Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Hezbollah. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Terrorist organization

Why can't we honest Wikipedians call Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Wasn't Hezbollah created to terrorize Israel? What do we call, shooting four thousand rockets & missiles into Israel to kill indiscriminately as many men, woman & children as possible; isn't that terrorism? Itzse 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Hezbollah is only struggling people attempting to recover from the "failed state" situation imposed on Lebanon by Israel. (And the Zionists were intent on behaving this way even before there was an Israel). Lots of proof of this - start with David Ben-Gurion to the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv in 1938, "The boundaries of Zionist aspiration, include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai" (cited by Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies). In 1948 Ben-Gurion was saying "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai" (Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion: A Biography). PalestineRemembered 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

isnt it "terrorism" to punish a whole nation, namely Lebanon, because of an action of a couple of guerilla fighters from the hezbollah? Bombing the whole infrastructure. Various human rights groups have described these as war crimes (well, duh!). Collective punishment is ILLEGAL under the geneva convention.

The war (for it was a war) was aimed at destroying the inferstructure of Hezbollah, a terrorist orginazation that attacked israel blantly by killing 3 soldiers, capturing 2 more, and sending rockets into israel.

I would call a military operation against "a whole nation" a war, but that's just me... --GaelicWizard 22:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I will happily change hezbollah to "terrorist" if you change IDF to "terrorist". Rm uk 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way then take it up on the IDF page and argue there rationally. If one page is incorrect in your eyes; that doesn't change the fact that another page is incorrect. Can I count on your help here?

BTW what you are claiming is called "State Terrorism" and Israel is in good company with the rest of the nations of the world on that. Be prepared to equally label them as terrorist or state that you're biased. Itzse 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the sad thing is- your right. united states and many other nations engage in terrorism that kills far more people than small time "terrorists" but its these small guys that are always villanised. They are all hypocrites Rm uk 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rm Uk; Now we're talking. State terrorism does exist, and we should talk about it; but when Israel is singled out; out of all the nations of the world as engaging in State terrorism; and when terrorism against Israel is again singled out and downgraded to merely violence under the pretext of NPOV; that is unfair; and I expect better from my fellow Wikipedians. After all, wasn't Israel attacked; and doesn't a country have a right to defend itself? Which other country is put under a microscope as to how much they are allowed to respond? with some measuring it by the amount of casualties and some measuring it by how much suffering Israel has to endure before it is given permission; yes; don't laugh; permission to defend itself. That’s what; my problem is with not labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Some helpful Wikipedians provided some links to other discussions on this topic; thanks to all of them; but I checked out the other Wikipedia articles on other terrorist organizations and found a glaring contrast to this article. To be sure there is plenty of debate there too; but in the final analysis the "debated" word "terrorism" is prominently featured in the first paragraph of many of these articles; and the word "terror" is used in those articles numerous times. So again I ask; can't we be equal opportunity Wikipedians; either neutralize & degrade ALL references to terrorists & terrorism in all articles; or call terror by its name equally everywhere? Itzse 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there are people in this world who support these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because there are people who agree with the goals of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because this terrorism is directed at Jews; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists murder Jewish men, woman & children; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your countrymen; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your co-religionists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your cousins; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your brothers; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the countries supporting these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the co-religionists of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country doesn't want these terrorists do direct its terrorist activities in your country; does it give them the right to change the fact that it is a terrorist organization?

I have long given up hope on the world; but to my fellow Wikipedians I appeal; can't we honestly call a spade "a spade" and with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW call terrorists terrorists? The burden of proof should be on the terrorists to prove that they are not terrorists.

If the answer is no; then I would sadly say that there is no purpose for the brains of the world to work their heads off to create an encyclopedia by the biased; with the bias; for the biased. Itzse 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Hop off the soapbox.

2) Put new talk sections at the bottom, not the top, please. Tarc 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I put my question on the top to be close to its similar discussion Regarding Designation As Terrorist. Had that been in the middle; I would have put it there. My legitimate question was directed to all honest wikipedians, whose mission is honesty & decency; obviously not to you; as your bias comes through clearly; (see Tarc's other changes regarding Israel). You obviously have nothing to say of substance. Itzse 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you clean up your uncivil attitude a bit, and put some time into rereading certain wikipedia policy pages, such as those on assuming good faith and civility. Tarc 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in on this. Personally, I feel that H. is a terrorist group. Others do not. I am ok with this. I think it is more important to have the page give an accurate description of what H stands for, what it has done, what its goals are, etc than to label it as "terrorist" or not. I think it is ok to say that certain opinions hold that H. is terrorist, and certain opinions hold that it is not terrorist (and why it is and why it is not in both cases). I don't think that it makes the encyclopedia worse to proceed in this way. What is important here (IMO) is that people of holding all opinions contribute here and people from all backgrounds have an opportunity to read this stuff. Elizmr 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your two pence makes very much sense; but why can't we objectively define what a terrorist is and apply it equally? Why is there a double standard here on wikipedia when it concerns the Jews? Why should Jews be content that the contents of the article merely states also their POV? Shouldn't there be fairness here & call a terrorist a "terrorist"? Don't we want to create an encylopedia of facts not opinions? Itzse 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there no disagreements on pages about definitions of this sort where Jews are not involved as targets of agression? I actually don't know. Maybe one of the people who feel that Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist group could reply to your point here. Elizmr 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What my personal opinion on it is is largely irrelevant. As is yours. As is Itzse's. The point that I have tried to make, here and on similar pages, is that the Western designation of what is a "terrorist" nation and what is not is not the be all and end all of the matter. There are plenty of peoiple in the Middle East who value Hezbollah for their social services provided in southern Lebanon, for example. I certainly believe that there should be a sizable section of the article devoted to Hezbollah's gross human rights violations and which Western nations list them as a terrorist organization. But including such a label in the introductory paragraph is, I feel, rather heavy-handed and a bit biased, as it is not a universally-held position in the world. Tarc 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarc, do you have a problem with the way the intro reads now? Providing social services and doing terrorist acts are not mutually exclusive, are they? Terrorism refers to a technique of forcing societal change by performing violent acts. An organization can do this and feed their people at the same time. Elizmr 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a controversial issue. So please look at previous discussions about it.

category:Islamic terrorist organizations

terrorism

Category "Designated terrorist organization"

"Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation"

use of the word "terrorist"

Terrorist allegations

Recent Edits By Banzai et al Regarding Designation As Terrorist

These are some of the debates which are directly related to this issue and there many other debates about this issue. As I remember we conclude to write which countries have called them terrorist organization and which one have called them legitimate resistance organization.--Sa.vakilian 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the intro is at this point in time is fine, in my opinion. Although "extensive front programs" seems to imply that such programs are not sincere. Tarc 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose make archive on the basis of topic like this [1] if we don't wat to repeat previous debates everyday. So I do a little work on POV and Disputed discussions but it is certainly insufficient. So please help with this task.--Sa.vakilian 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend this page about the use of the word "terrorism" and Wikipedia standards. --Filius Rosadis 21:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC) says: Terrorist should be changed to "terrorist" because it is a very subjective term- no official definition exists. Plus everyone that is against the government these days is a "terrorist". I dont believe in sound bites. You state the facts and you let people think for themselves... you dont tell them an organisation is "terrorist" you give them the facts and let them decide.

Can we use Wikipedia's definition on terrorism as a standart here?
If so, Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization. --Dmichelsohn 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont bring jews into this. this is not about religion, because what you wrote...you could have put muslim in every single slot that you wrote and it would have made sense. watch... After all, wasn't LEBANON attacked( think back further than just the beginning of the latest conflict, and when Israel attacked lebanon); and doesn't a country have a right to defend itself? Which other country is put under a microscope as to how much they are allowed to respond? with some measuring it by the amount of casualties and some measuring it by how much suffering LEBANON has to endure before it is given permission; yes; don't laugh; permission to defend itself. That’s what; my problem is with not labeling ISRAEL a terrorist STATE. Some helpful Wikipedians provided some links to other discussions on this topic; thanks to all of them; but I checked out the other Wikipedia articles on other terrorist organizations and found a glaring contrast to this article. To be sure there is plenty of debate there too; but in the final analysis the "debated" word "terrorism" is prominently featured in the first paragraph of many of these articles; and the word "terror" is used in those articles numerous times. So again I ask; can't we be equal opportunity Wikipedians; either neutralize & degrade ALL references to terrorists & terrorism in all articles; or call terror by its name equally everywhere? Because there are people in this world who support these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because there are people who agree with the goals of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because this terrorism is directed at MUSLIMS; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists murder MUSLIM men, woman & CHILDREN ESPECIALLY; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your countrymen; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your co-religionists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your cousins; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because these terrorists are your brothers; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the countries supporting these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country wants to live on good terms with the co-religionists of these terrorists; does it change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? Because your country doesn't want these terrorists do direct its terrorist activities in your country; does it give them the right to change the fact that it is a terrorist organization? have long given up hope on the world; but to my fellow Wikipedians I appeal; can't we honestly call a spade "a spade" and with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW call terrorists terrorists? The burden of proof should be on the terrorists to prove that they are not terrorists. (see, it works both ways...i just think it should all stop. i disagree with the killing of any civilians, both sides. you make it sound like israel is not purposely killing civilians, because they are. the lies that civilians are dying because hezbollah is using them as a human sheild, use your brains, please. Israel has some of the best military technology in the world (supplied by the US) and they know exactly what they are hitting, with their precision bombs, while, as everyone knows, hezbollah does not. I will add that hezbollah knows they are going to kill civilians as well, and that is the only thing i dont appreciate them for. I believe, however, that hezbollah is justified in attacking israels military and kidnapping soldiers, while israel attacks civilians and kidnaps them, believe it or not, that is the truth. Israel has thousands of lebanese and palestinians. if they are released, and israel stops terrorrizing the palestinians and gives them their own with east jerusalem as their capital, this will all end. Mac33c 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again; if Israel's acts are considered terrorism as you consider it; or defense as I consider it; that should be discussed on the Israeli pages; not here. Here the only the only thing that should be discussed is THIS article which is "Hezbollah" (two wrongs never make a right; except maybe in mathematics). For arguments sake; lets say that you are right that Israel targets civilians; and is as bad as you think; then why should it change the fact that Hezbollah's sole purpose of existing is to terrorize Israel; and even if you disagree with that; then why should it change the fact that the only purpose of sending four thousand rockets & missiles; which cannot destroy Israel; is to DELIBERATELY kill & TERRORIZE as many civilians; yes civilians, Jewish men, women & children as possible. In my opinion there can never be justification of killing DELIBERATELY civilian; men women & children; and ANYONE doing so is by ALL definitions a terrorist.

