More From Nutty Hugo

[onedomino]

calm down y'all.

Stop looking for monsters under the bed.

Israel is going to deal with hezbollah. There isn't a shred of evidence hezbollah has ever intended to attack american cities. In fact, all the evidence says they won't. They have regional goals that involve lebanon, israel and palestine. Kansas City and Memphis are not on their target lists.


It's a problem israel will handle. They are fully capable of defending themselves. We certainly didn't get militarily involved with the IRA terrorism against Britain, or the ELF terrorists in Spain. Those were regional conflicts, that we left to Spain and Britain to deal directly with.

The Hezbollah monsters are not under the bed. Anyway, none of your post is germane to what is being discussed regarding Larkin and Hezbollah. The point regarding Larkinn is his defense of an organization that murdered 241 Marines.

US Federal District Judge regarding the Hezbollah murder of the Marines:

District Judge Royce Lamberth said that, based on the evidence presented, it was "beyond question" that Hezbollah and its agents "received massive material and technical support from the Iranian Government". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2951938.stm "U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials." http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200607/ai_n17182065
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/news/mideast.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314423.stm

 

[onedomino]

So, please...what part of saying that its easy to make hezbollah seem negative (which it is) is being an apologist for them?

Again....I point out you never anwsered my nazi question. You confuse me defending the truth with me defending Hezbollah.

Defending the truth? The truth, as obviously outlined in the links above, is that you defended, and acted as an apologist for, a terror organization that was found guilty in US District Court of murdering 241 Marines. Larkinn: Hezbollah defender and apoligist.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

is larkinn claiming hezbollah did not murder the 241 marines in 1983?

Defending the truth? The truth, as obviously outlined in the links above, is that you defended, and acted as an apologist for, a terror organization that was found guilty in US District Court of murdering 241 Marines. Larkinn: Hezbollah defender and apoligist.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The Hezbollah monsters are not under the bed. Anyway, none of your post is germane to what is being discussed regarding Larkin and Hezbollah. The point regarding Larkinn is his defense of an organization that murdered 241 Marines.

US Federal District Judge regarding the Hezbollah murder of the Marines:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200607/ai_n17182065
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/news/mideast.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314423.stm

You're both talking past each other, probably. Near as I can tell, both of you can claim to be "technically" right.

From what I understand, the group Hezbollah didn't formally exist until 1985. That's when they officially formed, under that name. But shia militia that later formed the core of Hezbollah, probably played a role in the 1983 bombing.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Hezbollah was around before 1985, and they were responsible for the marine barricks bombing, their is no doubt about it.

You're both talking past each other, probably. Near as I can tell, both of you can claim to be "technically" right.

From what I understand, the group Hezbollah didn't formally exist until 1985. That's when they officially formed, under that name. But shia militia that later formed the core of Hezbollah, probably played a role in the 1983 bombing.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Hezbollah was around before 1985, and they were responsible for the marine barricks bombing, their is no doubt about it.

Okay, carry on. The date doesn't really matter to me. I'm fully aware that shia militia intent on driving the U.S. and French out of Lebanon, were responsible for attacking the barracks. Whether they were officially called 'Hezbollah" at that time, is not important to me.

What's important to me is recognizing that Hezbollah is a regional threat to israel. They have no goal or intention of attacking the United States. As such, we should just let israel take the lead in dealing with them. Like we let Britain take the lead in dealing with the IRA. It's a regional conflict, that we don't need to be involved in militarily

 

[onedomino]

You're both talking past each other, probably. Near as I can tell, both of you can claim to be "technically" right.

From what I understand, the group Hezbollah didn't formally exist until 1985. That's when they officially formed, under that name. But shia militia that later formed the core of Hezbollah, probably played a role in the 1983 bombing.

Now you are doing it. Hezbollah formed in 1982. It did not publish its manifesto until 1985. That does not mean it did not exist in 1982. I am not talking past anyone, and Larkinn is "technically" wrong. But beyond that, a US District Court found Hezbollah guilty of the murders and Larkin responded: "No, actually they weren't found guilty. They were found to have responsibility for the attacks. It was not a criminal suit that was filed against them, but a civil suit, in which plaintiffs have a lower burden of proof required." That is offensive in the extreme. If you do not understand that, then I do not think anyone can explain it to you. I am confronting Larkinn for defending a terror organization that murdered 241 Marines.

Hezbollah is considered to be the group behind suicide bombing not only of Israel, but also of the American and French peacekeeping "Multinational Force." According to researcher Robert A. Pape, "from 1982 to 1986, Hezbollah conducted 36 suicide terrorist attacks involving a total of 41 attackers against American, French, and Israeli political and military targets in Lebanon ... Altogether, these attacks killed 659 people, most of who were off-duty soldiers in no position to defend themselves, such as the 241 U.S. Marine who were killed as they slept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Hizballah is an Islamic movement founded after the Israeli military seizure of Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in the formation of Islamic resistance units committed to the liberation of the occupied territories and the ejection of Israeli forces. Hizbollah was established in 1982 during the Lebanon War when a group of Lebanese Shi'ite Muslims declared themselves to be the "Party of God" http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 as a response to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5557835

Formed in 1982 under Iranian tutelage, and prompted by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah has made a goal of fomenting Islamic revolution in Lebanon and authorizes violence to this end. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0691131244

Hezbollah, formed in 1982, has been linked to scores of attacks on Israelis and Americans, including rocket attacks on Israeli towns, the 1983 bombing that killed 241 U.S. soldiers in Beirut, and the 1994 attack that killed 95 at a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. The U.S. and Israel have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5ly06MMIdyI&refer=home

 

[red states rule]

is larkinn claiming hezbollah did not murder the 241 marines in 1983?

to nuts like him, Hexbollah members are not terrorists - they are freedom fighters

 

[Larkinn]

Now you are doing it. Hezbollah formed in 1982. It did not publish its manifesto until 1985. That does not mean it did not exist in 1982. I am not talking past anyone, and Larkinn is "technically" wrong. But beyond that, a US District Court found Hezbollah guilty of the murders and Larkin responded: "No, actually they weren't found guilty. They were found to have responsibility for the attacks. It was not a criminal suit that was filed against them, but a civil suit, in which plaintiffs have a lower burden of proof required." That is offensive in the extreme. If you do not understand that, then I do not think anyone can explain it to you. I am confronting Larkinn for defending a terror organization that murdered 241 Marines.

