Terrorist leader calls for jihad against US in order to elect Democrats

The secretary-general of Hezbollah called for attacks against Americans in order to remove the Bush administration and elect Democrats who, he says, would withdraw American forcres from Iraq.

Points to debate (along with my opinions):

1. Is Nasrallah’s strategy reasonable? Unfortunately, I think it is. Continuing terror attacks against Americans could hurt Bush’s chances for re-election. Dean and several other leading Democrats have made statements indicating opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy.

2. Are anti-war comments by these leading Democrats encouraging the murder of Americans in the middle east? Evidently the answer is Yes, whether one likes it or not.

3. In view of this impact, should Democratic leaders be more careful of what they say? I think Democratic Presidential candidates would be well-advised to take a line saying that whatever their differences with Bush, if elected they would fully committed to the Iraqi occupation.

4. If comments by Democratic leaders are serving to encourage America’s enemies, do these comments constitute treason? Not at all IMHO. It’s an unfortunate side-effect of free speech.

5. Should Dean and others apologize to the families of slain servicemen, since their comments encouraged the attacks against them? Yes.

6. Is it appropriate to note and debate whether anti-war Democratic statements serve to encourage some terrorists? Absolutely. These statements are protected free speech, but we needn’t be in denial about their adverse consequences.

And to think they banned Collounsbury.

Deep, deeeeep sigh

You’re fucking kidding, right?

Dean says, “Let’s not send our troops into harm’s way without the support of the international community!” and he should apologize to the troops, but Bush says, “Bring 'em on!” and he doesn’t need to apologize?

Obviously, Nasrallah is playing games. He knows that a Democratic leader would work with Palestinians and Israelis and come up with a compromise that would lessen the Palestinian support for terrorists like himself; so he makes comments designed for American consumption, designed to paint Democrats as his allies, so that Americans will vote in favor of Bush.

Bush owes us all an apology.

Tell me, December, that you’re fucking kidding me.


December, I recently threw a fit elsewhere at people agreeing with Anne Coulter that Democrats and liberals are committing treason.

This is perhaps the most despicable thing I’ve ever seen.

In short, to prevent Arab dictators from instituting terrorist attacks on the U.S., you would suppress American freedom to disagree with the person in office?

Fine – you have just called for an dictatorship in America.


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If the board didn’t show OP’s names, would it have been necessary to guess who wrote this? Hell, no. [/Rummyspeak]

In other words, Latro,your opinion on #6 is NO, being in denial should be required. Perhaps you’d like the moderators to remove the link and quotes in the OP to be certain that nobody here reads them. :wink:

December, how do you respond to the quite credible charge of treason that has been lodged against you?

Anyone who votes Republican at the next election should apoligize to the families of slain soldiers as it is clear that Nasarellah will kill American soldiers until George Bush is out of office.

:confused: You have misrepresented what I wrote. Please calm down.

I said the comments I disapproved of were “Not at all” treasonous. I said, “These statements are protected free speech.”

It’s ridiculous to assume that people whose country has been invaded by a foreign power would not be resisting, or would be putting up less resistance, “but for” anti-war comments by the opposition party in the invading power. It is, however, a great way for the leader of the invading power to tar his domestic opposition as supporters of those killing native sons and daughters.

Interesting to note that the quoted article, despite what december would like it to say, does not in any way mention Democrats. I mean, the implication is there, but if Pat Buchanan were to successfully challenge Bush from the right (which he still has a chance to do), he would probably withdraw the troops from Iraq faster than any Democrat because he is an isolationist in a way that none of the Democrats presently running are.

You mean, like “Bring 'em on!”?

This is just beyond the pale. December, please cite me the line in the article that you linked to that has this guy saying anything about Democrats.

December is now taking the leaders of Hamas at their word, eh? Brilliant strategy as always, comrade. This might be the most absurd and insulting post I’ve ever seen from you, and I hope you appreciate what an achievement that really is.

Because, you know, they HAD planned to stop doing terrorist attacks. They were gonna stop and never attack America again. But THEN they realized it might hurt Bush and decided to continue. :stuck_out_tongue:

Occupation? Oh dear, I thought it was a liberation. :wink: I can’t recall any of the Democrats saying they’d immediately withdraw the troops, however, so I don’t think this is relevant.

But Bush shouldn’t apologize for sending them, right?

So when I vote Democrat in '04 I’ll be supporting terrorism? And I thought linking smoking pot to 9/11 was way over the top.

Terror attacks are the best hope Republicans have going for them. You know it and I know it. Republicans are better at the popular post tragedy response of mindless flag waving and simplistic feel good military interventions. No way in hell a non-incumbent Democrat will win if that happens.

Deep down inside, Republicans WANT terror attacks to happen because it will help their re-election chances. Notice how they invaded a middle eastern country that was zero threat to us, which is bound to piss off terrorists. And they cut the sky marshal program in response to new credible threats to airline security

For Gods sake, they tried to set up a Terrorism Futures program (participation would be kept confidential and not shared with other agencies) so that terrorists would be encouraged to make money on bets they MAKE happen.

Maybe in Hezbollah or December fantasy land. But in real life the Democrats aren’t just going to immediately pull out of Iraq and let chaos reign.

*Originally posted by jeevmon *
It’s ridiculous to assume that people whose country has been invaded by a foreign power would not be resisting, or would be putting up less resistance, “but for” anti-war comments by the opposition party in the invading power.['quote]Maybe it’s a quibble, but Nasrallah is not Iraqi. He’s the leader of the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas

This is true, but it’s a double-edged sword. Because this sort of attack is so powerful, it’s considered improper to use it or even hint at it. Hence the vilification my OP and of me by some who appear not to have read the cited article or even read the full OP.

Appreciate your acknowledging that point.

Fair point, as far as it goes. There’s no reasonable chance that Buchanan will get the Republican nomination. Buchanan isn’t on the news, so his positions haven’t influenced Hisbollah leaders.

I do think there’s something to your first point. If Democrats were quiet about Iraq policy, Nasrallah might well have said the same anti-bush things. That’s why I said it’s in the best interests of the country that Democratic candidates “take a line saying that whatever their differences with Bush, if elected they would fully committed to the Iraqi occupation.”

  1. I think that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is misguided. I don’t think that Dems would pull out of Iraq. He has a gross misunderestimation of the American political process.

  2. No. The presence of American troops in the ME is encouraging attacks on US troops in the ME.

  3. Mu

  4. Mu

  5. Mu

  6. Only if someone seriously believes that these statements have any signifigant or even noticeabl effect. And then the debate should consist merely of a series of short, sharp shocks to the head of the person who belives such.

Jeevmon got it right. Removing Bush from office does not equate to electing Democrats.

Saying that Dean should apologize is a non sequitur. Unless you require that Bush apologize first. After all, we have no idea how many, if any, soldiers are killed due to Dean’s comments, but we can be certain that all the soldiers died due to decisions made by Bush.

“Mu” ??? As in “Does Karl Rove have Buddha-essence?”