How many definitions out of the concocted "hundred" does Hezbollah have to meet; to be considered a TERRORIST organization; so that we should finally call it what it is? Does anyone know? Itzse 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If defense is determined by killing civilians than you are right. as you said, we are not here to discuss israel, so i we will speak of hezbollah. while i do not deny that hezbollah attacked civilians (which i strongly disagree with) Hezbollah can be better described as a resistance. Hezbollah, my friends, sole purpose is not to terrorrize israel. Dont you think, that if that was true, hezbollah would have captured civilians and not soldiers? Hezbollah, as a colleague said before, wanted a peaceful exchange (yes, admittingly it was done so with with guns but israel wont just out of the blue agree to give back the lebanese and palestinians whom they have prisoners, many civilians). And also, if i recall, (of course you wouldnt hear about this) Nasrallah said before any of this ever happend, that if israel brought civilians into this, hezbollah would as well. So yes, hezbollah was aiming for civilians as well as military, but in the end, just look at the numbers. i seriously want you to look at them. the numbers of dead on both sides. More israeli military died than civilians, and not even fox news will deny that. and please, once again...dont bring up religion. you said hezbollah terrorrized Jewish men...ok, ill play that game. If anyone noticed, only muslims were the only people that got hit. Lebanon has a large christian population, and not many of them were killed. Dont give me any crap on "hezbollah is using the lebanese as human shields" no they're not. beirut was hit brutally, and hezbollah is completely in the south. israel has precision bombs (courtesy of the US) and know exactly who and what they are killing. "we didnt know" cannot be used as an excuse. Civilian deaths on both sides are inexcusable. Mac33c 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac33c; if you have a problem with Israel; that's your problem; and the proper place to take it on is on the Israeli pages. Also if what Israel is doing is called defense or not; and if it has a "right" to defend itself; that go argue on the defense article; here we are discussing Hezbollah which to me is a terrorist organization; but I want to know why to you and other Wikipedians it is not? Why does any other terrorist organization get labeled "terrorist" but an organization that attacks Israeli men, women & children is not? That most of the missiles haven't reached their mark doesn't change the fact for what purpose it was launched. So you have a convenient answer which is that Hezbollah is a resistance organization and with a straight face you say that Hezbollah's sole purpose is not to terrorize Israel. Then tell us what is; its sole purpose? Also tell us what are they resisting?

Also tell us what need Hezbollah needs do to, to be labelled a terrorist organization? I challenge you to spell it out. Itzse 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

well its hard to switch over to the israel forums when the conversation is here, so i will continue. i would be happy to identify hezbollah as a terrorrist organization if you label the IDF terrorrist as well. you want me to spell it out? to me, if hezbollah were to be labeled terrorrist, they would have to kill more israeli civilians then israel has. dont talk to me about killing men, women, and especially children, when they are no better. once again, you say ISRAELI men women and children, while i acknowledge the deaths of them and their deliberate killings, you fail to acknowledge the death of the Lebanese men women and children as being deliberate whatsoever. you have an excuse for everything, but youll run out sooner than i will. Mac33c 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac33c; Israel is not the discussion here; as much as you want it to be; but Hezbollah is. After all this is the "talk page" of Hezbollah; not Israel; and regardless what Israel is, or is not; it has absolutely no bearing if Hezbollah should be called a terrorist organization. I think this is elementary.

So your definition of terrorist is, that Hezbollah would "have to kill more Israeli civilians then Israel has", and then Mac33c will consider Hezbollah "terrorist".

So again I appeal to my fair minded Wikipedians; do you consider Mac33c's definition correct; that it's the amount of dead bodies that defines "terrorism"; or you disagree; and are ready with a neutral point of view to call Hezbollah with the label "terrorist".

If any of my fellow Wikipedians thinks honestly that Hezbollah doesn't meet the definition "terrorist" then pray tell me why. If any of you do think that Wikipedia can with a neutral point of view call Hezbollah "terrorists" then please don't be afraid to speak up either. Are there any honest Wikipedians left here? Itzse 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC

ahhh how typical of you to say something like "this is about hezbollah not israel" when you clearly have nothing else to say. stop bashing hezbollah. ive accepted the fact that hezbollah has purposely attacked civilians, so once again, you continue to deny that israel has. hezbollah is a resistance, i completely disagree with their killing of civilians, however its hard to sit back and allow these things to happen when your enemy is killing your civilians. ask america. so ill bring this up, it is impossible to argue that hezbollah is a terrorrist organization, becuase you must look at the reasoning behind their attacks. you make it seem like more israeli civilians died than men in the military. you cant argue about these things. you have no right to when the country your defending is committing even worse attrocities. your logic on this topic is terribly flawed. stop looking at this from one point of view, because i have looked at it from both. you make it seem as if im the only person in the world who feels this way, while most countries would agree with me. look at the countries who dont...Israel, America, Canada,england and austria. of course they are going to back whatever america feels. so there you go. thats a better reason why this article should name hezbollah as a terrorrist organization, because most countries dont. i If israel didnt kill civilians purposely, and hezbollah did, then i gaurantee you all the other countries (most of them) would see hezbollah as terrorrists, and so would i. it is impossible to carry this on without bringing up israel. not bringing them up at all, of course, would work to YOUR advantage, which is all you realy care about. Mac33c 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, now say that again, with evidence.

Since when does Israel deliberately target civilian populations?

Answer: They don't. They make plenty of mistakes, and they have a difficult job of fighting groups that do their best to be indistinguishable from the civilian populace, but they don't intentionally attack civilians. Just because your opinions on the matter are so indefensible, it's not justification to try to muddy the waters and claim a draw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOMBkangaroo (talk • contribs)

Mac33c; I have a lot to say, but I don't want to say it. I won't be pulled into a debate about something that is irrelevant to this page. Let me make it clear again if you haven't heard the first time; it makes absolutely no difference how bad Israel is or is not. Even is Israel is the biggest monster; it still doesn’t give Hezbollah the right to "target" civilians; and if they do; then they are considered terrorists, period. If you want to argue about justification; that is a different subject; and its place is not here. Even if hezbollah's goal is justified; it still is not justified in killing deliberately civilians; and again if they do target civilians; then they are terrorists. You obviously want to debate Israel or justification; I will not play your game.

My fellow Wikipedians; it is to you who I'm talking to. Mac33c says that; not bringing up Israel will work to my advantage; and he is damn right. Because justification of a cause doesn't make its actions legitimate. If a justified organization kills deliberately civilians it is, a terrorist organization. Even Mac33c has numerous times admitted and acknowledged that hezbollah kills deliberately Israeli, men women and children; and he is an open supporter if not a member of hezbollah; so what do us, still need to call it a "terrorist" organization? My opinion of Israel and his opinion of hezbollah are irrelevant; and so is everybody else's opinion of hezbollah and Israel irrelevant; what counts is; if its actions are terrorism or not. Itzse 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

stop twisting around what i said. hezbollah has not right to kill civilians AND neither does israel. you make it seem as if israel is innocent. (whine all you want about me talking about israel on this page this page has EVERYTHING to do with israel.) i completely disagree with hezbollah's killing of civilians and nothing can realy justify that. what im trying to get to, is why you think everything israel does is justifiable, because that is the point you are making. ill take this argument to the israeli forums like you have so kindly been asking me to but first, ill say this again as if you havent heard this for the first time, mark IDF as terrorrist, and i will do the same with hezbollah. it is COMPLETELY hippocritical to call hezbollah terrorrist and the IDF not. actually the IDF were the first to kill civilians. COME ONE GUYS HAVE SOME MORAL IN THIS WORLD Mac33c 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac33c; You obviously have no clue what Wikipedia is about. This page is Hezbollah's page (pun intended); not Israel's; so the content of this page should be about Hezbollah. If Israel is innocent; is absolutely not relevant here. If you want to know why I think that Israel is or is not justified; then here is not the place; but you can call me at (1234567890) extension 5. What Israel is; is NOT the point I'm making; I'm making the exact opposite point that it is Hezbollah who is being determined here; and only Hezbollah. Do you understand simple logic? In your head you cannot differentiate between two different things; one is Hezbollah's goals and the other is Hezbollah's methods. To you if its goals are moral then its means are too; but to us in the civilized world; killing civilians DELIBERATELY is never justified; therefore regardless what your feelings are; Hezbollah should be called with the label "terrorist"; because if not; then this article has taken a point of view Itzse 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Finaly! i was realy hoping i would draw some ingnorant person into saying something like that. i cannot tolerate this arrogance any longer. there are more things that determine israel has attacked civilians than hezbollah has attacked them, you just shield yourself from these things, because im sure you listen to everything fox news says right? israel could never do anything wrong, because israel is on the good side! they fight with america! right? wrong. look the numbers! when you send leaflets down to people, telling them to get out or they will be killed, when you just bombed all the roads out, and when people are trying to get out you bomb them, THAT IS TERRORRISM. so itsze you are right WE SHOULD TAKE THIS ARGUMENT TO THE ISRAELI FORUMS. i will destroy anything you tell me. go ahead. Mac33c 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

hezbollah does not "blend in" with the population. israel is always bragging about how good their military is and they know exactly what they are hitting.they have the best state-of-art weapons which are precise and are given to israel by america. israel knows what they are hitting. these deaths are no accident. lets say it is true that hezbollah is firing rockets near civilian homes (not entirely true).then why destroy homes in beirut? they cant even reach israel from there. you can argue that hezbollah fighters were thought to be there but you dont kill hundreds of civilians for one man when you have thousands of innocent prisoners.Dan189 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to take notice, that Dan189 added the words "and try" to Mac33c's comment; then Dan189 changed all his unsigned edits to signed; then Mac33c changed all his unsigned edits to signed. It is clear that it is one and the same person who is using sockpuppetry. Does anyone know how to proceed on this?

wtf are you talking about????????lol i dont even know dan. dont jump to conclusions Mac33c 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure you don't know him; because he doesn't exist. On 21:15 11 minutes after Mac33c threatened that he "will destroy anything you tell me. go ahead and try", Dan189 removed the words "and try". It’s unacceptable in Wikipedia to change someone else's words; so by Dan189 agreeing with Mac33c there is no reason why he would change Mac33c's words; unless he forgot which identity he's using; or doesn't know enough to watch himself. 1 minute later on 21:16, Mac33c decides that he's not getting away with staying anonymous; so he signs his unsigned comments. 2 minutes later on 21:18; Dan189 surprisingly decides to do the same and signs all his unsigned comments. Not jumping but coming to conclusion after Mac33c/Dan189 was caught red handed. Itzse 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is; is Hezbollah a terrorist organization, yes or no? If you think it is "yes but" so then let's write that "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization ... It was created on ... but Mac33c/Dan189 and others consider its goals justified, because ..."; wouldn't that be fair and neutral? The way it is written now is absolutely not neutral. If you agree with Mac33c/Dan189 then say so, and if you agree with me then please say so too. Mac33c/Dan189 wants to talk about Israel but Israel is not the issue; sorry.

