AUSPOL: Bunnings snags are a human right!

[Batakhovia]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

[Kaumudeen]

I am glad someone brought this up, since I have been wanting an opportunity to talk about polices surrounding 'designated terrorist groups' in general for a while. The listing of terrorist organizations is arbitrary and subject to little judicial review. It is mainly up to the whim of the government of the day and what their policies are.

For example the Taliban was listed as a terrorist group by the US from 2001-2015, and delisted when the US wanted negotiate with them.
Another example is the People's Mujahideen of Iran (MEK), which most Western countries considered a terrorist group from the 1970s till the late 2000s, when Western policy switched to trying to conduct regime change in Iran, and pressure from Iranian exiles forced their hand.
The most blatant example is how the ANC was considered a terrorist group by the US until 2008, a relic of the American policy to placate the Apartheid regime.

My point is that what groups are considered terrorists by governments is subjective. It very rarely has an objective basis as has been proven in both democratic and authoritarian countries.

[Mercov]

"Terrorism" is a morally neutral term. Hezbollah, French Partisans and the American Revolutionary Army are/were by definition terrorist organizations. But we would consider those last 2 better then Hezbollah. Why? Because of the actions they engage in and the opponent they are resisting. I like the french Partisans because they were fighting against the Nazis, and for democracy. I dislike Hezbollah because they are, at worst apathetic to Jewish peoples lives. And at worst genocidal. 'Terrorism' is just the act of violence for a political goal. We wouldn't like, be against Soviet Partisans in Ukraine and Belarus because they engage in political terror, would we?

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

"Terrorism" is a morally neutral term. Hezbollah, French Partisans and the American Revolutionary Army are/were by definition terrorist organizations. But we would consider those last 2 better then Hezbollah. Why? Because of the actions they engage in and the opponent they are resisting.

The FFI were fighting against the Nazis and a regime that was too busy kowtowing to them to a country.

[Stellar Colonies]

Australia’s reasoning for classifying them as a terrorist organization is laid out here.

Slipperiness of the label “terrorist” aside, I find it to be a reasonable argument.

[Kaumudeen]

Australia’s reasoning for classifying them as a terrorist organization is laid out here.

Slipperiness of the label “terrorist” aside, I find it to be a reasonable argument.

Nearly all their reasons pertain to attacks on military personnel. Quite unreasonable.

[Mercov]

Australia’s reasoning for classifying them as a terrorist organization is laid out here.

Slipperiness of the label “terrorist” aside, I find it to be a reasonable argument.

If you think Hezbollah (Never seen it spelled 'Hizballah' before) is not a terrorist organizations, you are flatly wrong. But that isn't why I dislike it. But you are probably responding to a different thing-

[Kaumudeen]

Australia’s reasoning for classifying them as a terrorist organization is laid out here.

Slipperiness of the label “terrorist” aside, I find it to be a reasonable argument.

If you think Hezbollah (Never seen it spelled 'Hizballah' before) is not a terrorist organizations, you are flatly wrong. But that isn't why I dislike it. But you are probably responding to a different thing-

Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So this is basically like calling the French Resistance or SWAPO terrorist groups.

[Mercov]

If you think Hezbollah (Never seen it spelled 'Hizballah' before) is not a terrorist organizations, you are flatly wrong. But that isn't why I dislike it. But you are probably responding to a different thing-

Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So this is basically like calling the French Resistance or SWAPO terrorist groups.

Those are terrorist groups. They do acts of terror.

[Ifreann]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Seems to me that a politician ought to be able to explain why a group is classified as a terrorist organisation rather than accusing journalists who question them on that matter of supporting the terrorists.

[Kaumudeen]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Seems to me that a politician ought to be able to explain why a group is classified as a terrorist organisation rather than accusing journalists who question them on that matter of supporting the terrorists.

Yeah but politicians love to make bad-faith arguments instead of doing their job.

[Batakhovia]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Seems to me that a politician ought to be able to explain why a group is classified as a terrorist organisation rather than accusing journalists who question them on that matter of supporting the terrorists.

I completely agree. "Because we said so" is not a sufficient response.

[Askio]

Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So this is basically like calling the French Resistance or SWAPO terrorist groups.

