Hezbollahland before the fighting.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Is the US not the world's biggest terror producing nation? Have you looked at their history of aggression and incursions since WWII? Guess it's not "terror" if the world's biggest superpower causes it? Sounds like a double-standard.

Aggression by a state done in the state's self interest is entirely different than unilateral terror.

Now I will of course admit that some US excursions have been unethical.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Aggression by a state done in the state's self interest is entirely different than unilateral terror.

Now I will of course admit that some US excursions have been unethical.

Sure it's "different", not sure about entirely different. Have they killed people through their actions? Tons. Have they been involved in regime change which has resulted in brutal regimes? Yes. Have they supported brutal dictators or regimes? Yes.

Unethical doesn't really seem to sum it up IMO. Terror is an apt word for some of the things they've done since WWII.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Unethical doesn't really seem to sum it up IMO. Terror is an apt word for some of the things they've done since WWII.

Example A: Guatemala

Don't believe me? Read a book.

[mykalberta]

Beirut was a beautiful city, gorgous women (who shave) - a real gem. Its no wonder it was called the Paris of the Middle East (without all the dog ****e).

A little tour to South Beirut shows exactly why there have been so many civilian deaths. Lezbolla offices next to apartments next to Lezbolla run hospitals.

I love how the US is always brought into this debate, as if they started it or provoked it. Newsflash, Lebanon attacked Isreal and took two soldiers hostage. Lezbolla, Syria, and Iran have all called for extermination of the Zionist race and yet France called Iran a "calming force" in the region.

I guess it begs the questions, if you support an group who has called for the extermination of a race and attacked that race, if said race then responds and you are injured or killed, are you an innocent civilian? Through Lebanons lack of action in corraling Lezbolla, every Lebonese is just as responsible as every Japanese was for Pearl Harbour, and every German was for Nazi Germany.

MYK

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I guess it begs the questions, if you support an group who has called for the extermination of a race and attacked that race, if said race then responds and you are injured or killed, are you an innocent civilian? Through Lebanons lack of action in corraling Lezbolla, every Lebonese is just as responsible as every Japanese was for Pearl Harbour, and every German was for Nazi Germany.

MYK

Of course but you show a real bias here. If you truly believe this then you must also hold Israelis responsible for the terror they've inflicted on Palestinians among others.

And you assume that Lebanon started this by kidnapping someone. Frankly trying to find a "start" to this conflict goes back way further than that. And I don't think either side can claim to be innocent in only responding to agression by the other.

It's not black and white.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Of course but you show a real bias here. If you truly believe this then you must also hold Israelis responsible for the terror they've inflicted on Palestinians among others.

And you assume that Lebanon started this by kidnapping someone. Frankly trying to find a "start" to this conflict goes back way further than that. And I don't think either side can claim to be innocent in only responding to agression by the other.

It's not black and white.

Israel against Hezbollah is black and white.

I really can't understand how people believe it otherwise.

One is a terrorist organization whose leader believes all the Jews should go to Israel so that him and the rest of his scum don't have to waste time hunting them down and cutting their throats, and the other is a "democratic" nation which was legally ordained by the UN.

How much has Israel given up in hope for peace? Look at Jordan and Eygpt; both Arab Nations, but get along with Israel.

Despite the numerous reports that Iran is funding Hezbollah, and Iran, a terrorist nation that openly calls for the destruction of Israel, recieves more sympathy then Israel.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Israel against Hezbollah is black and white.

I really can't understand how people believe it otherwise.

One is a terrorist organization whose leader believes all the Jews should go to Israel so that him and the rest of his scum don't have to waste time hunting them down and cutting their throats, and the other is a "democratic" nation which was legally ordained by the UN.

How much has Israel given up in hope for peace? Look at Jordan and Eygpt; both Arab Nations, but get along with Israel.

Despite the numerous reports that Iran is funding Hezbollah, and Iran, a terrorist nation that openly calls for the destruction of Israel, recieves more sympathy then Israel.

It's hard to believe isn't it.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ahahaha is this still high school?

Another award-winning post by peter12...

Too bad you never have anything to back your opinions with, that would probably help your causes just a bit.

If you would have taken the time to go beyond the high school cirriculum, you would know that the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason.

As I am sure you are unaware, the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law in 1986.

What about Nicaragua during the 1980's? (Just one small example) The international terrorist attack, performed by the U.S., accompanied by an economic war was way more severe than 9/11. You know how Nicaragua responded? They didn't terrorize, bomb (or as the Bush administration would call it "liberate") Washington, rather they went to the World Court which ruled in their favour ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparartions. The U.S. dismissed the court's judgment and Nicaragua went to the SC. They considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law, and one P5 member vetoed it - the U.S. Then, they went to the GA, where a similiar resolution passed with two members voting against it - Surprise, surprise, the U.S. and Israel.

Nicaragua is an example of how a state should proceed, unlike how the U.S. is right now. Look at how the U.S. responded (on a domestic level) to the Oaklahoma City bombing. When the culprit was identified (with ties to an ultra-right militia), the U.S. didn't bomb Montana or Idaho. There was a search, he was found, brought to court, sentenced and there were efforts to understand what lied behind the crime and address the problem. I do not recall the U.S. administration providing any proof of Bin Laden's involvement, nor do I recall any lawful steps taken towards their reaction to 9/11. Thus, making them terrorist acts.

Wow, I guess you must have skipped this class in social studies when we were learning the painfully obvious, peter12.