Now that Mac33c/Dan189 is off to the Israeli pages, and I hope some others with his mindset join him there. We, objective Wikipedians can have a civilized debate here. This opportunity doesn't come every day. Itzse 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

israel is the issue here. you cant talk about hezbollah with out israel. Mac33c 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

you guys arent even replying to anything i write! your just telling me im in the wrong place, and continue to attack me personally just like pro-israeli politics do today! Mac33c 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

im AGREE with itzse. hezbollah fired out few thousands rockets to the houses of israel.. and second

"when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto, which included three goals: the eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon, the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state, and the complete destruction of the state of Israel."

the third goal stated that hezbollah will completely terrorize israel meaning the rockets shot by hezbollah arent for resistance. mac33c, we're talking about whether hezbollah is a terrorist here since its hezbollah talk page. its just YES or NO and state reasons for it.. not endless looping query of "if you label IDF as terrorist, ,then i 'll label hezbollah as terrorist" JoTp 15:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

you cant bring justice to one thing and not the other that are so closely related. lets say a black child and a white child fight, they are both mad at each other, no one struck "first" then a teacher comes, tackles the black kid, hits him, then takes him to the principles office leaving the white boy free to go. Mac33c 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the fact is, that if you only make one of them terrorrist, it is POV bigtime. im not asking to make IDF terrorrist and not hezbollah if you noticed. Calling hezbollah terrorrist is POV which is why it should not be in the article. happy? i made my point in a more reasonable manner according to you. Mac33c 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

also, i just read over our entire little conversation here once more...i noticed several things. Itsze continued to repeat himself that i believe hezbollah is justified in killing innocent civilians. i never said that, when actually on the contrary i denounced that. Hezbollah should not be called a terrorrist organization for, as i stated before, it is POV to do so. this discussion shouldnt even had gotten so long. it should have ended as soon as it started. The fact is and remains so, that only a few countries regard them as a terrorrist organization, and the rest do not. Another thing i noticed is that Itsze, not only to me but to others, realising that he cannot fight back in a reasonable manner, continues to bash the people he is arguing with, accusing them of things that they did not do (the dan89 issue, i am a new member and i didnt realy know how to use wikipedia, i have never met Dan89 in my life and its definitely not me (there must be something you can use to check the IP address) and the reason i changed my comments to signed is that i just found out how to sign them so i thought it would be ok to go back and sign themm and obviously that was the wrong thing to do) and saying that their points are completely POV, when actually he is the one with a HUGE POV, and he said it himself in an indirect way many times in other comments that he wrote. Mac33c 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building:

I propose moving this part to archive. --Sa.vakilian 14:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The label "Terrorist" is so arbitrary and there are so many different definitions. The US calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization, the UN does not.

Also, anyone that knows just a little Arabic will say the "Hezbollah" is a horrible transliteration for the Arabic. Hizbullah or Hizballah should be used instead. The "Hezbollah" name follows Farsi pronunciation rules more than it does Arabic, and since it is an Arabic word, it would be wise to change it.

mac33c, you actually said "to me, if hezbollah were to be labeled terrorrist, they would have to kill more israeli civilians then israel has." (although, if you look closely at what you said, then you can, by all means, label hezbollah a terrorist organization. israel has killed far fewer israeli civilians than hezb has). that is the most lunatic, out-of-your-mind argument i've ever heard. basically, what you're saying is, if one man kills 10 people from someone's family, and a surviving family member kills 20 of the first man's family, then the first man isn't a killer, because he killed less than the 2nd. the crucial point here is not what hezbollah's stated goals are, or the reasons behind their actions. it is their actions. they kill civilians deliberately for political reasons. that is about as basic a definition of terrorism that you can get. i really, truly, can't see how you can make arguments like that.

as for the anon comment above mine about naming conventions, hezbollah is far more common spelling. they're all romanized versions of the arabic, just like mohammed, muhammed, mohamad, etc. you might even make the point that since iran funds hezbolalh, and it's an offshoot of the iranian revolution, that we should use the farsi pronunciation ;) Parsecboy 23:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The defense and attack of this argument are both horribly based. I have yet to see one citation. How is one going to say that Israel killed more/less civilians than Hezbollah without proof?

Regarding the "terrorist" label, like I've read many pro-Israeli/anti-Hezbollah editors say, Wikipedia is an objective source. When was the last time you picked up a published encyclopedia and saw a group or nation being called terrorist? The label "terrorist" is left for the reader to DECIDE based on the FACTS presented. Stop being idiots. This is why I don't get a Wiki account. Silly, pointless arguments about NOTHING.

If you want to know my position...too bad. That I keep to myself because I KNOW that immature "debators" of the opposing view are going to use this to their advantage and claim me to be stupid. I'm staying neutral.24.4.221.251 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist organization II

It is really simple , israel is a terrorist state and hezbollah is a resistance party.

just be objective and look and the facts and figures:

The 34-day conflict, sparked by the kidnap of two Israeli soldiers in a Hezbollah cross-border raid on July 12, left nearly 1,300 Lebanese dead, the majority of them civilians, as well as 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

and you call hezbollah a terrorist organization??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060914/ts_afp/mideastconflictlebanon

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.248.118 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GOING BY THIS LOGIC - we can put pretty much designate all of the countries participating in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'terrorist organisations' including the US, UK, Australia, Canada and many many others. Can your 'logical' 'rational' minds accept that as fact?

It seems as though your reasoning is based on the fact that Hezbollah was unable to kill more civilians - not through lack of trying. One Katyusha proved capable of killing 10 people and thousands were fired into purely civilian areas.

Israel dropped/shot thousands upon thousands of bombs/missiles/shells etc. into Lebanon in the month of fighting - and 1000-1100 civilians were killed - so a terrorist nation that has the most sophisticated weaponry can only manager a kill rate of approximately 1 civilan for every 3 or 4 1/2 tonne bombs! Sounds fairly far fetched - but then again, those with extremist views grasp these sorts of fairy tales quite easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviw17 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is lunacy not to call what a terrorist a terrorist. Resistance fighters do not push an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise ship. They do not go into other countries and indiscrimantly bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Position on Hezbollah

I have received a response to a query directed to the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism:

(Addresses and identification codes redacted)

Dear Mr. Hymas

Thank you for your e-mail in which you show interet in the Dutch practice concerning foreign organizations which are deemed to have a terrorist objective. I apologize for the delay in answering your questions. I can answer your questions as follows.

Regarding Hezbollah, I can inform you that the Dutch government is not able to take any legal action concerning an organisation if that organisation is not officially recognized in the Netherlands. Hezbollah has no legal basis in the Netherlands and therefore does not have an official status under Dutch practice and cannot be subjected to legal action.

The Netherlands does not keep a list of organisations that are banned by Dutch courts. If an organisation is banned by a Dutch court, this organisation is dissolved and siezes (sic) to exist. Therefore, the Netherlands does not have a list of such organisations. I can inform you however, that the Dutch government follows the EU list of terrrorist organisations. The Dutch government has recently launched new legislation by which organisations on the EU list are automatically forbidden in the Netherlands. This legislation is expected to be approved by the Dutch parliament at the end of this year.

I hope my letter provides answers to your questions.

Yours sincerely

(Remainder redacted)

Should anyone wish an electronic version of this communication, please contact me. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

i think this should be completely removed or just said flat out that there is no evidence of the two connecting, because there isnt and anyone who "has a reason to believe so" is just stating that to create a POV that hezbollah is a terrorrist organization. if you disagree, show me some NPOV citations. Mac33c 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Will these do? [2][3][4]--GHcool 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

ya they look like ok websites. good enough to leave in Al qaeda into the article. Still all the evidence in those articles could have easily be lied about, but i guess that it is still worthy to be added inside the article. thanks GHcool. Mac33c 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. One newspaper article based entirely on unnamed sources, one article on a partisan website, and one article by an assistant editor on the Council on Foreign Relations website doesn't cut it for me. To keep this level of coverage in the article, I'd like to see some support for the thesis from a reasonably authoritative source, such as a genuinely expert journalist or better still, a well-regarded academic. The sources given in the article are by and large fairly poor as well, though not all of them. As far as I know, all the knowledgable academic commentators dismiss the idea of any Hezbollah-al-Qaida connection. Unless we come up with something better, the material in the article should be pruned to a more proportionate size, and certainly it needs to be rebalanced, and not to start with the clainms of cooperation but with the generally accepted position that the two organizations have little or nothing to do with each other. As it stands it's quite biased at least by virtue of how it's structured. Palmiro | Talk 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post article quotes key people from the CIA, FBI, U.S. Congress, and "a former National Security Council terrorism expert" on the issue. How many more "experts" do you need on the issue? As for the Council on Foreign Relations article, you're not really attacking the research as much as you are attacking the researcher. This is called ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. I don't think its POV to state the truth: that there is evidence that lead many experts to believe that there is a connection between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. --GHcool 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely POV to assume that the US Congress can make unbiased statements about the situation in the Mid East. The US is directly or indirectly party in most Mid East conflicts and they have a track record of getting basic facts wrong. Count Iblis 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are accusing the entire U.S. Congress (but specifically the National Security Council) of being an unreliable source of information on Middle Eastern politics. Fortunately however, most reasonable people would agree that in the 59 years of the National Security Council and the 230 years of the US Congress, the two put together have maintained a pretty stable history of being a reliable source. --GHcool 00:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You say ->> "If I understand you correctly, you are accusing the entire U.S. Congress (but specifically the National Security Council) of being an unreliable source of information on Middle Eastern politics". Given what we were fed about WMD, we need these sources to be proved reliable. The current situation is bound to leave us under-whelmed. PalestineRemembered 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

thats what i was shooting for, and i think, that either it should be removed completely, or some could argue that it should at least be mentioned, but not in the manner it is now. it is pretty biased, and i agree that the how the section starts is terrible. Mac33c 01:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

these experts are you speak of are biased themselves. they would look for anything possible to connect the two together because that would put no doubt in peoples minds that hezbollah is biased. This section needs to be rearranged and more balanced and proportional (as stated before). Someone should do it unless someone makes a better point as to why it should stay the way it is and if there is not good argument given and it is still not changed by this time tommorow i will change it myself. Mac33c 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find experts that say that there is no link between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, feel free to cite them, but please don't delete something just because you haven't done your own research into the matter. --GHcool 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, when Saddam Husssein was supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda (and we now know he wasn't linked atall, he was threatened by it and was trying to track down and kill its operatives), it must be incumbent on the accusors to make their case, and not on the rest of us to to prove a negative. PalestineRemembered 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly has an editorial stance, for sure, but the articles are well-researched and well written. They should not be dismissed as sources. Elizmr 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment sent me to search for "Middle East Quarterly". I found it here [5]. On their home page the articles today (20061017) were as follows: ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY - Uriya Shavit, Al-Qaeda's Saudi Origins - Saudi conspiracy theorists laid the ground for Osama bin Laden - Denis MacEoin, Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People? - Shari'a law can be more flexible than the Islamists who apply it - David Bukay, The Religious Foundations of Suicide Bombings - Suicide bombers find instruction and inspiration in the Qur'an - David Verbeeten, How Important Is the Israel Lobby? - U.S. policymakers learned that Israel was a better friend than its neighbors - Harsh V. Pant, Saudi Arabia Woos China and India - Riyadh's approach to the east won't save it from tough choices on internal reform - Bilal A. Wahab, How Iraqi Oil Smuggling Greases Violence - Black gold finances more than Iraq's reconstruction".

