The Hezbollah, Facts and Fictions...

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Hezbollah, facts and fictions.
First off, let me just say that when I found the video in the first link, I already had my mind made up about the Hezbollah. After watching the video, I had a change of heart and decided to go out and search out both sides of the story.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=63&x_article=1209
I did. This is what I found.
HRW's bias...
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/307/13653
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1201
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060801_photos_damn_hezbollah/
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/hrw_avibell_230706.html
http://www.stoptheism.com/?M=&T=214
http://www.nysun.com/article/36647
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM=
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sarah_ma_060720_human_rights_watch_t.htm
http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=1029
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

Video claiming to be of the Hezbollah firing rockets and storing weapons in residential areas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWO5oU5LHFI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyHQFyO_fu4&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dU3dggfW4o&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irztwuGUz1o&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkX1wG2bG3o&mode=related&search=

This is about the Canadian Soldier killed by an Israeli missile, because the Hezbollah was using the UN post as a shield.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b

Here are some more Facts and fictions, curtesy CAMERA.ORG

Myth: The Lebanese government never agreed to Hezbollah’s armed role in south Lebanon, or to its attacks against Israel.
Fact: There is no doubt that a significant number of Lebanese, including some Shia, oppose Hezbollah and view the group as a puppet of Syria and Iran.
However, the government of Lebanon has for quite a few years officially accepted and applauded Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel. For example, on the website of the Lebanese Army is a Nov. 22, 2004 document entitled "Independance" (sic) which lauds the "resistance" (ie, Hezbollah) and calls preserving it a "strategic interest" of Lebanon:
The national resistance which is confronting the Israeli occupation is not a guerilla and it has no security role inside the country and its activities are restricted to facing the Israeli enemy. This resistance led to the withdrawal of the enemy from the bigger part of our occupied land and is still persistent to free the farms of Shebaa. Preserving this resistance constitutes a Lebanese strategic interest with the aim of relating the struggle with the enemy and regain all the Lebanese legitimate rights achieving and at the forefront the withdrawal of Israel from the farms of Shebaa and the return of the refugees to their land (emphasis added).
In addition, the Policy Guidelines of the Siniora government, read out to Lebanon’s parliament on July 28, 2005, defended the "resistance" and its "right to liberate our lands" and pledged to protect it. Here’s a translation from a Lebanese blogger:
The Resistance and Foreign Policy: Protection of the Resistance and recognition that it is a genuine Lebanese manifestation of our right to liberate our lands from any occupation and the commitment to a peaceful dialog that revolves around the available options we have within a framework that takes into account the Arab stand towards Israel and that ensures Lebanon’s sovereignty and national immunity.
(Note that the part about "peaceful dialog" refers to relations between the government and Hezbollah and has nothing to do with any peaceful interaction with Israel.)
These documents are exactly in accord with a July 24th interview in which the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, stated it was agreed when Hezbollah joined the government that his movement would continue with its attacks against Israel:
NASRALLAH: First of all, the government statement, on the basis of which we joined the government, says that the Lebanese government adopts the resistance, and its natural right to liberate the land and the prisoners. Okay, how is the resistance supposed to liberate the prisoners? It should go to George Bush? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you say 'the right of the resistance,' you are not talking about the foreign ministry. You are talking about the armed resistance, and the government statement says that it has the right to liberate the land and the prisoners. I am a resistance movement. I am armed. That's one thing. This is the government statement, on the basis of which the government won the parliament's vote of confidence. (Translation by MEMRI)
In this case Nasrallah is telling the truth. The government of Lebanon agreed to Hezbollah’s policies and shares responsibility for the group’s attack against Israel and for the consequences.
Myth: Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 made Hezbollah the first Arab force to compel the Israelis to retreat.
Fact: First, Israel chose to leave the security zone in May 2000, and in no sense was it forced out by Hezbollah. The Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Barak, had made a campaign pledge to withdraw from Lebanon within one year of his election, with or without an agreement. Once elected the pledge was included in his government’s initial guidelines and was reiterated in public statements before the withdrawal.
Israeli losses in the security zone before 2000 were about 20 soldiers killed per year. Had Barak believed that the presence served an important security interest, such a casualty rate would not have been nearly enough to force Israel to leave.
While Hezbollah did not force any Israeli retreat, other Arab forces have. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, launched by Egypt and Syria, Israeli forces were forced back around five miles from the pre-war Suez line by the Egyptian army, and a similar distance in the Golan Heights by Syrian forces. Eventually Israel did force the Syrians back and took additional territory as well, advancing to within 20 miles of Damascus. Similarly, in the south, Israel crossed the Suez Canal and cut off and surrounded the Egyptian forces, who were only rescued by superpower intervention.
But that Israel won the 1973 War does not change the fact that at the outset both Egypt and Syria forced the Israelis to retreat, and that when the war concluded Egypt controlled territory it had lost to Israel in 1967.
Hezbollah’s claim that they were the first Arab force to compel Israel to withdraw from territory is therefore doubly wrong.
Myth: Since the present conflict has been going on for almost a month this is the longest Arab-Israeli war. No other Arab force has been able to fight Israel this long.
Fact: First, this has hardly been a full scale war. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to deal with the PLO’s state-within-a-state, for example, they did so with 60,000 troops. For the first three weeks of this conflict Israel mostly used air strikes to attack Hezbollah, and when the ground campaign began in earnest Israel committed only 10,000 soldiers. Only one month into the conflict has Israel committed about 40,000 ground soldiers to battle.
Second, the War of Attrition, launched by Egypt after the Six Day War, lasted from around July 1967 till August 8, 1970 – that is, more than three years. This also wasn’t a full scale war, but in the course of the fighting Israel lost 1,424 soldiers and 100 civilians (and inflicted far larger casualties on the Egyptians).
Myth: Hezbollah’s goal is just to recover Sheba farms (territory it claims is Lebanese) and get back its prisoners. It does not want to destroy Israel.
Fact: The United Nations researched the Sheba Farms issue with the cooperation of Israel and Lebanon, and found that Israel had completely withdrawn from Lebanese territory and that Sheba Farms was Syrian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. In other words, the Sheba Farms issue is just a pretext concocted by Hezbollah to justify its continuing attacks against Israel.
Regarding Hezbollah’s intentions towards Israel, Nasrallah himself stated, after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, that:
We have liberated the south. Next we’ll liberate Jerusalem. (Washington Post, July 16, 2006)
In addition, chief Hezbollah spokesman Hassan Ezzeddin stated in a 2002 interview that:
If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine. (The New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)
Hezbollah’s aim is to destroy Israel, and it convinced itself that it had found the key to doing so. They would not be the first Arab force to come to this conclusion.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=63&x_article=1183