Its offensive to point out that you can't be found guilty of a crime in a civil suit?

I'm sorry you find the truth offensive, but its not going to change just so your pretty little head isn't bothered.

Hezbollah was around before 1985, and they were responsible for the marine barricks bombing, their is no doubt about it.

You may have no doubt, but many other people do including officials in the US government.

is larkinn claiming hezbollah did not murder the 241 marines in 1983?

Nope, although domino is claiming I am. Instead I am claiming its unclear who did.

 

[onedomino]

Nope, although domino is claiming I am. Instead I am claiming its unclear who did.

It makes no difference to Larkinn if citation after citation identifies Hezbollah as the terrorists who murdered the Marines. To him it makes no difference that a US District Court found Hezbollah guilty of the bombing. In spite of all material to the contrary Larkinn says "it is unclear who did." Certainly the readers of this thread appreciate the absurdity of Larkinn: Hezbollah defender and apologist.

 

[Larkinn]

It makes no difference to Larkinn if citation after citation identifies Hezbollah as the terrorists who murdered the Marines. To him it makes no difference that a US District Court found Hezbollah guilty of the bombing. In spite of all material to the contrary Larkinn says "it is unclear who did." Certainly the readers of this thread appreciate the absurdity of Larkinn: Hezbollah defender and apologist.

*sigh*

From your wiki site.

The United States and others have accused elements that would later become Hezbollah of being responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops

It is uncertain as to who is responsible for the bombing although several radical Shiite militant groups claimed responsibility for the attacks, and one, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen and Abu Sijaan.[5]

Despite the fact that they were not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe [3] that elements that would eventually become Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

 

[Larkinn]

Hey, look, disagreement over it. Hence where my statement comes from that it is unclear who did the attack.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

You see, i dont believe that, I think they would love to come to america and blown us up, but have not had the opportunity, what makes you so sure they dont want too, and please stop comparing them to the i.r.a. they are completely different, one is a muslim terror group run by another country, for the soul perpose of killing people, while i.r.a. actually wanted a free country, ireland. NOT the same.

similiar, maybe, not not the same.

Hezbollah is owned by iran, and theirfore,they are dangouers, any terrorist group fighting an ally, any ally of ours, whether its israel, or any other country that is an ally is dangerous and must not be over looked.

Okay, carry on. The date doesn't really matter to me. I'm fully aware that shia militia intent on driving the U.S. and French out of Lebanon, were responsible for attacking the barracks. Whether they were officially called 'Hezbollah" at that time, is not important to me.

What's important to me is recognizing that Hezbollah is a regional threat to israel. They have no goal or intention of attacking the United States. As such, we should just let israel take the lead in dealing with them. Like we let Britain take the lead in dealing with the IRA. It's a regional conflict, that we don't need to be involved in militarily

 

[actsnoblemartin]

well ill be damned, this articles says unclear... And i was not trying to prove it was unclear. Please note the 2nd link, for what i typed into google, thank you.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/21/lebanon.anniv.ap/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=who+attacked+marine+barracks+in+1983

 

[Larkinn]

well ill be damned, this articles says unclear... And i was not trying to prove it was unclear. Please note the 2nd link, for what i typed into google, thank you.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/21/lebanon.anniv.ap/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=who+attacked+marine+barracks+in+1983

Nobody professes to know for sure just who was behind the bombings of 1983

From your article Actsnoble...it needs a correction. I will e-mail CNN that one idiot professes to know for sure just who was behind the bombings of 1983.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Thanks for pointing that out. Just so know, im not really here to condemn people, just to try and disagree peacefully , have a good day.

From your article Actsnoble...it needs a correction. I will e-mail CNN that one idiot professes to know for sure just who was behind the bombings of 1983.

 

[Toro]

From today's news, a story about Chevez snuggling up to the worst totalitarian state in Europe, and also one of my favorite Chavez photos:



Chavez' mentor blowing in his ear:

He's a tad unstable.

He has a very unhealthy obsession with the US. Of course, the CIA did try to overthrow him ...

However, going around the world, making friends with people you have little in common with just to make a point is kinda stupid in the Great Game of geopolitics.

 

[red states rule]

He's a tad unstable.

He has a very unhealthy obsession with the US. Of course, the CIA did try to overthrow him ...

However, going around the world, making friends with people you have little in common with just to make a point is kinda stupid in the Great Game of geopolitics.

A bit unstable?

That is like saying Howie Dean is calm and reasonable

 

[actsnoblemartin]

they look like they wanna kiss, see how both are puckering up their lips.

He's a tad unstable.

He has a very unhealthy obsession with the US. Of course, the CIA did try to overthrow him ...

However, going around the world, making friends with people you have little in common with just to make a point is kinda stupid in the Great Game of geopolitics.

 

[red states rule]

they look like they wanna kiss, see how both are puckering up their lips.

but Cindy Crackpot Sheehan would be in the way