Such material is clearly POV and (I'd have supposed) blatantly unsuitable to included in the encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedians more experienced than me will state differently. PalestineRemembered 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Eyal Zisser, Bashar al-Assad's Gamble The Syrian leader believes he can outlast both internal enemies and Washington

Keep the cites if you have to, but i still want the section to be more balanced and rearranged. ill keep my eye open for any cites stating that there is no connection between the two. Mac33c 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources that refute an idea which is not widely believed is quite difficult. The onus is on the contibuter to prove a point is significant, if sources are unreliable it is the contributer's job to say that they are reliable also. How can you say that a source is well-researched? -- Tompsci 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this problem will be solved easily if we write "as U.S. congress or C.I.A. claims". We should'n't write it as an absolute fact.--Sa.vakilian 16:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hided some statements like "reliable sources" or "other observer". These are not verifiable or clear. Please write specificly. Also I put clean up tag on this part because it should be rearranged.--Sa.vakilian 16:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't understand why the U.S. Congress or the CIA would not be a reliable source, I accept your proposal as fair and NPOV. Thanks, Sa.vakilian. --GHcool 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you spell WMD? PalestineRemembered 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian. Should be stated that way, and it definitely should be rearranged. Mac33c 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I reworked the intro as follows:

paragraph one: historial background on origins
paragraph two: state the controversy, list violent acts and positions on these acts
paragraph three: state the postion: it is jihad and resistance
paragraph four: state the position: it is terrorism
paragraph five: controversy of maintence of arms after end of civil war and currently

I removed stuff that was well covered elsewhere about politics, ideology etc and just focused the intro on the above. There were a few places where the same info was repeated a few times. I eliminated this redundancy. NOthing was removed completely.

I changed the name of the section to "intro and background" Elizmr 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro is going to become a new article. I want to edit lead and intro as soon as possible, but I'm too busy these days.--Sa.vakilian 06:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with intro becoming a new article. Please discuss and get consensus before you do this, ok? Happy Ramadan. Elizmr 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. My English is not well. I mean it becomes a new article by too many unnecessary stuff and I want to shorten it by moving some part of it body.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I misunderstood. What is unnecessary? I agree it should be shortened. Elizmr 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah Remark on the Jews

Footnote 66 mentions that Nasrallah thought that the ingathering of the Jews to Israel would make it easier to exterminate all of them. Please see the letter "Too Fair to Hizbullah" which disputes the accuracy of the original quote, said to come from a Lebanese newspaper. This quote was mentioned on Norman Finkelstein's website. He, admittedly, is not an objective observer, but the question of Nasrallah's statements deserves further clarification. Can anyone find further sourcing for the statement mentioned in this footnote? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n19/letters.html

Finkelstein's lack of objectivity isn't relevant. He only linked to an article in the LRB by Charles Glass, an article which quotes the Daily Star's managing editor suggesting that his former reporter had an agenda. Even Charles' Glass's objectivity is only very indirectly relevant. It is the objectivity of the Daily Star editor that matters. In light of which I can quite understand Hecht's questioning whether the Daily Star editor himself has an agenda[6], but since the questioning (and the archive search of everything the reporter in question wrote) is being done by a Wikipedia editor and not an external reliable source, it constitutes original research and has to go. Perhaps a citable source will point out what Hecht pointed out; then we'll be able to include it.--G-Dett 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hecht, I am with you in wondering whether the Daily Star's managing editor has an agenda. But as of right now, the reporter's credibility has been challenged in a reliable source, whereas the managing editor's credibility has been challenged only by you.

You say you're not challenging his credibility, only stating the fact that "between August 2002 and November 2003, the newspaper published no fewer than 170 reports by the same journalist." But a fact about a Daily Star reporter's resume has no place in an article about Hezbollah, unless it's making a point about the Daily Star's credibility when it now distances itself from said reporter. Read the text of WP:NOR; you can't use source B to refute source A. And in this case, source B is a search results page created by you.

I'm all for pursuing this rift in the Daily Star, but let's wait for voices in reliable sources to say what they say.--G-Dett 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, WP:NOR doesn't say "you can't use source B to refute source A," it excludes original ideas, terms, definitions, unsourced arguments, analyses and syntheses of published material, etc. Stating a fact whose source is a page in the newspaper's own archive doesn't fall under any of these headings.

The page in question was not, in fact, created by me (it is circulating by email); and if you know of any Wikipedia policy excluding newspaper archive pages as sources then please refer me to it and I will concede.

Incidentally, it isn't true that "All searches... create URLs for their results list": try searching, e.g., the New Republic Archive.--Hecht 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C."

I have three questions, Hecht. I wonder if you'll answer each.

1. Can you tell me how to get to this "page in the newspaper's own archive"? I say the URL has been created ad hoc by a search; you say not. The title of the page is "Daily Star Simple Search Results," which would seem to support my position. If this page represents something published by the Daily Star, not an ad hoc page generated by a reader's input, can you tell me how to get to it through the newspaper's web portal?

2. If your edit only "stated a simple fact, without commenting on anyone's 'credibility'," then what is the word "but" doing in it?

3. What is this simple fact about the reporter's resume doing in an article about Hezbollah, if not commenting on the credibility of the editor who's distanced himself from said reporter?

It seems your "reliable source" is a circular email you received, which obviously doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. I'll carefully consider your responses to all three questions before deciding whether to revert. Thanks.--G-Dett 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The rule you're quoting refers to syntheses of different facts/sources to advance an original conclusion. My sentence mentions a single fact in a single source and allows readers to draw whatever conclusions they think appropriate (see below).

1. You get to the page by clicking on the URL in question. I don't know how it was originally created. Again, if there's any Wikipedia prohibition on newspaper archive search URLs, then please refer me to it and I'll happily concede.

2. I agree. Your latest edit (minus the words "A search of") strikes me as entirely fair.

3. Readers can draw any of these conclusions:

(i) the editor isn't telling the truth (so the reporter didn't fabricate the quotation);

(ii) the editor is telling the truth (and the reporter's many contributions explain why the fabricated quotation passed unnoticed);

(iii) there's no way of knowing who's telling the truth (on the one hand, the editor is an authoritative source; on the other hand, the reporter was a very frequent contributor).

I promise that I wouldn't dream of citing a circular email in a Wikipedia entry! The reliable source is meant to be the newspaper archive URL.--Hecht 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Hecht. I have no problem with the edit as it stands now. I too am curious if results lists generated by a reader's search count as reliable cited sources in Wikipedia. Can a page of google search results be cited as a reliable source? It would seem to me that a reader's engagement with an online search engine would be the very definition of original research.

That's one kind of OR, and it's an open question whether the edit still runs afoul of it. I am curious what other editors say.

Your edit in its initial form ("On the other hand, between August 2002 and November 2003, the newspaper published no fewer than 170 reports by this supposedly unreliable journalist") definitely ran afoul of a different kind of OR - that of "seeking to advance a position" by synthesizing material. But the current phrasing fixes that. --G-Dett 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Bannar

Would anyone object if I deleted the cleanup bannar at the beginning of the article? I think we should keep the cleanup bannar in the "al-Qaeda" though. --GHcool 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Look religion is the cause of all problems, lets be sensible people. It depend on your religion. Me I am nearly atheist so my opinions are not as bias as some. I think take everyone is wrong we just need to look past religion and at each idea with as little bias as possible. In a nutshell we all belong to the religion of mankind. Killing is wrong no matter which way you twist it. Both sides kill and get killed. If they just took the principle of live and let live they would be doing a lot better. Most religions are very peaceful its the few groups that give them a negative rap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitapronin (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but now, let's get back on topic. Cleanup bannar at the beginning of the article: keep or delete? --GHcool 04:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is yeah, let's take down the banner.--G-Dett 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK with me if the banner goes away. Elizmr 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

numbers of Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli prisoners edit war

Are there any citable refs on this? Instead of edit warring, why don't we include all estimates with appropriate refs? We can say the true number is unknown, but "source x" says "number y" and "source a" says "number b". Elizmr 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some different data about how many Lebanese are Israel's jail, but I haven't seen anyone clarifies how many Hezbollah's members are in Israel's jails.--Sa.vakilian 10:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post the data you have available. Elizmr 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at these sites:[7] and [8]--Sa.vakilian 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

These cites would suggest somewhere between 3 and 12 prisoners. Elizmr 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But apparantly most of them aren't Hezbollah's members.--Sa.vakilian 03:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just looking at numbers not H vs. non-H. I think the edit war was about the numbers. Someone kept saying that there were thousands or prisioners or something like that. Is the H vs non-H status important? Elizmr 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For purposes of Neutrality...

If we are going to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, then fairly we should state Israel as a terrorist government that is being voted on by its people.