I'm sure the anti crowd will way in with there half cent worth of drivel, but that is not what we should lower this to. Lets pull out the big people thought here. What are we being fed and what is really happening? Who are the real villians here(besides the US and Israel, we are all well aware of there atrocities)?


Are the wars of the day, being faught on the field or in the livingrooms and the new field of battle, public opinion?
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
That is a bunch of BS that the Hezbollah was using the U.N as a shield.

A U.N guy is not going to say that okay, Hezbollah is nearby bomb us to hell along with the Hezbollah. They would give them the area where Hezbollah is and say stop targeting us, go to the left or right. Or north or south.

Second, we all know about Hezbollah, what about israeli crimes, bombing of civilian areas, using cluster munitions that have killed 2 Lebanese each and every single day.

U.S.S Liberty,

El Arish Massacre.

Qana 1996, don't even try to say those 800 + civilians and U.N peacekeepers were Hezbollah, it is not going to wash.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That is a bunch of BS that the Hezbollah was using the U.N as a shield.

A U.N guy is not going to say that okay, Hezbollah is nearby bomb us to hell along with the Hezbollah. They would give them the area where Hezbollah is and say stop targeting us, go to the left or right. Or north or south.

Second, we all know about Hezbollah, what about israeli crimes, bombing of civilian areas, using cluster munitions that have killed 2 Lebanese each and every single day.

U.S.S Liberty,

El Arish Massacre.

Qana 1996, don't even try to say those 800 + civilians and U.N peacekeepers were Hezbollah, it is not going to wash.
You didn't even read half of my post, you breazed through it and came up with a close minded conclusion the minute you clicked the link to get to it, in the first place.

Don't bring up the USS Liberty, you know less then nothing about it, other then what you saw on the History network.

A complete lie and fabrication.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=23&x_article=161
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=23&x_article=170
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=23&x_article=181

Try actually reading any of the facts.

Hunny I have the resources to dispell any thing you can try to negate. Qana in 19996, to yesturday. All media hype and Hezbollah media manipulation. They understand that the un informed viewer, not unlike yourself, will fall a$$ over tea kettle for dead babies and bombed out buildings.
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
I have talked to survivors of the U.S.S Liberty. They have a nice little forum to talk and I have met one. So don't even try me. A several hour gun battle with boats and airplanes is not a mistake. The U.S flag was flying high and the Israelis damn saw it. And no congressional report or anything will prove otherwise since it was a cover-up.

