Talk:Hassan Nasrallah/Archive 1

Signifigant paragraph deleted!

On August 19, the following entry was deleted from the article:

Views on Jews:
The scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb quotes Nasrallah describing his view of Jews: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli".

This is not insignificant. Rather than delete it, it would be preferable to retain the entry while changing the title to: "Racist views against Jews".

The entry says that Nasrallah failed to hit Tel-Aviv although he threatened to do so, but the truth is that he threatened to strike Tel-Aviv only if the IDF hit Beirut Proper, which was not hit, therefore Nasrallah did not try to attack Tel Aviv. "Beirut Proper" means the central city of Beitut, not the suburbs of Beirut (which were heavily bombarded). If Nasrallah wanted to hit Tel-Aviv he could, if not with rockets then by suicide bombings which Hezbollah are very capable of doing but did not do during the subject conflict, probably because it would have caused instant political defeat for Hezbollah. Suicide bombings deep into Israel is probably something that Hezbollah would resort to only as a last resort, if all their other weapons were destroyed for example, but that would require numerous escalations. I am a newbie, so bear with me.

Lappin, Elena, "The Enemy Within", The New York Times, 2004-05-23. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. ^ Staff Editorial. "Nasrallah's Nonsense", New York Sun, 2005-03-11. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. ^ Eradication First - Before Diplomacy by Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, July 17, 2006

These are cited references. This gives an utmost certainty of the article being biased. Hassan Nasrallah is still alive and respected by millions of individuals throughout the Muslim world. We cannot yet call him genocidal and compare him with Adolf Hitler. It is the western label of him as a terrorist. He is a legitimate political force in Lebanon. He is not intent on ruling the world. He is intent on protecting the Lebanese borders (see www.memritv.org)

I am labeling this site as biased. ~Wishinspanish, august 2006

Nasrallah was born and raised in Burj Hammoud, the armenian quarter of bairuth and not in the southern part. Wikipedia needs to correct this part in his biography.

Views on Jews

This section of the article reads " During another appearance on Al-Manar on February 23, Nasrallah praised a leading European Holocaust denier, David Irving, for having “denied the existence of gas chambers.” " <-- This is simply untrue. Nasrallah was NOT "praising" Irving. That speech was given on the heels of the publications of the Danish newspaper cartoons that insulted the Prophet Mohammad and infact, right after the Samarrah bombing incident in Iraq. Nasrallah's point was that Irving, who published what he did with regard to the holocaust was not afforded full "freedom of speech" and was jailed despite having retracted his comments during the course of his trial because he denied aspects of the holocaust, where as the publisher and cartoonist and editor of the newspapers that published those cartoons which Muslims worldwide took offense to, enjoyed "freedom of speech" and used that as their excuse to insult the Prophet of Islam. Nasrallah was NOT praising Irving at all, and infact his comments have nothing to do with his "views on Jews" but rather his views on the hypocrisy of the Western world and the concept of "freedom of speech."

Furthermore, this section also states " "Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust," said Nasrallah on April 9, 2000. " This section is miquoted (or mistranslated to be more precise). Here is an accurate translation of that entire section of Nasrallah's speech:

"The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities. It is clear that the numbers they talk about are greatly exaggerated. They can speak of fabricated or exaggerated massacres that occurred during the Second World War, but we must forget the massacres that they committed against us and the peoples of the region which are documented and proven..."

First of all, Nasrallah never used the term "holocaust" (or its Arabic equivilant hareeqah rather). Second of all, his continuation clarifies the context of his comments. He was NOT denying the actuall happening of the holocaust but rather saying that certian aspects of its severity or magnitude are "greatly exaggerated" and contrasting this with the proven and documented atrocities and massacres that are taking place in the Arab world. Again, this has very little to do with his personal "views on Jews" and rather has to do with what he sees as hypocrisy and double standards towards certian aspects of relatice similtude when you are dealing with a Westerner or a Jew on one hand compared with a Muslim or an Arab on the other.

As for the citation that is used, it is undeniable that the opinionated, heavily biased, and innacurate nature of Steven Stalinsky's articles do not in any may meet Wikipedia's standards for authentic and credible citations on which facts are supported. Stalinsky has made a career out of his pro-Zionist writing, and here he is commenting (or rather spreading innacuracies and lies) about the head of an anti-Zionist movement.

