Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
btw, his 'entire network' is over 30k Islamics...I support Hezbollah: Aussie cleric
* June 23, 2007
THE nation's most senior Shia Muslim cleric has attacked John Howard for backing Israel against Arabs and openly declared his allegiance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Kamal Mousselmani -- head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia -- said yesterday his entire community considered Hezbollah a "resistance group", not a terrorist network, and lashed the Howard Government over its support for Israel.
...
Do you know whats scary.. I dont think most non-muslims realize how dead set these lunatics are on killing all of us...
WIKPEDIA: "Hezbollah has not been involved in any suicide bombing since Israel withdrew from Lebanon.[119][120] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hezbollah condemned Al Qaeda for targeting the civilian World Trade Center, but remained silent on the attack on the The Pentagon, neither favoring nor opposing the act.[121][9] Hezbollah also denounced the Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt,[122] and the murder of Nick Berg.[123] Nasrallah, in a 2006 interview with the Washington Post, condemned violence against American civilians: “f there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden."[121]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Stance_on_what_is_a_legitimate_military_target
I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on atrocity and mass murder. I am sure the familes of the murdered Marines would have no problem with DeadCanDance's explanation that Hezbollah was "pissed" when it blew up the Marines in their sleep.Please name one american or australian citizen Lebanese Hezbollah has killed in the last two decades.
Answer: Zero.
We really do need to stop assuming all muslims and all muslim groups pose a huge threat to the United States. Hezbollah did attack our marines in lebanon, a quarter of a century ago. Having US soldiers on their soil pissed them off. They ARE a problem for israel. But Israel can defend itself. Hezbollah has regional goals and regional aims. They have never demonstrated any interest in attacking Kansas City, or taking over the world.
We need to focus on terrorist groups that truly do threaten us, and have a demonstrated commitment to launching direct attacks on americans.
Please name one american or australian citizen Lebanese Hezbollah has killed in the last two decades.
Answer: Zero.
We really do need to stop assuming all muslims and all muslim groups pose a huge threat to the United States. Hezbollah did attack our marines in lebanon, a quarter of a century ago. Having US soldiers on their soil pissed them off. They ARE a problem for israel. But Israel can defend itself. Hezbollah has regional goals and regional aims. They have never demonstrated any interest in attacking Kansas City, or taking over the world.
We need to focus on terrorist groups that truly do threaten us, and have a demonstrated commitment to launching direct attacks on americans.
I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on atrocity and mass murder. I am sure the familes of the murdered Marines would have no problem with DeadCanDance's explanation that Hezbollah was "pissed" when it blew up the Marines in their sleep.
In my opinion, an attack against Israel is an attack against us...
I would say lack of ability and opportunity may be a the only reason Hezbollah hasnt attacked the US directly recently... Give them time...
Why shoudnt we assume ALL muslims and Muslim groups pose a threat against us? I havnt seen any evidence otherwise.
Please name one american or australian citizen Lebanese Hezbollah has killed in the last two decades.
Answer: Zero.
We really do need to stop assuming all muslims and all muslim groups pose a huge threat to the United States. Hezbollah did attack our marines in lebanon, a quarter of a century ago. Having US soldiers on their soil pissed them off. They ARE a problem for israel. But Israel can defend itself. Hezbollah has regional goals and regional aims. They have never demonstrated any interest in attacking Kansas City, or taking over the world.
We need to focus on terrorist groups that truly do threaten us, and have a demonstrated commitment to launching direct attacks on americans.
Interesting that Hezbollah managed to kill US soldiers before the group was even organized.
Why exactly?
Lack of ability and opportunity? Hezbollah is very well organized. If you hadn't noticed we have around 150,000 American troops in their general area. If they wanted to attack the US, what do you suppose they are waiting for ?
There are what, 1.3 billion Muslims in the world? How many of them have done anything against US interests, ever?
A very, very, very small proportion of them. There is your evidence. Not that you really needed any to not judge people on the basis of their religion, but there you go anyhow.
The percentage of muslims who have attacked us is irrelevant to the 100% of the ones who have, nor does it negate even one death they have caused.
I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on atrocity and mass murder. I am sure the familes of the murdered Marines would have no problem with DeadCanDance's explanation that Hezbollah was "pissed" when it blew up the Marines in their sleep.
I believe you just claimed that 100% of the muslims who attacked us were Muslim. While this is true, I fail to see the point in posting such an obviously circular argument.
Just as I fail to see the point of you posting an argument that implies militant Islamic jihadists are any less a threat than they are.
Someone suggested that we should suspect ALL muslims because of the actions of a very, very tiny minority.
Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism in the world is carried out by militant Islamic fundamentalists for teh sake of politicla correctness is suicidal.
That all terrorists are muslim (which is a lie...but I will assume this falsehood for the sake of the argument) does NOT mean that all muslims are terrorists. This is a very simple and basic logical flaw.
true , True, but Regan seemed to lose no sleep over it...
Just as I fail to see the point of you posting an argument that implies militant Islamic jihadists are any less a threat than they are.
Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism in the world is carried out by militant Islamic fundamentalists for teh sake of politicla correctness is suicidal.
It does not imply that at all. I was talking about Muslims, not "militant Islamic jihadists". Please don't conflate the two, as they are very very different.
I am well-aware of the difference. However, I don't let that difference, nor the fact that Islamofascists are a very small minority within the Muslim community deflect from the fact that they present a REAL threat.
Did you miss the part where I said I was willing to give, for the sake of argument, that Muslims were responsible for all acts of terrorism? But again...please don't conflate militant Islamic fundamentalists with Muslims.
I will post my main point for you again Gunny.
That all terrorists are Muslims does NOT mean that all Muslims are terrorists. Hence my point in saying the number of Muslims there are in this world when someone says that we should suspect all Muslims based on the actions of less than .001%
I didn't miss your point at all. Your .001% sure is doing a lot of killing.
So tell me, Larkin, what's your opinion on the incident at Abu Ghraib?
Irrelevant to the point. And they don't really. Not compared historically with other "wars" or even compared to events happening in other parts of the globe which are far worse.
It is not irrelevant. You cannot divorce them from their actions, since it is their actions that define them.
That it was terrible tragedy what happened and completely unjustified.
It is not irrelevant. You cannot divorce them from their actions, since it is their actions that define them.
Do you think the media coverage was justified, and in proportion to the crimes committed?
I'm not divorcing the less than .001% from their actions. I am divorcing the idea of comparing them and conflating them with the general Muslim population who 99.999% don't commit violent acts.
If you are comfortable with maligning all Muslims based on the actions of just a few, do you feel justified in also generalizing men the same way? The large majority of terrorists are men...shall we regard them with the same prejudice?
If you noticed ... I assume you did since you attempted to criticize me for it ... I identified terrorists by one name, and Muslims in general by another.
The attempted comparison to men is absurd. One is not required to be a man to be a militant Islamic jihadist. One IS required to be a militant Islamic jihadist.
Yes. I find it utterly inexcusable that what happened there happened. I find it utterly inexcusable that it took media attention to get things to change and for people to be charged. I find it utterly inexcusable for Taguba to have recieved the reception he did from Rumsfeld and other administration officials after issuing his report.
The excuse for this war, as given now, is that we are "saving" them. If our soldiers are torturing them, raping them, and killing them then yes, I think that deserves publicity.