Now reasonably this also applies to the Wikipedia Israel page that also lists Israel as a terrorist state. like the following:

Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info); Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl), officially the State of Israel, is a terrorist country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is the Middle East's only parliamentary democracy and the nation state of the Jewish people, indigenous to Eretz Yisrael (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.121.9 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An unsigned, poorly argued condemnation of Israel under the name of NPOV. How surprising. --GHcool 04:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the only country that has been listed as a terrorist state is the USA. // Liftarn

Funny- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wnen Israel bombs us with cluster bombs, demand that we leave our homes, kills us when we try to escape by road or shelter in UN bases, then Israel is merely excercising it right to self defence. But if we try to defend ourselves and rid our land of foreign occupation, then we are terrorists. Abu ali 11:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You're not "defending" yourselves by hiding in populated villages and towns, nor are you defending yourselves by advocating suicide bombings, nor are you defending yourselves by using human shields, nor are you defending yourselves by systematically murdering Israeli civilians. If you look closely at the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, all wars were started by the Arab nations, and all further action was retaliation by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.77.160 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious??? Are you really contending that Israel is a terrorist state? Hezbollah was created simply for the purpose of wiping Israel off the map, so yes, in their eyes Israel is a terrorist state. That doesn't make it a neutral point of view. Hezbollah is not a sovereign nation, Israel is. Therefore, Hezbollah's actions(Samir Kuntar, etc.) are in clear violation of the sovereignty of a nation and its people. Israel's response cannot be called terrorism since it has always been in response to suicide bombings, or rocket attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.77.160 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever someone introduces the X is a Terrorist i gently revert w/ an edit summary directing to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism. Make sure to read there about what is Encyclopedic and what is Not encyclopedic.

Now, and after reading that, everything left is irrelevant. Why?

According to Wikipedia:Talk pages, Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match.

The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.

Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles (i.e.Discussion forums). There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Cheers -- Szvest 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel is most definitely a terrorist state. It came into being by bombing out the existing Mandate forces, and it celebrates a whole raft of terrorists that aided it's birth. PalestineRemembered 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As FayssalF pointed out above, this opinio is completely irrelevant to any talk page, especially the Hezbollah talk page. Furthermore, the claims you make are astoundlingly false. If this were an ordinary forum, I'd do my "Accusation vs. Reality" bit with your claims, but since this is a Wikipedia talk page focused on improving an article rather than discussion and debate, I will let it go. --GHcool 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

as I mentionned before, Israel is a terrorist state simply because it dosen't have the right to exist. on 1948, palestinians were expelled by force and terror, therefore, israeli should expect to be expelled by force too someday.

Last revert by Count Iblis

The last revert by Count Iblis is a good example of maintaining a NPOV. The section is relevant and encyclopaedic. Which is not encyclopeadic is to say that Hizbollah is a terrorist org at the lead. See wikipedia link above re this matter. -- Szvest 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I reverted the intro just now again, because it was just too biased. In the intro you cannot elaborate on things and mentioning things like tat Hezbollah's goal is the total annihillation of Israel without further discusson is just propaganda. Also the use of citations to propaganda sources like IranFocus (Iran is central banker of terror) is questionable. Count Iblis 12:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it may be unpalatable, that is the stated goal of Hezbollah. One could argue that it is more consistent with propaganda to leave it out than it is to keep it in. I think we need to be very black and white about this. The organization considers Israel and illeg state and to be in occupation of the whole of Palestine. Some think this is justified; some think this is not. THAT's where the discussion is. Elizmr 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Elizmr that Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism explains everything. We are only allowed to list who says X is terrorist. A possible discussion would be relevant in a discussion forum but not in Wikipedia where everything is documented under policies and guidelines. My comment is related to my first comment of this section and not to the rest-- Szvest 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. What does this have to do with terrorism? I am not a proponent of the use of the word here. The revert was about the goal of annihilation of Israel (at least I thought it was, please excuse me if I was mistaken). Elizmr 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for the inconvenience. I already explained that as a small note above. -- Szvest 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to be explained what is meant by "annihilation of Israel". In the lead section there is no room to do that. If I'm not mistaken Nasrallah has made some comments about this recently. If one just says "annihilation of Israel" then that has very negative associations which Hezbollah (as understand it) does not support. Count Iblis 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they consider all of Israel to be on Islamic land and want to get rid of it and are working towards that. I know that has negative connotations to some, but it should be aired. Elizmr 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but "annihilation of Israel" is ambiguous because it suggests that they want to "annihilate the Jews" as well. Count Iblis 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What's with the infobox?

It prints out these garish;

Chairperson {{{chairman}}}
Spokesperson {{{spokesperson}}}

lines in the middle of the box, which I don't see in the article source. I really don't know enough about infoboxes to fix it. Anyone else here that does? Tarc 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, a lot of templates used a class "hiddenstructure", which was recently disabled because (among other reasons) it doesn't work with some browsers and hearing-access software. (IE, some people were hearing what you saw.) Template has been rewritten so these fields are optional without using hiddenstructure. Gimmetrow 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of the state of Israel

Surely the phrase "Elimination of Israel" is propaganda, a case of the Zionists taking advantage of the vagaries of translation? An NPOV version would be "regime change", under which the "right of return" legislation and supposedly apartheid nature of Israel is dismantled.

I'm not denying that many residents of Israel might feel very threatened by the overthrow of their existing government, and large numbers might go back to America. However, it's wrong of us to speak of "elimination of Israel" when a change of regime would probably see Israel grow. Likely expand to include Gaza and the West Bank. PalestineRemembered 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the term "regime change" as long as we keep in mind what that entails: replacing a secular/Jewish state with an Islamic one. As far as "the Zionists taking advantage of the vagaries of translation" is concerned, I direct you to Nasrallah statement that "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[9][10] and from the Associated Press, a moment from the same speech, "Nasrallah said as supporters interrupted his speech with chants of 'God is Greatest' and 'Death to Israel.'"[11] And of course, there are much more ... Did nearly every independent source get the translations wrong? --GHcool 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not propaganda, it is an aim of the organization. They want to see the whole of Israel proper, which they consider occupied, under Islamic rule. They are not just asking for right of return. Elizmr 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC) And given what GHcool wrote above and a look at the Hezbollah record, it is much more in keeping with propaganda to cover up the fact that Hez wants to elimiate the Jewish state than to say that they want to eliminate the Jewish state. Elizmr 22:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah has clearly stated that he wishes for all Zionists to die. Thus, he does not support the sovereignty of Israel. A "regime change" would be a non-military change such as the coup that recently occured in Thailand. What Hezbollah wants to accomplish is NOT a regime change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.113.115 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that what Nasrallah means by "Zionist" is the same as what Israelis mean by that word. Compare e.g. Zionist to Jihadist :). The Neo-Cons say that all Jihadists should be killed... Count Iblis 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement - I object to the translation being "the wiping out of Israel". You say that "Regime change" is not necessarily benign (and I agree wholeheartedly). I'm only asking we do away with this POV translation. Let's use the same terminology as we'd use if torturers smashed their way into Iraq in order to collapse the regime of Saddam Hussein. We're hardly being overly kind and considerate to the Iranians, prospective destroyers of the regime in Israel, by linking the results of their actions to what's happening in Baghdad right now. PalestineRemembered 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is severely compromised by references to Israeli government web-sites

The article "Hezbollah" references the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [12] on which can be found statements such as this:

"April 11, 1996 - HIZBULLAH - The Hizbullah is an umbrella organization of various radical Shi'ite groups and organizations which adhere to a Khomeinistic ideology. The organization was established following the 1982 Peace for Galilee War in Lebanon (and an increased Iranian presence and influence in Lebanon). The Hizbullah organization was established as an organizational body for Shi'ite fundamentalists, led by religious clerics, who see in the adoption of Iranian doctrine a solution to the Lebanese political malaise. This included the use of terror as a means of attaining political cognise that fact.

Israeli government web-sites may publish lots of genuine material - but the above is simply self-serving.

Here's what David Ben-Gurion, prominent founder figure and first Israeli Prime Minister said about the importance of seizing Lebanon: American Committee on Jerusalem "it wasn't simply Palestine the Zionists wanted. In 1937, David Ben Gurion said, "The boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." In 1938, he was even more explicit, "The boundaries of Zionist aspiration," he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv, "include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai" (Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies)".

Ten years later in 1948, Ben Gurion was quite blatant about the aspirations of Israel: "We should prepare to go over to the offensive," he told his General Staff. "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai" (Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion: A Biography).

Don't get me wrong - the rocket onslaught on Israel was criminal. but ........

Hezbollah is a much more multi-faceted organisation than Israel is giving it credit for. The encyclopedia should not be a party to linking the welfare, educational and medical work they do in a part of Lebanon cynically turned into a "failed state" with the militant operations sometimes carried out in their name. The above unsigned baloney was written by PalestineRemembered

--- Note: the cite above from the Israeli government is quite accurate if you read up on the history of the organization beyond what might appear on the BBC. The unsigned statement above needs cites to support it. Pre-Israel quotes do not apply to Israeli current policy and to suggest that they do is just propaganda. In addition, don't say that any state has an intention of "ethnically cleansing" without something to back it up. In this case, there's more evidence for Hezbollah having that intention towards Israel than vice versa. Elizmr 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What you claim about the accuracy of the quotes and cites cannot be bolstered in the way you've attempted to do. The web-sites of the Israeli governnment should not be used in this particular article.

Furthermore, the fact that Israel (and it's founding fathers before 1948) intended to seize and ethnically cleanse the Muslim south of Lebanon is historical fact, amply justified just by the clips I've posted here.

And I note you've made no attempt to deal with the point I set out to make, nor with the (cited) material I've posted. I believe the integrity of the encyclopedia is severely compromised by references to Israeli government web-sites, and I see nothing from you that attempts to present an opposing case. PalestineRemembered 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be rude here, but what are you talking about? Please refer to WP:OR and WP:RS before you discuss the integrity of the encyclopedia. Elizmr 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept the challenge. It wasn't too difficult unmasking your pitiful "Hezbollah doesn't advocate the elimination of Israel" argument and I don't think I'll have much trouble with the following claims:

The Accusation: "I believe the integrity of the encyclopedia is severely compromised by references to Israeli government web-sites." The Reality: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is as reliable as any other country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In fact, the exact opposite is true: if Wikipedia did not quote the Israeli government on the issue of Hezbollah, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be severely compromised! The Al Qaeda article cites the foreign affairs offices of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada without any challenge to the reliability (or "worthiness") of those nations' foreign affairs office.
The Accusation: "The founders of Israel aspired to seizing the southern part of Lebanon and ethnically cleansing the Muslim inhabitants. They did this for years before Israel was established, and it's important we recognise that fact." The Reality: I am not aware of any such aspirations in 1948. I don't doubt that Ben-Gurion could have said something to that effect, but even if he did, the inclusion of the quotation in the article on Hezbollah in that mannor is purposefully devious, manipulative, and appologetic toward Hezbollah. Furthermore, I see no mention in Ben-Gurion's quote of a desire for ethnic cleansing. It is at best a distorted exaggeration of a propogandistic speech made more than 30 years before the existance of Hezbollah.