In addition, I would also like to bring into question the section where Amal Saad-Ghorayeb supposedly quotes Nasrallah. This "quote" is taken from her book Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. The supposed "quote" appears on page 170 of her book and if you follow the footnotes, she writes that it is this quote is taken from Mohammad Fneish who allegedly "heard" Nasrallah saying so, and related this to her. So basically, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb never heard Nasrallah say any such thing, and infact Mohammad Fneish himself has vehemenantly denied hearing or relating any such thing from Nasrallah to Amal Saad-Ghorayeb. This basically dissolves Ghorayeb's claims of any authenticity or reliability, and this type of citation does not in any way meet wikipedia's standards. Thus, I think that it is quite clear that this section of the article is clearly biased, innacurate, and needs to be removed. ~~Mirsad, 15 August, 2006.

Drsmoo 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)The holocaust is as proven as proven can be buddy.

Open war

On July 14th, 2006 Hassan Nasrallah stated:

"We are ready for it -- war, war on every level,"[1]

He did not make an open declaration of war against Israel. He only alluded to the fact that it's Israel's decision on where this situation is going end.Ddahlberg 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo

..."prisoners being freed and bodies of returned to"...

 Bodies of what?

The EU and the listing of terrorist organizations

According to the ynetnews source provided, the European parliament vote cited was a non-binding resolution; it did not compel or move the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Unless someone has a newer source that this has been reversed. Tarc 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that the United Nations called on all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband. "Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia." ... Hezaballah supporters in the UN are the Arabs, communists and the socialist South Americans. Oh, and the United States list Hezbollah and Nasrallah as terrorists. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"the United States list Hezbollah and Nasrallah as terrorists." Means nothing. The US still use torture on enemy combatants easilyforgotten 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, BUSH IS A TERRORIST DICTATOR !

help support

Lenin,

Stalin,

Mao,

Pol Pot,

Ayatollah,

Jiang Zemin,

Kim Jong-il,

Arafat,

Assad,

Saddam,

against, uh, terrorism... Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, if we can avoid the Bush-bashing and get back to the actual section topic, please. The way that the article was written;

"a group classified as a terrorist organization by several governments, including the United States and the European Parliament "

is misleading. The European Parliament is the legislative body of the EU' it is not on the same level as a "government" as the US is. This would be the equivalent of saying that a resolution passed by the US Senate it on par with a law signed in by Tony Blair. At this point, I am not even sure if this information is even relevant until the EU itself acts on the resolution. Tarc 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

this is imposible ..! Bush defend of the terrorists! Bush, nab a terrorists not support the terrorists.. Your thought is incorrect !!

Really quick, you can't support Ayatullah, since that's not a person, just a title. It's like saying "Help support Tony Blair, President, and Ehud Olmert bomb small children!" Also, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Arafat, Pol Pot, etc... are most certainly dead.

Atomsprengja 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just add Bush to that short list [and has anyone else noticed that more than few of those names are there either as a result of US actions or because they were directly put in power by the US?]. And since you are so concerned about terrorism then surely you must be deeply troubled about the terrorists living in comfortable retirement in Miami - such as Orlando Bosch ("unrepentant terrorist." - Attorney General Dick Thornburgh) and Luis Posada Carriles to name only two - whom the US refuses to hand over to the proper authorities to face justice. LamontCranston 04:37, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah does not live in South Beirut anymore

Hi.

Nasrallah does NOT lives in South Beirut anymore and the house does not exists anymore.

this happend in the past few days.

Obviously, but it's not the crucial point in this present crisis where H. N. lives or what is his current address. If you do know this please add it to the article, otherwise any comments are unuseful. IMRE 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adding his current address would be most useful - maxim

---

You seem to be sure that he does NOT live in his previous address anymore and I wonder what makes you so sure. Therefore, that "credible" source you have must possess the information on his current whereabouts. One question though, what would his current address be most useful for? unless it was for certain purposes which I think is irrelevant to this article or probably would serve some personal interest of the "person" or group/organisation who posted this message.

