opposing view, you put your arguments.. fair enough. But the problem is that when you start to run out of arguments, instead of admitting the other view's correctness you say that they are all lies. If someone gives you sources for their views which oppose yours, you do one of two things, you say the source is not reliable/some people's claims/brainwashing service... or you if you cannot do so you that it is propaganda....

    Everyone can see that... maybe minor exceptions no

    If you know it or not, the things you accuse people if doing.. such as lying/use of propaganda/not providing evidence... you mostly do.

    That is why i never feel comfortable when arguing with you...so i better not
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Right, shut up, everyone. I removed some posts from this thread with the aim of averting a full-scale flame war, and I'm prepared to remove a lot more if need be. Be told.


    Play nicely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nasrallah is not a terrorist.

    If believing and fighting for something you trully believe in then i guess he is and so am I!

    the meaing of a terroist is one who engaes in terrorism. Well that makes a whole lot of sense! :rolleyes:

    however the meaning of terrorism is - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Which the majority of the West think he is doing and the East and many muslim including myself do not think he is doing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is a pretty shaky topic I would say.

    Technically, there are numerous definitions for the term "terrorist" - one specific describes it as "violent action targeting civilians exclusively", in which case Nasrallah wouldn't be a terrorist since his primary objective is targeted at the Israeli forces. But, conversely, by going with other definitions Nasralla would technically be a terrorist.

    Incidentally, if my eldest son was killed by Israeli forces I'd be pretty pissed with Israel too.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not, in anyway, condoning the killings of innocent civilians.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I take the term terrorist to have meant, up to 11/9, a person or group that uses the instilling of fear/terror as a primary tactic in itself.

    Post-11/9, the term has de facto come to mean the equivalent of "freedom fighter", but the bad guys. So it's metamorphosed from a technical quasi-military term into a totally useless, nebulous one that is applied simply to enemies in general. Which allows me, being on the non-Nasrallah side of the fence, to use it of him.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nasrallah is no terrorist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    OMG your always like that jonathanH, you accuse anyone of lying, but im afraid its only u.
    Ah, another one shows up to defend the proven liars.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    But the problem is that when you start to run out of arguments, instead of admitting the other view's correctness you say that they are all lies.
    Rubbish. You know that is not true. I call lies when I see lies and when discussing Israel I see plenty of them. I can point you to dozens in this topic alone to many liues told by the other side - from the date when Israel took the Shebaa Farms, to the legal status, to the number of prisoners. And youa re one of the worst.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    If someone gives you sources for their views which oppose yours, you do one of two things, you say the source is not reliable/some people's claims/brainwashing service... or you if you cannot do so you that it is propaganda....
    Have you seen the sources that you people provide? You may as well direct me to Hezbollah.com for how fair-minded they are. Articles raving against Israel in a similar vein to you are not "evidence".

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    Everyone can see that... maybe minor exceptions no
    Apparently not, judging from how many people agree with me.

    (Original post by o0MorseyMan0o)
    That is why i never feel comfortable when arguing with you...so i better not
    I can tell you why you aren't comfortable. Because I expose you and tear your lies apart everytime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dimez)
    Technically, there are numerous definitions for the term "terrorist" - one specific describes it as "violent action targeting civilians exclusively", in which case Nasrallah wouldn't be a terrorist since his primary objective is targeted at the Israeli forces.
    Debatable, since in the recent war not one of the rockets fired into Israel was aimed at a military target - all were fired into civilian areas, and call me crazy if you will be to me, that suggests that Nasrallah orders "violent action targeting civilians". "Exclusively" is a difficult word to use because Nasrallah wants all Jews dead, regardless of whether they're in the military or not. However, if the IDF weren't serving, he'd want them dead because they're Jewish so in that respect, he's a terrorist by any definition.
    Where did you find that particular definition? Because I can't think of anyone who directly fits it. For example, the 9/11 bombers were terrorists, but they were targetting the Pentagon - a government building - so by your definition that means they weren't terrorists. That suggests to me that it's a pretty crappy definition (no offence to you because you didn't invent it).