--GHcool 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If Israel always intended to "smash" Lebanon, link to the Christians of north Lebanon, and ethnically cleanse the Muslims of southern Lebanon, then this fact should be mentioned in any discussion of Hezbollah. They're engaged in a fight to the death, and it's something that others imposed on them. There is lots of good historical material to suggest this is exactly what people like David Ben-Gurion (leading Zionist, founder and first Prime Minister of Israel) intended to do.

Furthermore, Israeli government web-sites should come with a "health-warning". Israeli intentions in this area have consistently appeared to be acquisitive. PalestineRemembered 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read my response to your previous accusation of the Israeli genocidal plot against the Muslims within Lebanon. I suggest you read it and then come back with reliable sources before commenting further on the issue. As for the reliability of Israeli government websites, I think any reasonable person will recognize that as a combatant of Hezbollah, Israeli government websites have an extremely important, however biased, role in a universal understanding of Hezbollah. --GHcool 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism

This is now included in the source code as a comment:

I think that if people make edits and also remove this comment and insert "terrorist" in the lead then all the edits should just be deleted. They should then not complain why everything was reverted. Count Iblis 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis: No; someones controversial insertion doesn't give a right to revert everybody elses legitimate edits; and doing so is just using it as an excuse. Itzse 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the guideline mentioned above a content like ...Hezbollah, or its external security arm, has been labeled a terrorist organization by several countries; including Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel; but labeling it a terrorist organization is controversial; as the EU regards it as a terrorist organization but says that it is "unhelpful" to call it as such. is ecyclopaedic and legitimate.

According to the same guideline a content like Hizbollah is a terrorist org is not encyclopaedic.

The current version as it is is therefore NPOV. I believe there are no sideline or personal arguments that can be much clearer than that. -- Szvest 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FayssalF: If you want to debate my edits if they are encyclopedic; thats fine. But what has this to do with my comment to Count Iblis? He reverted "four" peoples edits because "one" person inserted the controversial word "terrorist"; so I "accused" not "complained" that he used "one's" controversial edit as an excuse to revert "three" other peoples edits. So he goes on to defend himself here; for which I comment and point out his error. What has this to do with my edits today and my comment to him? Itzse 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do w/ your discussion w/ Iblis. It's a reminder to everyone inserting terrorist. -- Szvest 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That happened by accident. And that's why the comment in the text was inserted. Only the editor who violates the NPOV policy w.r.t. this issue will be reverted, not others, of course. It then doesn't matter if that particular editor also made a lot of other constructive edits.

This is exactly the same policy used in the global warming article. There the sentence "Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming" was a frequent attack by POV pushers. Since a similar comment was inserted there, there have only been a few attacks on that sentence. Count Iblis 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept it as an accident and all is forgiven. Itzse 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This not putting Hezbollah as a terrorist is wrong. They are non goverment group attacking a soviergn nation from outside their borders. They push a wheelchair user off a passenger liner. I never agreed to this NPOV and most of the other editors did not either. If I don't hear a reply on 24 hours I will start changing it back.205.188.116.134 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Hezbollah was involved in the hijacking of that ship where the handicapt American was thrown into the sea. And even if such an incident happened, you cannot then say that the organization to which the person belongs is a terrorist organization unless such actions were planned by the organization. Similarly, the fact that US soldiers have tortured an Afghan man to death in Bagram air base doesn't make the US army a criminal organization.

We should stick to the (notable) facts. If Hezbollah or militants linked to Hezbollah have been involved in some action then that is usually a verifiable fact and such things can be mentioned. If that action is considered to be an act of terrorism by say Finland, then that can be mentioned too. If Hezbollah is considered to be a terrorist organization by Israel, the US etc, then that is mentioned too. But it is not an objective verifiable fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. This is because there is no unambiguous definition of terrorism that can be applied to groups like Hezbollah.

A statement like "group X is a terrorist organization" must be universally accepted before you could write this in wikipedia. Sources must be provided to back that up. A citation to a newspaper that claims that X is a terrorist organization won't do, because that's just a claim in the newspaper. You would need a reliable source that says that X is universally considered to be a terrorist orgasnization. Now this isn't the case for any group, AFAIK, and that's why there exists a wiki policy for avoiding the word terrorist in the definition of organizations.

This is just how wikipedia policy works for all articles. There was a recent discussion to relax the need for citations for well established scientific facts. Even in that case there was no consensus. We need to give citations to even the most trivial well established facts to make wiki articles verifiable. So, there is absolutely no place in wikipedia for statements that are not accepted at all, let alone not verifiable. Count Iblis 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean since not everyone accepts the Theory of Evoltion or the Earth is not flat you can't post what is established. Only radical islamic facists and European elite are questioning Hezbollah status. Most reputable group know Hezbollah as a terrorist. Do not revert me again!Tannim 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because the article on evolution is about the scientific perspective on this topic. In some cases there can be controversies and then you can write a wiki article on that controversy. E.g. there is a wiki article on the global warming controversy. There the people who disagree with the scientific pov can put forward their arguments that cannot be included in the global warming article (in principle it could be included there, but the global warming article is a bit too large to stray into the controvery). These arguments must, of course, be notable and be cited etc.

You say that "Most reputable group know Hezbollah as a terrorist", you presumably mean countries like the US and Israel etc. But that is then a fact which can be (it actually is) mentioned in the article. Count Iblis 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I maintain calling Hezbollah terrorists is like calling Hitler evil or Ghandi a pacifist. Central to the description. And since the U.S, Israel and the United Kingdom are a lot more credible than the U.N that should be the deciding factor.Tannim 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You can maintain your point of view, but wikipedia must stay neutral. I have my point of view too, but I cannot write my opinion in wiki articles. U.S, Israel and the United Kingdom are more credible? Then were are the WMD? Did Saddam hide them in your basement? :) Count Iblis 13:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So why is calling Hezbollah a millant orginization a NPOV? It gives them more credibilty than they deserve. How about this for a compromise: Hezbollah is a group that uses terorism. And don't talk to me about Wilkipedia unbiased edits they call the U.S removal of Saddam an invasion why not liberation (which is how the Kurds look at it).Tannim 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kurds already had autonomy after the first Gulf war. The Kurds saw it as liberation despite the fact that the had no stake in it. The same is true for Danielle Pletka who said that she celebrated the overthrow of Saddam with Champagne. Needles to say that their perspective on the situation in Iraq is very far from the truth.

About Hezbollah, there isn't a single attack sanctioned by Hezbollah that can unambiguously be labeld as a terrorist attack. E.g. the atack on the US marines was an attack on a legitimate military target. All this talk about terrorism in case of actions during wartime by Israel and the US is self defeating. It makes them look like small children who start fights but when they are hit start to cry and run home to pappy and mammy.

No reasonable person denies that 9/11 was a terror attack. But the US also labels attacks on US soldiers in Iraq as terror attacks. That to me is whining like a small child. Count Iblis 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis: It seems to me that you consider Hezbollah a legitimate army of a country & that the United States was in Lebanon in wartime; therefore the U.S. marines were a legitimate target by the legitimate army of Lebanon called Hezbollah; and the U.S. has no-one to blame for its losses. With such reasoning; Hezbollah actually deserves a medal. Itzse 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Itze, my opinion is that Hezbollah did violate international law when they fired missiles at cities. They did violate Lebanese laws when they decided to kidnap the soldiers. Israel violated other laws when they used excessive force. All these violations stand on their own and must be looked at separately. But ultimately all these laws are man made; they are not absolute laws of nature. They were agreed on for a reason.

E.g. who wants to live in a society where people can kill each other for trivial reasons? So, we have evolved various humanitarian laws over the centuries. But if create circumstances where certain groups will be motivated to fight, but can only do so by violating some humaniarian laws, then that will ultimately happen. This is what we see today in the Mid East. You see violations of what is allowed in wartime according to accepted Western standards by everyone to various degrees. You can then argue if certain actions are terrorism, war crimes or perhaps just excessive use of force.

My POV is that these things happen because the "consensus" that was agreed on over the centuries that led to these laws regarding warfare has effectively broken down and then it becomes pointless to use such laws to examine precisely who violated what laws (like e.g. is Hezbollah a legitimate state actor who had the right to kidnap the soldiers) except in the worst cases like suicide bomboings against civilians. Count Iblis 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a moral equvilency Count Iblis when you equate Hezbollah with 2 soviergn nations, who are two of the most progressive in the world. 152.163.101.9

Count Iblis: Let’s assume that you’re right that the laws regarding warfare has effectively broken down; in your eyes does any country or organization or group have a right to intentionally kill women & children? Yes or No?

Please don't start another merry-go-round with talking about Israel. Let Hezbollah stand on its own merit. Itzse 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the point! What we call rights and wrongs don't objectively exist in the universe. You can't derive the ten commandments from the Standard Model. If we want to live in a world where women and children are not killed, we must make sure there is enough support for the laws banning killing of women and children.

I.m.o. no one has the right to intentionally kill women and children. But the relevant question when considering Hezbollah rocket attacks is what targets can be attacke to what cost/risks to the civilian population. Count Iblis 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis: In your words "Hezbollah did violate international law when they fired missiles at cities. They did violate Lebanese laws when they decided to kidnap the soldiers." In your opinion "no one has the right to intentionally kill women and children." In your words "No reasonable person denies that 9/11 was a terror attack." So why would a reasonable person like you deny that Hezbollah’s attack on Israel to deliberately kill men, women and children is debatable if it should be labeled terrorism? Is there any relevant question when considering Hezbollah rocket attacks on civilian men, women and children? Itzse 15:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hezbollah's aim was to delibarately kill children any more than it was Bomber Harris's aim to delibarately kill German children in Dresden. The relevant question is why Hezbollah did what they did. There are different reasonable views possible on this. If the aim is just to kill civilians in revenge then that would be terrorism. A group that has used terrorism as a tactic must not automatically, in my opinion, be labeled as a terrorist organization. I think that would only be justified if the acts of terror is the raison d'être for the group, like e.g. Al Qai'da. But these are just my opinions... Count Iblis 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis: Now we're getting somewhere. You finally admitted that "If the aim is just to kill civilians in revenge then that would be terrorism;" but somehow you're not sure if that was their aim. You still have questions why Hezbollah did what they did. You even see different reasonable possibilities on this. So please share with us what those, might possibly be.

You left yourself a loophole; that even if Hezbollah's acts are considered terrorism; you wouldn't automatically label Hezbollah a terrorist organization like "Al Qai'da" since the "raison d'être" of Hezbollah is not to kill civilians.