Mak

Clarification on UNSCR 1559

Paragraph four under "Leadership of Hezbollah" states that "UN Resolution 1559, calls for the withdrawal of non-Lebanese forces (i.e. Syria), which some say does not apply to Hezbollah because it is a legitimate political party in Lebanon holding 23 seats." This suggests that the entire resolution may be inapplicable to Hezbollah, which is patently false. UNSCR 1559 also calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." This includes Hezbollah as well as the remaining Palestinian militias that operate both in and outside of the major Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. UNSCR 1559 also refers, albeit obliquely, to Hezbollah in calling for "the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." Hezbollah maintains de facto control over much of south Lebanon, where the group boasts a supportive political constituency and maintains an armed presence.

Suggest changing sentence one of paragraph four of this section to:

UN Resolution 1559 calls for the "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" and "the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." This refers directly to Hezbollah whose military wing, as an armed force not controlled by the Lebanese government, constitutes a militia. Hezbollah also maintains de facto control over parts of south Lebanon, preventing the government and from exercising a monopoly of force within the country and asserting its control over Lebanon's southern border with Israel.

This article appears to be strongly biased - at the very least this sentence needs to be changed. I have never heard anyone argue before that UNSCR 1559 does not apply to Hezbollah. If one were to claim that it does not because Hezbollah holds 23 seats in the Lebanese government, that would imply that Hezbollah constitutes an official army of Lebanon or the Lebanese government. However, no one, not even the Lebanese government takes this position, as Lebanon has frequently requested a cease-fire in the ongoing conflict with the claim that it does not in any way control Hezbollah and is therefore not responsible for its attacks on Israel. --LostInTranslation 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed, tried to edit, but it appears protected. -- Le Centre, Centrerion Canadian Politics - centrerion.blogspot.com

The Lebanese government has said that Hezbollah is a national resistance movement and not a militia (direct quote from prime minister) and so 1559 does not apply to hezbollah.

Photo of Nasrallah

Can we please find a photo of Nasrallah? Using a photo of a billboard is inappropriate for a few reasons, including 1) it is a photo of a painting, and therefore it's accuracy is suspect. and 2) the painting used is a glorification billboard commonly seen in the middle-east and to use it as Wikipedia's sole representation of the man violates the article's neutral POV.

If there was a normal photo of the man at the top with a caption of his name, and then lower down there was an image of this billboard explaining about where the billboard was and about these forms of propaganda - that would be fine.

--Drewson99 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is far beyond neutral.

I've never seen Wikipedia praise a terrorist so much in my life. This article needs to be re-written with sources of info other than al-bawaba and the Washington post. The Washington post which has been proven to be biased by giving known terrorists op/ed space and one of its columnists calling Israel a "mistake" and urging them to to lay down and take attacks and hope the attacks eventually end. Whether you agree with their stance or not, you must admit, this article is NOT objective and NOT neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

This article must be re-written or I will personally expose wikipedia for its terrorist supporting. At very least, allow other people access to the article so they contest it with POV tags.

• • • Firstly, how do you define terrorism? Ask yourself that simple question when you apply it to others. Secondly, I agree the article needs some critical debate- you however, do not seem quite up for this. What you count as "objectivity" basically means name-calling and broad-brushing. I think "neutral" for you, is if Wikipedia was written by Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post editors. Thirdly, get this "Israel is the nobel light in the Arab darkness" BS out of your head- Israel has done far worse to the Arabs than the Arabs have done back.