    Incidentally, if my eldest son was killed by Israeli forces I'd be pretty pissed with Israel too.
    Interesting that you don't mention whether you'd be pissed if Hezbollah killed him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bohemian)
    Debatable, since in the recent war not one of the rockets fired into Israel was aimed at a military target - all were fired into civilian areas, and call me crazy if you will be to me, that suggests that Nasrallah orders "violent action targeting civilians". "Exclusively" is a difficult word to use because Nasrallah wants all Jews dead, regardless of whether they're in the military or not. However, if the IDF weren't serving, he'd want them dead because they're Jewish so in that respect, he's a terrorist by any definition.
    Where did you find that particular definition? Because I can't think of anyone who directly fits it. For example, the 9/11 bombers were terrorists, but they were targetting the Pentagon - a government building - so by your definition that means they weren't terrorists. That suggests to me that it's a pretty crappy definition (no offence to you because you didn't invent it).
    The definition was taken from wikipedia: not the best source, I know.
    Interesting that you don't mention whether you'd be pissed if Hezbollah killed him.
    What on earth are you on? I don't think I understand. Care to elaborate/explain? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weird and Wonderful)
    however the meaning of terrorism is - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Which the majority of the West think he is doing and the East and many muslim including myself do not think he is doing.
    Well, that's perhaps the best example of an intellectual disconnect I've ever seen. You provide an objective definition of terrorism - one which Hezbollah clearly fits in every way with its actions. And then you claim that it's actually all a matter of opinion and that you don't agree with objective definition. The absolute irrationality and contradiction of your position is bizarre to see.
    There is a definition and there are factual actions of Hezbollah. Either they fit or they do not, there is no interpretation required. The fact you inject some just makes it look like you're desperate to avoid concluding with the inevitably correct conclusion that Hezbollah, and Nasrallah, are terrorists.

    Anyway, the poll is interesting.
    Christians see Nasrallah as a terrorist 9 - 2 (82%)
    Atheists see Nasrallah as a terrorist 20 - 8 (71%)
    Jews see Nasrallah as a terrorist 8 - 1 (89%)
    And Muslims see Nasrallah as NOT a terrorist by 13 - 1 (93%)

    And people wonder why there are serious terrorism problems emerging from the Islamic communities in the West and world-wide. It's because these people are just that warped - they don't think like civilised humanity does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well you could view it this way:

    1. America are terrorists.
    2. Britain are terrorists.
    3. Iran are terrorists.
    4. Israel are terrorists.
    5. Syria are terrorists.
    6. You're a terrorist.
    7. He's a terrorists.
    8. She's a terrorists.

    Dude's terrorist's are in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. In my eyes Sayed Hassen Nasrallah is a freedom fighter. What is he in your eyes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jazzy05)
    Well you could view it this way:

    1. America are terrorists.
    2. Britain are terrorists.
    3. Iran are terrorists.
    4. Israel are terrorists.
    5. Syria are terrorists.
    6. You're a terrorist.
    7. He's a terrorists.
    8. She's a terrorists.

    Dude's terrorist's are in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. In my eyes Sayed Hassen Nasrallah is a freedom fighter. What is he in your eyes?
    :congrats:

    Well summed up. In My eyes he is most certainly a freedom fighter defending his country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Rubbish. There's an objective definition of what constitutes terrorism and terrorists. Factual actions either fit or they do not fit. Only people who know their own side is guilty and are desperate to spread such guilt around would try to make it so anyone, no matter what they do, can be classified as a terrorist if others so choose. What better way to absolutely try and white-wash the epidemic of Islamic terrorism that currently threatens the world then to try and convince everyone that "we're all terrorists really". What interests me is whether these Muslims who say such things classify themselves as 'moderates'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The Algerian militant groups also fought for freedom; they were still terrorists. The ends towards one fights is irrelevant when defining a terrorist. The only thing that counts are the means.
    Offline

    13
    "Former warmongers and terrorists are selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (exceptional concessions) in the attempt to achieve peace." (Wikipedia)

    Among these are;

    Anwar Al-Sadat
    Menachem Begin
    Yasser Arafat
    Shimon Peres
    Yitzhak Rabin

    History can elevate those formerly considered terrorists/warmongers to positions of good example.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    And what about Mandela? He was the head of the armed wing of the ANC. He was locked up for conspiracy to bomb public property.
 
 
 
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.