Hizbollah Getting Vocal Re: US

the swede said:
manu1959:
actually saddam and his regime killed almost 200 000 people (at least according to human rights watch).
Jeff: Can you menetion any islamic organization that has killed a 100 000 or 20 000 ( if it makes you feel better) people? Hezbollah, lslamic Jihad, Al-qaida? No in comparison to our crimes they are amateurs.

If you go back to the early 70's, right up today, I would say the combined death toll is probably around 20,000+.
 
I like the fact that you avoid the things you don't want to talk about by saying that I'm doing domething wrong (like answering my own questions), north korean journalists would surely be impressed.
 
the swede said:
manu1959:
actually saddam and his regime killed almost 200 000 people (at least according to human rights watch).
Jeff: Can you menetion any islamic organization that has killed a 100 000 or 20 000 ( if it makes you feel better) people? Hezbollah, lslamic Jihad, Al-qaida? No in comparison to our crimes they are amateurs.

Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? About 200K, according to you.

According to Jihad Watch, terrorists have killed about 7,000 innocents since 2001. Oh, and did I mention that suicide bombers' families were paid ~$20,000 for each bombing? Meanwhile, America does everything it can to avoid the deaths of innocents.

And what "crimes" has the US committed? Going to war?
 
Anyway, a killer is a killer. The only thing that stops terrorists from mass killings is funding. Why argue about death tolls when they would be the same if it was possible.
 
Of course you're nrigth Jeff starting an illegal war is not a crime (sarcasm in case you're unsure)
 
the swede said:
I like the fact that you avoid the things you don't want to talk about by saying that I'm doing domething wrong (like answering my own questions), north korean journalists would surely be impressed.

well as far as i can tell i am talking about hezbollah and you have change the topic at least three times and now are want to talk about north korea
 
the swede said:
Of course you're nrigth Jeff starting an illegal war is not a crime (sarcasm in case you're unsure)

i agree hezbollah's war against israel is completely illegal....finally we agree on something
 
the U.N charter clearly says that only the security council can permit an attack on another nation. Did they do that? No. See, that wasn't so difficult to understand after all was it?
 
the swede said:
the U.N charter clearly says that only the security council can permit an attack on another nation. Did they do that? No. See, that wasn't so difficult to understand after all was it?


What was supposed to happen if Saddam violated UN resolution? Did the security council DO anything?
 
the swede said:
the U.N charter clearly says that only the security council can permit an attack on another nation. Did they do that? No. See, that wasn't so difficult to understand after all was it?

actually 18 times they were granted that right to use severe consequences

also which UN resolution granted:

hezbollah the right to attack israel

iraq the right to attack kuwait

aq to attack new york

france the congo

shall i go on?
 
correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Turkey violate several resolutions? And doesn't Israel? And Morroco? And Rwanda? And Indonesia? and Sudan? and the U.S.? and so on...
 
the swede said:
correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Turkey violate several resolutions? And doesn't Israel? And Morroco? And Rwanda? And Indonesia? and Sudan? and the U.S.? and so on...

so now you want the us to invade turkey israel, morroco, rwanda indonesia the sudan and itself....damn you lefties are war mongers
 
Even if this has been very fun, I'll have to go now since it's getting rather late here in Sweden.
 
the swede said:
correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Turkey violate several resolutions? And doesn't Israel? And Morroco? And Rwanda? And Indonesia? and Sudan? and the U.S.? and so on...

so anyway back to my first question: whcih you keep dodging

why does hezbollah exist? what is their stated purpose?
 
the swede said:
the U.N charter clearly says that only the security council can permit an attack on another nation. Did they do that? No. See, that wasn't so difficult to understand after all was it?

Iraq had broken the 1991 cease-fire (from the UN-sanctioned Persian Gulf War) multiple times. Based on that alone, the US was justified in the invasion. Add to that the 17 other UN resolutions that Iraq flagrantly violated, and I think there's a good pretext for war.
 
the swede said:
correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Turkey violate several resolutions? And doesn't Israel? And Morroco? And Rwanda? And Indonesia? and Sudan? and the U.S.? and so on...

Pehaps the security council should act upon violations, when they are violated instead of voting to vote on a vote after they decide to have a meeting to decide what the situation is. In the mean time, thousands are killed, and someone else steps in.
 

Forum List

Back
Top