--Jason

Wow Jason, you're an idiot. "Israel has done far worse to the Arabs than the Arabs have done back". Lets have a quick review of middle-eastern history since 48. 1948: Israel declares independence in the areas specificed by the UN partition resolution. Result: Arab states and people attack the nascent jewish state in order to "push every jew into the sea" (comment from the grand mufti of jerusalem). 1956: Egpyt blockades Israeli ports and fires on civilian ships flying israeli flag. result: Britain France and Israel put the Egyptians back in their place and restore modicum of stability to the region. 1967: Arab states yet again attempt to destroy the jewish state and are really caught with their pants down. A complete routing of Egpyt, Syria and Jordan (not to mention the other arab states which contributed soldiers). UN resolution 242, basically outlines land for peace deal (which arabs reject outright in their 3 No's speech, no recognition, no negotiation and NO PEACE). 1973, Arabs yet again try to destroy israel by attacking on the holiest day of the jewish year (need i point out what would have happened had the jews attacked a symbol of islam? where is the outrage here?) The jewish state nearly looses, but eventually turns the tide and wins again. 1982, PLO using lebanon (lebanese civilians always seem to get screwed by their so called "heroes") bombard northern israel. Israel makes it to Beirut in 6 days. That does if for open wars... now lets turn to the arabs next tactic: terrorism and deliberate targeting of civilians (i guess they realized that fighting fair and legally meant enduring loss after loss) Suicide bombing violates every tenet of international law and humanity. It deliberately targets innocents, and its success is measured by how many women and children it kills. Moving along to more current events, kidnapping and rockets/shelling... Hezbollah violates even the precepts of the geneva convention (of which i assure you they were never meant to be protect under) by deliberatly shelling civilian areas and making no effort to distinguish themselves from lebanese civilians... in fact they deliberatly hid amongst civilians guaranteeing that they would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation. Let me boil it down for you Jason.... If arab terrorists and militias lay down their weapons and made it clear that they would not attack israel, israel would not retaliate and the violence would stop. Now, if the Israelis laid down their weapons and made it clear they would make no effort to defend themselves, it would be open season on israel (civilians first, military second based on history). Israel will rightly continue to defend itself against the very real existential threat posed to it by islam and its arab neighbours. Only negotiation can achieve a just settlement for the palestinians. As for lebanon, the UN already agrees that Israel is not occupying any lebanese territory, anyone who believes otherwise is buying into islamist propoganda. As for syria, makea peace deal and watch how fast you get the golan back. Land for Peace... its been the standing offer since 67.... signed AlexiKobayashi

Like any wiki article, there is always room for improvement. But as it is now, it is an objective description of a man's life. The Wikipedia is not here to pass judgement, or to suit your own POV desires. And please, sign your name to posts with a simple ~~~~. Tarc 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As Tarc said, "alway room for improvement". Can you be more specific about which paragraphs/sections of the article you object to and why? Nick Fraser 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/ Tarc and Nick. By the way, before stating that we are "praising a terrorist", how do you consider the subject as a terrorist? -- Szvest 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article does not praise Nasrallah. In fact, I belive that Israel is being praised as correct in going after him. The reason I believe that Nasrallah is not a terrorist is because he is merely fighting for the land that belonged to his people before the advent of Israel. The land was Arabic and should be controlled by the people originally in the region. Btw, I am not Arabic, Middle-eastern, or Muslim. I have no affiliations that influence my view. -- Arjun 16:13, 22 July 2006

One problem. The land belongs to Syria and not "his people" (Lebanonese people? Syrian people? Iranian people? Muslims? Hezbollah activists?) and that is a UN decision. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far from neutral. Nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Nasrallah has created dozens of hospitals, orphanages and schools in Lebanon. I believe that humanitatian aspect of his work should be included in the page. The United States does not get to call a group "terrorists" because they dissagree with their views. I also feel the need to point out the Nassrallah condems Bin-Ladin and the Sep. 11 attaks on America. Isreal invaded this man's country, it is appropriate and correct that he defend it from those seeking expansion.

Hitler had also a very effecient social programe, somehow this programe also were marginalized compared to the Nazipartis crimes, the same with Hizbollah, it doesnt help you do one thing good, when the outcome is the goal to destroy Israel and attack cross-border, despite Israel had not occupied any lebanese land.

Comparing Hitler to Nasrallah is absurd. In the case of Nasrallah "his good actions" overpass his "bad actions", of course, relatively. Nasrallah has not started a war which costed 60 million lives nor started an ethnical cleansing campaing, in fact his intentions are not even inspired by ethnical hatred. It's very easy to immediately compare Israel's arab enemies to Hitler in order to defend a pro-Israeli point of view and justofy Israel's actions but is far from accurate, appropiate or pertinent not to mention real. Some people can call someone "antisemitic" just if that person says "I don't agree with what Israel is doing", specially within Jewish communities. I'm of Jewish descent myself (I do not practice the religion), nearly 20 members of my family live in Israel. I have heard lots of people within Jewish communities say that arabs should be exterminated... doesn't that remind of something done betqeen 1933 and 1945?. I do not support Nasrallah, but I think it is categorically wrong to compare him with Hitler and his movement to an antisemitic one. Also don't forget that Israel did invade Lebanon in 1981-82, if i'm not mistaken, during operation "Peace for Galilee" and that Hezbollah's origin is found within Israel's strikes to Lebeanon. Denying Israel's "culpaibility" on the issue is as well wrong. The greatest portion of mass-media is focused on portraying Israel as a martyr-heoric state while it also commits attrocities, which, given Israel's military power, affect even a larger number of people that the actions perpetrated by the arabs. Due to this I find it necesary that both sides of the story are taken into account and that, not only because Nasrallah attacks the "favourite" one is his image or the image of Hezbollah distorted in order to favour or justify Israel's actions. - ZealotKommunizma

