Researching my own comments on other threads here, I’ve found more interesting, rigorous essays by reading the sources cited by the wikipedia entries for both Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah.

The Washington Post article is a good place to start. It’s recent and is critical of Hezbollah while differentiating it from other Islamist movements.

From the Washington Post article:

Nevertheless, Nasrallah has only disdain for bin Laden and the Taliban. In April, an al-Qaeda cell in Lebanon tried to assassinate him. And the late al-Qaeda chief in Iraq this spring condemned the Shiite movement as an “enemy of the Sunnis” — ironically, in hindsight — for protecting Israel by preventing Palestinian attacks from Lebanon. “The worst, the most dangerous thing that this Islamic revival has encountered . . . was the Taliban,” Nasrallah told me. “The Taliban state presented a very hideous example of an Islamic state.”

Were they not a terrorist organization? Did any civil rights activists try to draw a distinction between their “military” and “political” wings?

That’s the difference between the 50’s era liberal activists, now labelled “neocons,” and the neo-liberal “progressives.”

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies— civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Interview With Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, CNN, March 16, 2003

MACVICAR: You talked about how during the days when American forces were in Beirut, people in the southern suburbs screamed “Death to America.” You went on to say, now with U.S. forces back in the region, “Death to America” was, is and shall remain our slogan, and not merely a slogan but a policy. How does Hezbollah intend to implement that policy?

NASRALLAH: in that same speech, I said, we don’t mean death to American people but death to the U.S. project in the region. We don’t want to kill. We did not launch attacks on U.S. grounds. We don’t want to kill Americans.

Good point.

Another example of a terror organization providing social services would be Mao Zedong’s revolutionaries fighting the western backed government in China.

Just because people make free handouts to gain public support doesn’t mean they don’t have malevolent motivations.

A terrorists lying to the infidel again. Few have forgotten about the 241 American PEACEKEEPERS the Hezb’Allah slaughtered in 1983 — with Iranian funding and organization btw.

Nasrallah can lie to the Europeans, but he isn’t convincing anyone here.

Source?

The Iraq farce is over. Bush and his neocon puppetmasters lost. Iraq lost, big time. If there’s a winner, it’s Iran — and the Kurds are going to come out pretty good. The only question remaining about the U.S. withdrawal is: How humiliating will it be? How politically disastrous for the neocons and the poor misguided lapdogs (e.g. Blair) who followed them?

This Israel/Hezbollah thing is a sideshow. Iraq remains. (Along with the real central problem in the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine question).

Source?”

Its basic history, Yhamir. You should know it, claiming to be so knowledgeable of history. Of course, you seem to discount or even ignore any information which does not fit in with your propaganda.

Tell you what; if I can find numerous sources, let’s say 5, showing you the Arab affiliation and even direct cooperation with the Nazis, will you admit publically that you are wrong, for all here to see, and apologize?

I’ll even include some non-web sources for you, if you like.

Moral relativism, ad hominem arguments and straw men are all our opponents, the allies of evil have to offer here. They are collaborators. My hope is that enough of them eventually cross the line to more active measures so that they can take long dirt naps or spend time in healthy country settings, breathing bracing air and doing honest work.

Anyway, what I intended to do after pasting that comment into my post, was to say: “I’m too lazy to look that up: would you please provide references for your proposition that the KKK was at least partly a benevolent society helping out those poor downtrodden southern whites.

I’m not denying what you say is true; but please provide backup. Did you know that the first soup kitchens for the poor in Depression-era Chicago were set up by Al Capone?

Can anybody please recommend an online community where left and right have respectful conversations?

Debate aside, I enjoy agitating the mouthfrothers.

Jeez, anonymous. I’m sure the wasp’s comments were made with the best intentions.

Can’t we all just get along?

Just in case.

Source?
Yhamir | 08.05.06 - 7:35 pm | #

From the Book I cited, which won the Los Angeles Time Book Prize in History, got positive reviews from the NY Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and Atlantic Monthly.

If you simply type in “Arabs and Hitler”, you’ll get plenty of hits.

Gee that was easy…next?

No one here is in the undecided category and that is where the struggle will take place. Rallying the faithful, convincing the undecideds and rousing the comatose from in front of their TV’s for periodic nose counting is where the real action takes place.