It's a terrorist group because it's islamist, otherwise it would have been delisted over time like the PLO

[Liberal Malaysia]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Looks like the ABC, like the BBC, has been infiltrated by woke antisemites and should be privatized and publicly defunded. What a disgrace.

[Kaumudeen]

Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So this is basically like calling the French Resistance or SWAPO terrorist groups.

It's a terrorist group because it's islamist, otherwise it would have been delisted over time like the PLO

That statement makes no sense.

[Untecna]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Looks like the ABC, like the BBC, has been infiltrated by woke antisemites and should be privatized and publicly defunded. What a disgrace.

Another day, another Liberal Malaysia post calling for fascist policy.

[Untecna]

Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So this is basically like calling the French Resistance or SWAPO terrorist groups.

It's a terrorist group because it's islamist, otherwise it would have been delisted over time like the PLO

Hezbollah is a terrorist group because it commits terrorist acts.

Australia’s reasoning for classifying them as a terrorist organization is laid out here.

Slipperiness of the label “terrorist” aside, I find it to be a reasonable argument.

Nearly all their reasons pertain to attacks on military personnel. Quite unreasonable.

Terrorist acts against a military probably justify that classification even more. Jeez, could you go one day without simping for terror?

[Batakhovia]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Looks like the ABC, like the BBC, has been infiltrated by woke antisemites and should be privatized and publicly defunded. What a disgrace.

Another day, another Liberal Malaysia post calling for fascist policy.

We're just an inconvenient language barrier away from hearing "lügenpresse" being shouted out by hasbara trolls.

[Kaumudeen]

Nearly all their reasons pertain to attacks on military personnel. Quite unreasonable.

Terrorist acts against a military probably justify that classification even more. Jeez, could you go one day without simping for terror?

Military targets are fair game under international law. There is no such thing as a terrorist attack against a military target.

How do I simp for terror? Sounds like more of a Western thing based on their response to the war in the middle east.

[Untecna]

'What makes Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?': ABC journalist torched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during heated press conference

In the aftermath of the recent protest over the war in Gaza, and the bipartisan support for the prosecution of attendees who were seen waving Hezbollah flags in response to the pager attacks in Lebanon, Petter Dutton has been at loggerheads with ABC journalist Anushri Sood over Australia's classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation after the latter questioned the legitimacy of the classification by the government. Mr. Dutton commented the following:

"Hezbollah, under Australian law, is a listed terrorist organisation. Now if the ABC doesn’t support that, they should be very clear about it, [...] If that is not clear to the ABC, then the ABC is in even more trouble than I first imagined."

What are your guys thoughts on this? Was Anushri Sood right to raise this question? And was Peter Dutton's response sufficient?

Frankly, the way the question is phrased makes it sound like a clarifying item for people unfamiliar with the Middle East as they read the story. Sounds like Dutton doesn't understand the purpose of journalism very much.

[Untecna]

Military targets are fair game under international law. There is no such thing as a terrorist attack against a military target.

How do I simp for terror? Sounds like more of a Western thing based on their response to the war in the middle east.

If the Proud Boys were to attack a U.S. soldier, would that not be domestic terror?

You actively support Hamas and Hezbollah. I think that says enough.

[Askio]

It's a terrorist group because it's islamist, otherwise it would have been delisted over time like the PLO

That statement makes no sense.

It does, Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which is responsible for most of the world's casualties from terrorism

[Untecna]

That statement makes no sense.

It does, Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which is responsible for most of the world's casualties from terrorism

And Islamaphobia on the first page, wonderful.

[Batakhovia]

Military targets are fair game under international law. There is no such thing as a terrorist attack against a military target.

How do I simp for terror? Sounds like more of a Western thing based on their response to the war in the middle east.

If the Proud Boys were to attack a U.S. soldier, would that not be domestic terror?

You actively support Hamas and Hezbollah. I think that says enough.

I feel this is a bad example to give, as the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to forcefully abolish the government if it unlawfully abandons the Constitution and assumes an alternative form of governance.

[Kaumudeen]

That statement makes no sense.

It does, Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which is responsible for most of the world's casualties from terrorism

There are many Islamist groups that are not considered terrorist groups, that is what I was referring to.

Years ago most of the groups on those lists were communist, past five years most of the groups added to such lists have been White Supremacist. Terrorist lists are just a convenience for governments to point fingers at someone.