Fist: someone who's deliberately targeting civilians in a military conflict is, and should be considered as, a terrorist. Second: Nasrallah has called to extermination of Jews, so comparing him to Nazi has valid grounds. Third: Yes Israel invaded Lebanon. But after attacs on Israeli territory from Lebanon. The history didn't begin in 1982, please do some research before lecturing others. -- maxim

I would thank if you could give me a realiable link to an archive citating Nasrallah on calling to exterminate all the Jews. I fail to find a realiable non biased source on this so I would appreciate if you could provide me with any reference proving Nasrallah's antisemitism. As far as I have seen and researched Nassrallah is not anitsemitic, for example he apologized to one family for having killed their children on a rocket attack. I don't see this of course as enough good-willing neither does it absolve him of having commited an incorrect action, nonetheless, that's not the kind of attitude I would expect from an antisemitic charachter. If he wants all Jews exterminated then he would have celebrated publicly such assesination. Antisemits do not apologize for killing jews they're proud of it. And, one thing is to want Israel exterminated and other to want all Jews exterminated, it's two different things, I hope you're not confusing them. Jews have coexisted peacefully with the arabs until the downfall of the Otoman empire. If Arabs have assumed such an Anti-Israel posture is because the creation of the State of Israel implied expelling lots of Palestinians from the territories in which they were dwelling, and this of course repercutes in the Lebannon-Israel conflict since lots of Palestinians fled to Lebannon. Aside from the problems derived from tens of thousands of people being displaced out of their country, this massive forced emigration caused that lots of the displaced Palestinians to use Lebanon as their base-operation to attack Israel making the latter intervent in Lebanese territory and thus leading to Israeli attacks and ocuppation of Lebanon which derived in the creation of the resistance movement Nasrallah is leader of. - Zealot Kommunizma

Whether or not Hitler had a social program, or Bush as part of the US federal government helps build schools is a moot point in deciding to include social aspects of Nasrallah and Hizbollah. I have a personal opinion that labels Nasrallah as a terrorist and as someone to be condemned but the point of this page is to provide encyclopedia information about the man. As a result, if you have supporting evidence to back up a personal connection between Nasrallah and charitable/social acts, they should be included to provide a better understanding of an important contemporary political figure. It doesn't matter whether you love him or hate him, this is for educational purposes and all sides need to be represented as well as objective information. Attempting to censor this article for or against Nasrallah is shameful. Y.Pestis 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest video ???

Sorry if I'm doing the wrong thing, this is my first edit of wikipedia pages... What is this thing about 'latest video' of nasrallah redirecting to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VqPE9gJwV8 This is nowhere near his latest video and I think it is unethical for wikipedia (and I'm sure it's against wikipedia's rules) to have such a false/joke link in one of its articles. I think someone with editing capabilities of that page should fix that. KaKaRoTo 21:15, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it! btw, there is a nicer video of Nasrallah at this page : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4idczY-fE KaKaRoTo

picture

am i the only one who thought that was a photograph until i read the caption?