I’m retired and my political work in my congressional district is in a lull before, if the polls are accurate, we stand a chance of electing a Republican to the district for the first time in 35 years. I like to smite the unrighteous hip and thigh just to keep the invective machine running.

Debate? Two doors down on the right, room’s full of talkers and slackers, none of them with a clue. Me? I like Neo’s writing and use it to work on potential “Changers” like Neo was. Very effective too.

That’s the kind of punch prose that gets your message across.

I’m sorry, but “ESAD” is an acronym unknown to me. If you’re a member — just a guess — is it “Empire Association of the Dim”?

I’m sorry, but “ESAD” is an acronym unknown to me. If you’re a member — just a guess — is it “Empire State Association of the Dim”?

That’s what I meant. I’ve really got to proofread my stuff before hitting “Publish” — people might think I’m ill-educated.

Try not making a post in the first place; we’ll all feel a whole lot better.

Absolutely Weary.

Show me 5 sources -web and otherwise.

Thank you.

The 3 being me, Senescent, and Tequila.

So I can’t remove a post? OK. Thanks.

By Jonathan Finer, Molly Moore and Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 6, 2006; 7:54 AM

KFAR GILADI, Israel, Aug. 6 — Ten people, most of whom appeared to be Israeli reserve soldiers, were killed Sunday afternoon when a barrage of Katusha rockets fired by Hezbollah militants landed in a parking lot where the troops were gathered near this kibbutz on Israel’s northernmost tip, according to witnesses at the scene.

Gidon Giladi, the son of the founder of the kibbutz and a member of the emergency response team, raced to the scene after hearing the rockets land.

Giladi said Israeli reservists, who were preparing to move into Lebanon, used the parking lot just outside the yellow kibbutz gates as a staging area.

I also bet your life is a mess. Wouldn’t want to be you. Such a waste of oxygen.

Adam, that would be interesting if Katusha rockets were actually guided in some way to a target.

“In a report released Thursday, it accuses Israel of “a systematic failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians,” and of “serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

Kenneth Roth, executive director, writes: “We’ve all heard the Israeli government blame Hezbollah for the large number of civilian deaths. Hezbollah is placing its troops and matériel in the villages, the argument goes, so what can Israel do? …

“The problem with this … is that it doesn’t correspond with our research on the ground. Hezbollah has placed its troops and matériel near civilians, and sometimes civilians may have died as a result. But Human Rights Watch has investigated the circumstances of roughly half of the civilian deaths caused by Israeli bombing, and time after time it was clear that there was no Hezbollah around.

“So why is Israel bombing indiscriminately?

“Judging from the comments of its senior military officials, part of the reason is that, having issued evacuation warnings for southern Lebanon, Israel now assumes anyone left in that area is a combatant.

“But that is not factually correct: many people have been compelled to stay because they are old, infirm, unable to afford exorbitant taxi fares, or unwilling to risk travel on roads where many civilians have died. Many simply don’t want to leave their homes and possessions.

“But it is also not legally correct under the laws of war: Israel is to be commended for issuing warnings, but warnings do not absolve it of the duty to continue at all times to distinguish between civilians and combatants in launching attacks.

“If that were not true, Hamas might `warn’ all settlers to leave the settlements and treat those who remained as fair game for attack. Particularly disturbing is that there are some cases … in which the circumstances of the attack suggest that civilians were deliberately targeted. Clear civilian targets were attacked with no military justification. That is a war crime.”"

I got as far as “Human Rights Watch” and knew there was no reason to read further. Only an idiot believes anything those clowns say. Only an idiot…

Thanks for your thoughtful psychoanalysis, ‘Wasp. It’s as accurate as most of your posts.

Though Singapore or Hong Kong seems more likely, I’m considering offers from Las Vegas, NYC, and Washington D.C. — gasp! the belly of the beast! — so we’ll see. Hey, Yguy, ‘Wasp, et al, maybe we’ll be neighbours!

The polite thing to do would be to understand that you are not wanted and go. You start out OK and eventually, because of your illness, you go off the deep end with obscenity and overt provocation. It’s clear that you are only interested in disruption and provocation as well as the “look at me” thing. Sad you are.

Thank you.”

I show you 5 sources and you will do what, Yhamir? I want you to type it out yourself so we have no misunderstanding here. I want your guarantee you’ll own up.