So let me ask you; is the "raison d'être" of "Al Qai'da" to kill civilians"? "Al Qai'da" is a terrorist organization who has grievances and has an agenda; but they use "terrorism" to achieve their goals. So how are they different then Hezbollah who also have grievances and an agenda; and they also use "terrorism" to achieve their goals? Itzse 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, just close your eyes and try to imagine a meeting between Al Qa'da leaders. What do you think they are discussing? Grievences may have led to the creation of Al Qa'ida, but Al Qa'da is a terrorist organization because that's what the people who work for Al Qa'ida are engaged with. In case of Hezbollah it is a different story. Count Iblis 21:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did just that & imagined; now please close your eyes and try to imagine a meeting between Hezbollah leaders. What do you think they are discussing? Grievances may have led to the creation of Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because that's what the people who work for Hezbollah are engaged with. There is no territory to fight for; because Israel left Lebanon; remember? Please don't tell me that they "occupy" the Sheba farms because, you & I know that, that's a crock; used as a convenient pretext; and if Israel would leave the Sheba farms today; Hezbollah will still continue to exist. Also please don't tell me that Hezbollah not only employs terrorists; they also offer social support; because Al Qa'ida (last time I checked) also employs numerous people whose task isn't terrorism. If you think that Hezbollah is a different story; I'll close my eyes and please tell me the story. Itzse 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You could read the wiki article on Hezbollah and compare that to the article on Al Qa'ida :) Count Iblis 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated and Exaggerated Ties to Iran

Iran’s control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come “from Iran” to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it’s private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah’s charitable activities. Nor are the amounts crucial to Hezbollah’s survival; even the high estimate frequently cited in the press—$200 million per annum—is a fraction of Hezbollah’s operating funds. However, the most important reason for not targeting Iran for the continued fighting in Lebanon is that this conflict is antithetical to Iran’s interests.

While the Iranian central government was weak and scattered after the Revolution, semi-independent charitable organizations, called bonyad (literally, “foundation”) sponsored by individual Shi’ite clerics began to help the fledgling Hezbollah organization establish itself as a defense force to protect the Shi’ite community. This was simply not state support. Given the semi-independent corporate nature of Shi’ite clerics, especially in the early days of Iran’s revolution, when internal power struggles were endemic, there was little the Khomeini government could do to curtail these operations.

Now, after nearly two decades, this ad hoc export of Iranian revolutionary ideology may have succeeded too well. Whereas today the bulk of the Iranian population has at least some doubts about their government, Hezbollah maintains a stronger commitment to the symbolic legacy of the Iranian Revolution than Iranians, according to Georgetown University professor Daniel Byman. In a 2003 Foreign Affairs article, Byman pointed out that, “[Iran] lacks the means to force a significant change in the [Hezbollah] movement and its goals. It has no real presence on the ground in Lebanon and a call to disarm or cease resistance would likely cause Hezbollah’s leadership, or at least its most militant elements, simply to sever ties with Tehran’s leadership.

In short, Hezbollah has now taken on a life of its own. Even if all Iranian financial and logistic support were cut off, Hezbollah would not only continue, it would thrive.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2790/

Jacob Peters 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Peters: I totally disagree with you. Iran now has full control over Hezbollah and won't allow Nasrallah to call the shots anymore; because of his stupid move to kidnap Israeli soldiers which triggered the Israeli response and exposed Iran's retalitory option. Iran has been preparing for years to use its so called proxy's to bombard Israel from every angle in the event that its nuclear reactors are destroyed. Now that this has been exposed; even the Shiites in Lebanon will not allow Iran to use Lebanese territory to attack Israel; knowing that what Israel now did in Lebanon, is kids play to what Israel will do to Lebanon if it allows Iran to use its land as a staging ground against Israel. As much as the Arabs hate Israel; they are ready to sacrifice ALL their Arab brothers in the fight against Israel but not themselves. When you knock on their door they will sue for peace. That is the reason why Iran is willing to pay for every house, Israel destroyed in Lebanon; not because they love them, but only to be able to use them. The Syrians, Gaza and Judaea & Samaria are also on notice; that using them as proxy's will put an end to them in an all out war.

Iran through Syria was contolling the war, and without Iran; Hezbollah would have crumbled. Hezbollah on its own cannot thrive; it thrives on the billions that Iran is pooring into Lebanon. Israel wasn't fighting Hezbollah but Iran & Syria; but everybody pretended (for good reason) that this was a war between Israel & Hezbollah, leaving the real fight for another day. Itzse 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Peters. The article you've quoted looks like a much more credible explanation of what Hezbollah is doing than the version we often get from western sources. PalestineRemembered 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deranged Zionist POV in Intro

Is there any explanation as to how Hezbollah can target civilians when in fact the vast majority of those killed Israeli colonists in July-August 2006 were military thugs? Additionally, Mr. Nasrallah distinctly apologized for the accidental deaths of Palestinian Arab children. This claim that Hezbollah targets civilians is a deranged Zionist POV which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Hezbollah has always been an organization which figts off the illegal Zionist occupation of Lebanese territory.

The statement that "many countries" consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization is a factual error. Out of nearly 200 countries in the world, the only countries that slander Hezbollah as terrorist are America/Israel, England, Canada, Nederlands, and Australia. Jacob Peters 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If I for one second pretend that you are not likely crazy, I might mention that that attacks on northern Israel were part of Israel proper, so you are basically arguing that any Israeli Jew is a "military thug", this is obviously a ridiculous argument because it implies that anyone who targets Israel is only attacking military targets even if they are targeting schools or hospitals as long as they are not arab.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again:

The Accusation: "Is there any explanation as to how Hezbollah can target civilians when in fact the vast majority of those killed Israeli colonists in July-August 2006 were military thugs?" The Reality: No, there is no explanation because the question is an unfair one and implies the truth of an outright lie. If I were to ask, "Is there any explanation as to how Michael Jackson invented a time machine?" people would not know how to answer such a question and I would probably look rather foolish for even proposing that it happened.
The Accusation: "This claim that Hezbollah targets civilians is a deranged Zionist POV which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy." The Reality: The inclusion of Hezbollah's targetting of Israeli civilian areas is is about as neutral a POV as you can get. I was in Haifa this summer and saw the devestation with my own eyes. There are countless sources documenting this. I suggest you read the Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict before commenting further on Hezbollah.

--GHcool 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is a valid question. Did Hezbollah knowingly target civilian areas or do they just aim badly? Considering the rockets they fire are unguided the precision can't be that good. // Liftarn 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn: If it's a valid question; then I'll give you the honor of giving a valid answer. Whom DID Hezbollah target with 4000 (FOUR THOUSAND) missles???

Nonsense also has a limit. Itzse 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the phase. Sometimes Hezbollah have indeed targeted (in the exten it's possible) civilians, but then as a reposnse to Isreal targeting civilians. // Liftarn 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be forgetting that "northern Israel" was in fact part of the Arab state in the comically unfair 1947 UN Partition. If Hizballah wants to, they can fire rockets on what is rightful Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation. If Hizballah targets civilians, then it should be balanced out by documenting the IDF's war crimes. - Jacob Peters 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Accusation: "You all seem to be forgetting that 'northern Israel' was in fact part of the Arab state in the comically unfair 1947 UN Partition. If Hizballah wants to, they can fire rockets on what is rightful Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation." The Reality: Much of northern Israel, including Haifa, were part of the proposed Jewish state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. This did not stop Hezbollah, a Lebanese organization unrelated to the Palestinian problem historically and certainly unrelated to the 1948 War of Independence, from bombing those cities. Furthermore, the north is not under "Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation," but rather an annexed part of Israel since 1948 (37 years before the founding of Hezbollah). --GHcool 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah does not have the capability to deliberately target civilian areas. They have no air force. Their WWII-era Russian rockets are hopelessly primitive. Due to the extremely low civilian death toll inflicted by bombs fired by Hezbollah, it is dishonest to claim that Hezbollah deliberately targets civilian areas. Jacob Peters 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, even if your premise was true. You need to study logical reasoning. Isarig 04:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To expand upon Isarig's response, I'd like to rephrase Jacob Peter's argument in logical form:

(1) Hezbollah has "no air force."

(2) Hezbollah's "rockets are hopelessly primative."

(3) The Israeli "civilian death toll inflicted by bombs" was "extremely low."

Therefore, (4), Hezbollah does not and/or cannot target civilian areas within Israel.

Now, let's look at each claim. Claim #1 and #2 are both true. Claim #3 is poorly defined. Do the "bombs" refer to katyusha rockets? What civilian death toll would be considered "extremely low?" And, as Isarig already stated, even if all three claims are true (and one can argue that they are), why would #4, the conclusion, necessarily follow? If anything, the opposite conclusion would follow from Claim #3 alone: Hezbollah does and can target civilian areas within Israel. Furthermore, Jacob Peter's conclusion contradicts his earlier statement that "If Hizballah wants to, they can fire rockets on what is rightful Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation." A more detailed analysis of that statement can be found above. In short, because of the fact that Jacob Peter has a very limited knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and because he has an even more limited ability to argue logically and convincingly, it is my opinion that he should no longer be taken seriously on topics pertaining to Hezbollah (that is, if he ever was taken seriously to begin with). --GHcool 07:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Jacob means that Hezbollah cannot be accused of targeting civilians in Israel. You can argue both ways. You say that because their missiles are not accurate enough they are bound to kill civilians. You can also argue that if the objective is to hit military/economic targets and you are using the most precise weapons you have, then it is allowed. Compare e.g. the firebombing of Dresden. Or take our ICBMs that were aimed at Soviet cities. Count Iblis 13:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Although Count Iblis's statement is more polite and professionally worded, it is still ridiculously appologetic. Its like saying that the Al Qaeda operatives meant to fly the planes into a U.S. Army installation, but ended up crashing into the World Trade Center because some of them didn't have pilots liscenses! --GHcool 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that it is useless to argue. While some editors are fairminded and willing to see the situation fairly, and edit accordingly; there are editors who simply don't care for the truth and will say anything remotely associated with logic to defend their POV. You can argue until you're blue in your face, and still not convince those; for whom the truth doesn't matter. Itzse 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't belive for a second that hezbollah targeted civilians intentionally. The fact is, the rockets they fired were aimed at cities because that is how inaccurate they are. Many didn't even hit the cities, but landed in the surrounding forestes as documented on the page by the picture of the devestating ecological damage Israel suffered. Hezbollah is a far superior fighting force when compared to the IDF, just look at this chart of the casualites if you doubt the ratios of military to civilian deaths. Carbonate 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate: "The fact is, the rockets they fired were aimed at cities because that is how inaccurate they are." makes no sense. That it was aimed at cities; you do not deny and call it a fact; so whom did they hope to hit? soldiers? Please explain, if you can. Itzse 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you; if you would, believe for a second that Hezbollah intended to kill women & children; would you then change your mind on Hezbollah? or would you then try to give any justification & be at peace with yourself? Itzse 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If Lebanon's cities are strategic targets for Israel, why are Israel's cities not strategic targets for Hezbollah? I think the death toll clearly shows who was really targeting civilians during the conflict. Carbonate 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Hezbollah supporters. If Hezbollah had such bad rockets that they couldn't be sure what they were hitting and then they fired them they were taking a big chance of hitting civilians and civillian targets. Elizmr 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel had good rockets and killed far more civilians, are you saying Israel didn't take a chance and murdered those people on purpose? Carbonate 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate: By not answering my questions & by the way you write; it becomes crystal clear that you support Hezbollah & have no intention of editing Wikipedia with a NPOV. Now that you & your cohorts have been exposed, this case is closed.