• I wear glasses btw—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) 29:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we need a real photo - NOT THIS image of PROPAGANDA. It has no place in a neutral reference site such as Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.5.51 (talk • contribs) 02:23, July 21, 2006 (UTC)

Unless the billboard image misrepresents what the man looks like, then I really do not see your point. If that is indeed what he looks like, then the source is irrelevant. A screen capture of Hitler from one of Goebbel's propaganda Nazi films is still justa picture, for example. Tarc 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, this image might be taken from a propaganda poster, but it isn't a propaganda picture, it represents Nasrallah as he looks like and it IS neutral. So I don't see why it should change. But if you look for a real image, here's one : http://www.manartv.com/NewsSite/PicturesFolder/sayyed%202.jpg KaKaRoTo

Sorry, I don't agree. This image is perfect, yes, look at the bottom left of the image, you can see the Hezbolla's emblem. I propose to modify the picture so that we can enlarge the emblem to show the world the true nature of this organization... a machine gun.

Also, if you think that this Wiki English version is propaganda, you should read the French version. I would bet that the admins are fanatics. Joe

Invalid links

To whoever can edit Nasrallah's page, please note that the 2 links at the bottom of the page contain commas at the end, which causes thw "page not found" message when they are clicked.

Cheers, Aimable

Fixed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Controversy

There's no controversy.

1. The US considers hisballah a terrorist organization, while the EC does not.
2. EC are a bunch of pussies, led by the French.
3. How else would you call an organization that murders civillians for political causes?

Fenrir2000 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. Tarc 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/ Tarc. I may add WP:POV.

A specific answer/question to your 3rd question: How else would you call a country that murders civillians for political and ideological causes? Do you mean Israel kills bats?! Do you watch TV? -- Szvest 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment starts here. Concerning whether or not people think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in order to satisfy both sides of the debate can we do the following (I'm new to making Wiki comments so I hope this comes across as neutral but please let me know if you disagree): 1. List the kinds of attacks carried out by Hezbollah (attacks against Israeli soldiers, attacks against non-Israeli/Jewish targets, attacks against Israeli civilians, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 95 people). 2. Explain who considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization and why. 3. Present the Hezbollah defense for its attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, western targets, and the Jewish community center bombing. (Note I strongly condemn attacks against civilians, but Hezbollah supporters should be allowed to state their case as long as it is based on facts - e.g., referencing the Israeli draft, etc. As long as the Hezbollah defense doesn't indulge in anti-semitic conspiracy theory then I think in order to satisfy both sides of the debate Hezbollah's defense should be allowed). --LostInTranslation 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"The calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to coerce and intimidate civilian populations or governments through instilling fear." Well that is the United States own definition of terrorism, seems pretty clear and reasonable to me, problems arise however when you apply it to the US itself and allied nations. -- LamontCranston 04:46, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL Fenrir's from Israel, what a suprise that is!!!.... you wanna talk about murdering civilians for political causes let talk about the IDF, the 2006 Conflict. Bombing the heavily civlian populated southern area of Lebanon in so called "precision strikes" on Hezbollah targets? Yeah fkn right.

Please don't be so hypocritical next time. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, so's the IDF simple as that. The things Israel does to it's enemies is no better than what Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or watever terrorist organisation you want to mention, do to further their causes. Only difference is Israel does it with the support of America and claims it is very sorry for the unintentional attacks on civlian targets.

{ bad language removed }

Difference between Killing and Murder is intent

Killing is not the same as murder.

Murder is typically pre-meditated and malicious in intent. The intention of an act causing the death of another is what separates killing from murder from negligence. The government AND people of Israel have repeated time and again that Israel will discontinue their operations in Lebanon when Hezbollah stands down as the Hezbollah is a clear and present threat to Israeli citizens. Here testimony to Hezbollah's intent:

(Click Link to View Video Clip ) Here's the intent of Hezbollah:

• 5/15/2004 Nasrallah / Hezbollah Crowd: Death to America

• 2/18/2005 Nasrallah Speach to tens of thousands: Death to Israel... Death to America (Crowd) Death to America! Death to America!

• 2/23/2006 Nasrallah Speech Inciting crowd of thousands America America You are the Great Satan! Death to America!

• 7/16/2006 Nasrallah: We are waging the battle of the Islamic nation, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not.

Labaneh 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Every time Israel bombs a village of city the intent is clearly Murder.. and they always succeed.

8/22/06 This is all bull roar. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Get used to it. The Israel civilian kill ratio is so much higher than Hizb' Allah that it boggles the imagination. Min Yee 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Min Yee

You Murder. They Kill. We Eliminate. And it does not matter who "we" are. It as all a question of which POV you are pushing. Abu ali 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)