When I caught you in a patently blatant lie in a previous thread, you ignored it.

I want to make sure you don’t repeat the performance and waste my time.

Isn’t this something that could be discussed calmly between “sides”?

It seems to me that it can’t, and the reason that it can’t is that the party of nuance is full of absolutists. There isn’t *room* for people to have different opinions because the right answer is so obvious. And so critical.

Could we agree on this statement… Some things are suited to resolution through negotiation and diplomacy while other things require the force of arms.

Yes? No?

Perhaps the difference is the belief that things are fragile vs. the belief that things are robust.

Or maybe it’s a combination. A discussion has to allow that different opinions can be held without dire consequences. If that’s not possible then it’s not possible to tolerate other opinions because not only must those opinions be wrong (and your opinions right) they must also be dangerous. How can people who disagree have a conversation if the ideas of the other person are considered actively dangerous?

And how can a discussion about the use of arms go on constructively if there is no agreement than war can *ever* have a good result or that war is *ever* necessary? In that case there is no point at all in talking about specific cases. People who favor war in this case might be persuadible that other means could be effective, but that’s only if the argument is actually case specific.

Those saying, (as an example), that Iraq is a disaster do not have credibility because there is no indication whatsoever in what they say that they could recognize within the chaos of war a situation that was *not* a disaster. What would “not a disaster” look like? An absence of strife is not realistic. Adhering to a tidy plan when faced with the messy reality that is humanity is a good way to get more of your soldiers killed. A tidy plan carried out in a tidy manner is not realistic.

So a litany of chaos and disaster proves nothing at all and is not persuasive.

At the *very* least, try for historical parallels on reconstruction or civil strife that eventually turned out well.

What situations should be fought for? Is this something that can be discussed productively? Or should the actual situation be ignored in order to discuss the question “should *anything* be fought for?”

Yes, but I wonder just how they conducted the investigations. How is “no Hezbollah around” defined? Would it be “no Hezbollah around” when HRW arrives – hours or days later? And how would HRW determine this – by perhaps interviewing bystanders? Did HRW expect Hezbollah to stick around to be interviewed? Or maybe Hezbollah did stay and were interviewed – but of course did not identify themselves as Hezbollah. Would interviewees be worried what might happen after the HRW investigators left – such as Hezbollah killing them if they tell the truth? Could interviewees be sympathetic to Hezbollah and therefore interested in blaming Israel?

And what is “time and time again”? Twenty percent? Fifty? I think there is a need for HRW to be a bit more specific in these pronouncements.

Furthermore, how did HRW get to these sites? We are being constantly told that civilians cannot get out of these places and are trapped because Israel has bombed the infrastructure – the roads, streets and bridges. Yet HRW can apparently slip in and out of war zones easily enough, just like the photographers, who take copious photos and videos. I wonder why just about anyone who wants to can freely come and go in these war zones except the civilians who live there. Strange.

I wonder, did HRW investigate the Mohamed al Dura incident? If so, did HRW detect that the Mohamed al Dura incident was staged? If HRW hasn’t investigated the Mohamed al Dura incident then I think HRW should. We could use their results to judge how well they conduct investigations in general.

To sum up: I’m suspicious of these investigations, suspect HRW to be tainted with bias and can’t really see how a proper investigation could be conducted in the middle of a war zone during a war.

Take a look at the following page:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746108.html

It’s the website of Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.

It says very clearly:

“HRW said it based its report on interviews with survivors of attacks, visits to blast sites and information from hospitals, aid groups, Lebanon’s government and the Israel Defence Forces.”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746108.html

My offense, by the way, appears to be not the content of my messages but the fact that I post three or four in a period of fifteen or twenty minutes. If that’s a violation of the TOS of any ISP on earth, it’ll come as a huge surprise to me.

- Ehud Olmert

Well if you can’t even be honest than we’d be wasting our time.

My comment was “it is Israel who is killing Lebanese civilians.”

That is a blatant lie?

A yes or no will be fine.

Post 5 sources as you claim you can.

You alreadly look a right twit by avoiding your own claim.

I said I would apologize if you can.

Simple. Get on with it. Stop playing games…..

So tell us what reasoning, evidence you’d offer for that assertion Mike…..

Since this comment thread has been superceeded and will soon fade away, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions.