I'm not going to discuss Israel; as Israel is not the topic of this article as was numerous times explained. Besides those like me, who take a fair position on Israel are more then willing that this & similar articles should take a neutral point of view. It is those with your POV who couldn’t care less about the neutrality of Wikipedia; and talking to you is like talking to a wall. Itzse 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are not going to discuss Israel, stop putting Israeli propoganda in to the article.Carbonate 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate: Stating what Hezbollah is; is not Israeli propaganda. This article needs to state clearly and unbiased what Hezbollah is; because that's what this article was created for; and how to write this article is the discussion here. Israel doesn't belong here at all; it has its own page. What's so hard to understand? Itzse 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pie chart by Carbonate

File:Casualties-of-the-2006-Israel-Lebanon-conflict.png

Pie chart of casualties

The yellow are Hezbollah confirmed and the green includes the rest of Hezbollah who have not been confirmed; as it is impossible to confirm if a Lebanese civilian was a Hezbollah terrorist or an ordinary civilian because they both wear the same clothes, and also because Hezbollah doesn't confirm its losses. Itzse 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is taking it too far Itzse. You took someone else's image and gave it the opposite meaning of what the image was initially applied for. And your argument is cruel. Overhere 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Overhere; I take your accusation very serious. I didn't notice that this image was meant to bolster someone’s argument; I thought that it was put here for propaganda purposes for which it is fair game to criticism & needs a paragraph of its own. I don't object to putting it back in the midst of an argument.

But I'm curious what do you find in my argument as cruel? Itzse 22:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Overhere; never mind; I know exactly where you misread my comment. Look carefully; I didn't write that "the green are the rest of Hezbollah who have not been confirmed"; I actually wrote that "the green includes the rest of Hezbollah who have not been confirmed". "Includes" means that what the pie calls "Lebanese civilians, also includes Hezbollah that have not been confirmed as such.

I actually feel sorry for the Lebanese civilians that were killed; but in warfare as cold as it sounds; it is called collateral damage.

The Israelis went out of their way; even losing needlessly soldiers; in order to avoid killing civilians; they threw leaflets & delayed their tactics losing lots of their targets; everything to again avoid killing civilians. But to some editors here; Israel is the terrorist, and Hezbollah is somehow justified; and dare you call Hezbollah terrorists. Itzse 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is rediculous, Israeli soldiers defaced and destroyed private property just to spite the Lebanese people. Israel lost soilders because they are poor fighters compared to Hezbollah. As for the matter of confermation, you are being somewhat dishonest about Hezbollah not confirming their losses. They have stated that more than seventy were killed. The IDF are the ones who are dishonest by claiming that every male killed in Lebanon was a member of Hezbollah. Carbonate 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Accusation: "Israeli soldiers defaced and destroyed private property just to spite the Lebanese people." The Reality: If Carbonate had even glanced at the targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, he would not say such things (then again, maybe he would). Israeli Vice Prime Minister Eli Yishai stated the Israeli objective in the war as clearly as anybody has: "If one has to choose between hurting the Israeli home front or the Lebanese home front, I prefer that the Lebanese get hurt. It hurts me to see civilians hurt by our air force, but there is no choice. We cannot be bleeding hearts while our citizens are being hurt. If Lebanese citizens pay the price, they will rise up against Hezbollah."[13]. To be sure, Lebanese bystanders were the greatest victims of this war, but the fact that they did not rise up against Hezbollah is not necessarily Israel's fault. This is a different argument altogether with at least two valid POVs, but this is far removed from the issue Carbonate is interested in, perhaps because this issue implies guilt on Hezbollah, something unfathomable in Carbonate's world-view.

The Accusation: "Israel lost soilders because they are poor fighters compared to Hezbollah." The Reality: Hassan Nasrallah and his supporters made similar claims after the end of the war. The rest of the world did not. The fact that Carbonate seems to unconditionally accept and agree with Nasrallah's "assessment" of the war speaks volumes. Why did Hezbollah allow the IDF to destroy much of Lebanon if they were fighting on behalf of the Lebanese, as some Wikipedians seem to imply, and if they are better fighters than the IDF? And why is Nasrallah still in hiding while Ehud Olmert appears in public on a daily basis without fear? Certainly the IDF made many grave mistakes during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but no reasonable person would claim that they are a weaker army than Hezbollah, for if they were, Israel would now be a Muslim state.

The Accusation: "The IDF are the ones who are dishonest by claiming that every male killed in Lebanon was a member of Hezbollah." The Reality: I challenge anyone to find definative proof from a reliable source of a claim by any IDF or any Israeli government official or publication stating that "every male killed in Lebanon was a member of Hezbollah." --GHcool 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Accusation: "Israeli soldiers defaced and destroyed private property just to spite the Lebanese people." The Reality: Yes, they did knowingly make life miserable for the civilians in an effort to try to make them turn against Hezbollah (to make them "pay the price"). Then thay some IDF officials say that they tried to avoid tergeting civilians is another issue. There are plenty of evidence that they intentionally targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. Ok, they may have not prefered to hit a civilian rather than an enamy combatant, but it was a lot of "kill 'em all and let God sort tem out" going on. For instance targeting ambulances, minivans and so on because they might be Hezbollah. And then dropping a laser guided bomb on unarmed UN observers. What was that about? That's not something you do by accident. // Liftarn

As I stated above, this is a different, better, and more accurate criticism of Israel than the one Carbonate gave. It deserves further discussion, but the Hezbollah talk page is not the place for such a discussion. The next best place would be the targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page. --GHcool 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And the judges decsion..!?

*The Economist* magazine cover declaring Hezbollah de facto winners of the war.^[1]

Carbonate 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ok... --64.75.187.201 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Policide

I've put the article Policide on AFD, it is written in an entirely anti-Arab POV. It's like an article on the Atomic bomb that starts with the sentence: " An Atomic bomb is a very powerful weapon that Arabs are trying to obtain to wipe Israel off the map". While the topic itself may be encyclopedic, it isn't the current form and rewriting it would defeate the purpose for which it was created by the POV pusher. Count Iblis 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Count, this is a highly inappropriate note to put on this page. This page is for disussing the Hezbollah page, not to alert editors to other issues. Elizmr 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The creation of that article has a lot to do with this article, the Hamas article and perhaps some other articles on the Mid East. Fortunately it has been rewritten to make it more NPOV. Count Iblis 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Count, with all due respect that is only your opinion.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hezbollah/Archive 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hezbollah/Archive 8 at the Reference desk.

Elizmr 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you just look at the history of that article and follow the discussion... POV offshoots that are linked to from this article are relevant. And yes, politicide should indeed not be relevant. The fact that it was, was exactly the problem. Count Iblis 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, it would be best to stick to talking about this article on this talk page because that's what talk pages are for.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hezbollah/Archive 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hezbollah/Archive 8 at the Reference desk.

Elizmr 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Reality and History of War

I'll summarize as best as I can some historical facts of war which would answer a lot of everyone's questions.

Couple of hundreds of years ago war was fought only between soldiers. Civilians could even come and watch the fight and no one would think of harming them (of course their weapons were pathetic compared to today's). World War One was partly fought in this way, but very soon the number of killed civilians increased through the roof. It was then that (I can't remember what major country)'s civilians made such an uproar because so many of their innocent civilians were getting killed. The result of the civilian's uproar was that the country's government completely pulled out of the war. Sadly, that was a huge lesson for every other governments. All of them realized that if they were to kill or terrify many civilians in the opposing country, the civilians would turn on their government and that country would have no choice but to resign. And the fact that killing civilians is way easier than killing soldiers, every government adopted this new plan (that's not to say that they don't attack soldiers). World War Two and EVERY other war from then on had this new tactic. All kinds of weapons were invented for the purpose of killing as many nearby civilians as possible, and putting fear into the others who hear of the incident. And there is no war today and no government involved in a war which is using a different tactic. Or if one is using it the other will quickly adopt it. Overhere 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sad, but probably true. --GHcool 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently read an article where it was claimed that the idea was first thought up byt the brittish during WW2. They had the idea that you could "bomb the morale" of th enemy. The idea may have came from their rather brutal warfare in rebelling colonies. // Liftarn

By WW2 the tactic was nothing new, civilians were taken down like parasites. The British invented and manufactored many weapons but they didn't start the idea.Overhere 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When soldiers stopped fighting in open, empty fields and adopted Guerilla tactics and advanced strategy and technology it was much easier for civilians to be slaughtered. But civilians have always been slaughtered, all the time: in the Germanic lands during the Roman Empire, Jerusalem during the crusades, Genghis Khan with skull pyramids, countless castles and villages massacred... it just appears like it started recently only because very effective weapons have been developed in the 20th century--64.75.187.201 07:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, the point is that all they do in wars is slaughter civilians.Overhere 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's work toward removal of the ugly POV tag

Perhaps everyone should list their reasons why the article is too POV at this moment and what should be done to address that. Note that as long as the POV tag is there, someone searching the internet and reading this article will see that too. So, this article will then be of limited value as an objective source of information. If we don't work toward removing the POV tag and try to push in controversial edits then we would only be writing for ourselves.

At this time I'm for removal of the POV tag because the terrorism issue in the lead paragraph seems to have been resolved. Count Iblis 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the POV tag as well and have been for a long time. I did not want to take the first step because I feared that not all Wikipedians felt the same way I did. Count Iblis and I do not agree on a lot of things reguarding Hezbollah, so if its ok with him and ok with me to remove the POV tag, I would assume its ok with most moderate Wikipedia editors. --GHcool 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound pessimistic but good luck with that! __earth ^(Talk) 05:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I moved some part of intro to the body and tried to shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

^ "Hizbullah's shallow victory". The Economist. 19 August 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] "Hizbullah's shallow victory". The Economist. 19 August 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]