chicot

Sorry, but that's just completely incorrect. Most of their activities involve attacks on the Israeli military. Hizbollah didn't even exist until after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. And I fail to see how any rational person can label attacks on an occupying army "terrorism". How many deaths of civilians is the leadership of Israel responsible for? At least two hundred in this conflict alone. Wait, I forgot. That's ok because they were "accidental" and Hizbollah started it by attacking the Israeli military.

Why can't you listen to what he has to say? Are you so supremely confident that the US media is completely fair and balanced that there is no need whatsoever for you to listen to an alternative point of view? Why not research his claims, find out whether there is actually any truth to what he is saying and make up your own mind? I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure I have ever claimed that Hizbullah are members of a minority in Lebanon.

To continue the discussion started in the "Artist from Beirut" thread. Hizbullah view Israeli view

Say they resisted the occupation of Lebanon and fought against Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese side of the border, does that make them terrorists?

How on earth are Hizbullah "not really Lebanese"?

And the Lebanese prisoners that the Israelis are holding? Do they somehow not count because they are Arabs?

In this case, the Hizbollah rocket attacks were a response to the Israeli bombing of Lebanese infrastructure. Hizbollah warned that if the Israelis resorted to bombing the infrastructure of Lebanon that they would respond by rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Doesn't make it right, but the popular perception that Hizbollah suddenly started attacking Israeli civilian targets and then Israel responded by bombing Lebanon is simply wrong. Hizbollah attacked a purely military target and captured 2 Israeli soldiers. Israel then responded by bombing the hell out of Lebanon, killing hundreds of Lebanese civilians in the process.

A racist?

The purpose is to use them as a weapon of last resort. Say the US invaded Iran, hellbent on regime change. With nothing left to lose, they could fire them all off at Israel. Knowing that they had that sort of capability would make the US very wary of such a course of action.

You mean Ed was actually taken seriously at some point in the past?

I am not rooting on anyone. Believe it or not, this isn't actually some sort of game with a guaranteed win/lose outcome. It's quite possible everyone could turn out the loser.

Because if they did pass them on to terrorist organisations and this could be proved (or perhaps even suspected) the result would be the same as if they had used them themselves.

I would say that, far from decreasing the Iranian regime's chances of survival, acquiring an arsenal of nukes greatly increases it. I very much doubt that the US would have gone into Iraq had Saddam actually had functioning nukes. Similarly, there's very little speculation about force being used against North Korea precisely because it has nukes and the consequences of attacking it are therefore too severe to be contemplated.

I certainly don't think that's a given. You could have said the same about Stalin getting hold of nukes or about India and Pakistan getting nukes. All those things happened but the only country to have actually used them remains the US.

There are umpteen ways that it could blow up in your face. If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure I can be bothered trying to explain it to you.

And if you do something and it all blows up in your face, you'll be looking back thinking "geez, maybe we shouldn't have done something then".

No, I doubt the US would do that but, as the US is the main ally of Israel, I don't think they'd want to piss them off. An Israeli attack on Iran could have major implications for the US i.e. Iran closing off the Persian Gulf and/or stirring up trouble with the majority Shiite population in Iraq, and I think it's inconceivable that Israel would take such an act without fully consulting with Washington.

If they're going to get there by overflying Iraqi airspace then they definitely would need the permission of the US.

Thank you Sherlock. Actually it's quite possible they could have got them from Syria or even developed them themselves.

Likewise. We'll agree to differ.

? What happened three centuries ago?

Nope, I referred to "prior to the advent of zionism". Zionism, as a movement, got going in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and predates the second world war. The holocaust was not actually the first time Jews were persecuted in Europe.

Prior to the advent of zionism, I think it's fair to say that Jewish-Arab relations were far more harmonious than those between Jews and Christians, the latter feeling the need to massacre large numbers of the former from time to time.

Even so, I still don't believe that a majority of Arabs are anti-Jew so much as anti-Israel.

Perhaps you could have waited for my reply (ever heard of different time zones?) before you got out the pom-poms and started cheerleading