You know you’ve been banned and you know that you have taken active measures to evade the ban by morphing your IP. You know that your views do not receive a “welcoming response”. You know that the tactics you use are not appreciated. But yet, you persist.

Why? I’d like to gain some insight into the mind of a troll. Is it a mission? Do you think you will gain converts to your views? Do you seek the negative attention?

BTW, the violations of TOS are rather more than repetitive posting and have been documented.

Oh, so you want to revisit that lie, now? Hokay.

First, not surprisingly, you misquote yourself. This is what your wrote:

“Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians - Israel is.

That is a fact.”

Statement of lie. Then reinforcement of that lie as fact. When I quoted you on this to point out it was a blatant lie, you then went on to affirm it AGAIN with:

“Ha. Only a true psychopath would call that a “blatant lie”.”

Of course, then your tried to change the subject, claiming I said Israel never killed any civilians, and then asking me to prove something I did not say. Typical.

You remembering all this, Yhamir?

So, yes, Yhamir; claiming Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians is a blatant lie. Now defend it. And don’t change the subject this time.

I’ll get to my sources as soon as we resolve this, AND I get that promise from you to apologize when I do. Remember, you asked for sources that Arabs were flirting with the Nazi regime. When I give them, I want you to admit you were wrong.

Can you handle that, or you want to give up now? You talk about playing games, but that’s all you got. Put up or shut up. I tire of you…

I guess the HRW ignored what the “Israel Defence Forces” said, for the IDF’s investigation found just the opposite(as seen in the quote below).

The comments came as the Israel Defense Forces released the results of an investigation into an air strike on a building in the southern Lebanese town of Qana, in which dozens of people were killed. The probe found that the IDF made a mistake, but charges that Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as shields for their rocket attacks.

Also, I’m wondering: How could the hospitals know that civilian casualties were incurred because the IDF deliberately targeted civilians? How would the hospitals be able to distinguish between deliberately targeted civilians and accidental casualties? Do the wounds look different?

And who were the “aid groups”? Were any of the “aid groups” around the sites when the bombs landed?

As for “Lebanon’s government,” pardon me, but any government that knowingly allows terrorists to become part of the government can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

Lastly, about the “survivors.” Was it perhaps the survivors who made the claim that 52 people were killed that later had to be adjusted down to 28? It’s funny, isn’t it, that when a ‘fact’(52 dead) can be accurately checked, it becomes “revised”.

I repeat: I don’t see how any kind of rigorous, unbiased investigation could possibly be carried out in a chaotic war zone during a war.
 

But, if it is a ‘blatant lie’ that Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians than post your proof.

And this is getting more than a bit boring….

Then please be bored somewhere else.

Please mind your own business like a good little troll.

I know, I know - don’t feed the trolls….sorry scentofawasp - my bad…..

I will, but first:

(which, incidently, if we’re going to be talking about ‘context’, was said to argue the point that it is Israel who is killing large numbers of civilians(and very little militants in ratio)and not Hezbollah(without precision-guided missles either).

Let’s get your wiggling and wriggling squashed first, Yhamir. Your statement did not mention relative numbers, did it? No.

“”Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians - Israel is.

That is a fact.”

No, it did not.

“”Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians”

Your words. Live up to them or skulk away. That fact that you are trying to backpeddle says volumes.

“But, if it is a ‘blatant lie’ that Hezbollah is not killing Lebanese civilians than post your proof.

Fine. My next post is long (sorry, Neo) so it is separate.

Murdering Lebanese civilians in cold blood, no trial. Call Amnesty International!

Passengers on board an evacuation ship told medical doctor Boris Buck from the German city of Munich that they had seen members of the Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah group or their sympathisers killing 18 Lebanese people during the night.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1974589,00.html

Using Lebanese civilians as human shields, over:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

and over:

http://blissstreetjournal.blogspot.com/2006/07/siege-of-mari.html

and over, again:

http://www.ouwet.com/n10452/editorials/free-ain-ebel-from-hezbollah-invasion/

As has been discussed, before, using civilians as human shields is against the Geneva Convention, and doing so makes those using them as such RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DEATHS.

Here’s some of both. Shooting people outright, and using them as human shields:

There is plenty of responsibility on both sides for yesterday’s killing of 65 Lebanese civilians sheltered in a building in the southern Lebanese town of Qana by an Israeli air strike. But the lion’s share of responsibility by far falls squarely into the hands of Hezbollah for triggering events whose outcome they did not predict, and for taking the initiative of war without having prepared Lebanon, its army, its civilian population and its government for the consequences of war.

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to

Those are my words. You are the one who brought context into the argument.

And seeing as you see that as important I felt the need to tell you what my intentions were as I wrote it - if that’s not evident. I made a point about Israel’s actions and world perception(that was the context - and the topic, if I’m not mistaken). And no - I didn’t write numbers - I assumed we all know the numbers and so the point would be self evident.

My mistake.

But thats not backpedeling - get on with it…

2)The human shield argument is quite void of any merit whatsoever - I’ve posted on this before. Regardless - firing missles from territory where there is civilians is not killing civilians. They are Israeli missles that have killed them. Hezollah Katuchyas that kill Israeli civilians are not the result of the Israeli Defense forces being in Israel, they are the result of Hezbollah firing them at Israel. No matter which we you put it - it is an impossiblity to argue that Hezbollah kills Lebanese civilians when they are Israeli missles that are doing it.

I thought you’d try something like that.

You really are a moron, Weary.

Did you fall on you head when you were a child?

Yes - this is true. Only the Human Shields argument according to the Geneva Convention doesn’t refer to civlians being killed by incoming missles from a foreign army - it refers to the practise of holding a civlian in front of you to use as a ’shield’ from bullets - a practise used almost solely by the IDF.

Wrong guy, wrong time, Weary.

Now slink back in your hole and come back when you find your brain…..

Ooh, looks like I hit a nerve.

Those are my words.

FINALLY, an admission of some sort!

You are the one who brought context into the argument.

Uh, no I did not, and anyone who wants to go back and look can see that. As for you and me, we know the truth, right Yhamir?

And seeing as you see that as important I felt the need to tell you what my intentions were as I wrote it - if that’s not evident. I made a point about Israel’s actions and world perception(that was the context - and the topic, if I’m not mistaken)…

More lies and obfuscation. You made a plain, but false statement and now you are trying to claim I misinterpreted you? Sorry, but I can read and can anyone who is reading this. Bad luck for you.

1)Spies are not civlians(you know that).

Wow! Not only do do you know, for a fact, that Hezbollah has not killed any civilians, AND you know that all 18 of those people were definitely spies who deserved to die. I guess based on that logic, Israel should just declare every civilian killed as Hezbollah.

Oh, and I like how you ignored the incidents like the bombings. Guess all those Lebanese standings around those American embassies were spies too, huh?

2)The human shield argument is quite void of any merit whatsoever - I’ve posted on this before.

Well, if you posted it, it must be true, nomatter what the Geneva Convention says.

I thought you’d try something like that.

What? Use logic and facts and your very own words against you? Yes, I am a bastard like that.

You really are a moron, Weary.

Did you fall on you head when you were a child?

I’ll take that second and third round of weak insults as proof that I hit that nerve. Sounds sore.

Silly. All you had to do is say, when I first caught you was, “Okay, I overstated that, but…”

But know, you are a zealot just like I had you pegged, and I proved it. You KNOW I proved it to because you’ve gotten quite snippy, have you not.
Have a nice day, Troll.

He will reappear, probably, since he seem to have either technical help in avoiding filters or those who are paying him give the ability to him.

Thank you, you are right. But, you know, these Trolls are like zombies. You THINK they are dead and then…

Are you saying the Katusha rockets would have been aimed at another target if not for the reservists?

You can’t have it both ways. Katushas don’t have the accuracy to descriminate. IDF weapons have the accuracy, and IDF makes the effort to spare civilians. But Islamic terrorists make sure they fire from locations that maximise the suffering of the Lebanese civilians when the IDF returns fire.

I’m just going on the post that you provided.

Again, moron(I’m not upset in the least Dreary - it’s just that I truly think you are a moron; there’s simply no other explanation)the deal was you show that Hezbollah kills ‘Lebanese civilians’.

You didn’t do that.

But you did demonstrate clearly, for those who could be bothered to follow this nonsense - that you are,

1)a liar

2)stupid

3)a welcher(is that what you yanks would call it? anyway, you get the idea).

How-hum. Another day, another neocon floundering in denial and defeat….

Wow wasp.

You are ill mate.

Get some help…..