I don't even get the History channel.

I only found out about it from the El Arish massacre of June 8, 1967 where as many as 1,000 Egyptian POWs were murdered by Israeli troops in Gaza, and then they murdered 14 U.N peacekeepers who were sent to investigate.

Check the Toronto Star they had it in an article.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I have talked to survivors of the U.S.S Liberty. They have a nice little forum to talk and I have met one. So don't even try me. A several hour gun battle with boats and airplanes is not a mistake. The U.S flag was flying high and the Israelis damn saw it. And no congressional report or anything will prove otherwise since it was a cover-up.
YOU ARE SO FULL OF CRAP!!! Name them!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
ReportDate issuedConclusionC.I.A. reportJune 13, 1967 no malice; attack a mistake U.S. Navy Court of InquiryJune 18, 1967mistaken identity Report by Clark CliffordJuly 18, 1967no evidence ship was known to be American Senate Select Committee on Intelligence1979/1981no merit to claims attack was intentional National Security Agency1981Mistaken identityHouse Armed Services Cmtee1991/1992No support for claims attack was intentional
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The sworn testimony before the US Navy Court of Inquiry of many of the Liberty crew members contradicts charges that some of them are now leveling. For example, based on the claims of crewman Lloyd Painter, the History Channel website description of the program initially charged that the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked. Unmarked attackers would strongly suggest that the US ship had been deliberately targeted in some sort of conspiracy. But, in fact, the ship’s captain, Cdr. William McGonagle, testified that he had identified the torpedo boats as Israeli, leading him to conclude that the attack had quite possibly been a mistake:
[SIZE=-1]When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling to us. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames. At this time I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error. (Sworn testimony of Cdr. William L. McGonagle, June 14, 1967; emphasis added)[/SIZE]
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Curiously, Mr. Painter did not mention this charge in his sworn testimony. Lt. Painter testified, under oath, that as the jets first strafed the ship (which would be before they passed over the ship) he was:
[SIZE=-1]... looking through the porthole at the gun mounts. I was looking through the porthole when I was trying to contact these two kids, and I saw them both; well, I didn't exactly see them as such. They were blown apart, but I saw the whole area go up in smoke and shattered metal. And, at about the same time the aircraft strafed the bridge area itself. The quartermaster, quartermaster third class Pollard was standing right next to me, and he was hit, evidently with flying glass from the porthole... we both hit the deck, as well as Mr. O'Malley, who was my JOOD at the time. As soon as the first strafing raid had been made, we sounded general quarters alarm. The captain was on the bridge. He was in the pilot house at this time. I don't know whether he was hit then or not, I can't remember. It was so smokey. I took off for my general quarters station, which as I said before, was repair three on the mess decks. On the way down I was running as fast as I could. (Testimony of LTJG Lloyd C. Painter, June 14, 1967)[/SIZE]
Thus, according to Lt. Painter’s sworn testimony he was looking at the Liberty’s gun mounts as the jets attacked, at which point he quite understandably “hit the deck.” When the first strafing run was over, Lt. Painter ran as fast as he could to his station below decks; he was therefore in no position to determine whether the attacking jets were marked or unmarked. At no point in his testimony did he claim that the jets were unmarked or even that he was in a position to tell.
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
Killing of Indian UNEF Members (June 1967)
"The Indian Government handed an aide memoire to the Israel Consul General in Delhi .... The aide memoire says 'An Israeli tank in Gaza deliberately fired on an Indian UNEF [UN Emergency Force] vehicle from five yards, and then deliberately squashed the driver to death knowing that he was a member of the United Nations. The Israeli forces,' the aide memoire adds, 'on five occasions deliberately attacked Indian UNEF staff killing eleven and wounding twenty-four.'"
Source: Who Are the Terrorists?, p. 49-50 (citing The Times (London), August 2, 1967).

The last reference sounds closest to the incident described by Bamford in "Body of Secrets".


And with the attack on the U.N forces in the El Arish Massacre, the U.N forces although who were unarmed people did not run away from the israelis and they went to assist their fallen comrades and were gunned down like animals.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/f0e5cf015592d4d10525672700590136?OpenDocument
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9df8193bd64114c105256559005d4b7c?OpenDocument
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
With the Israeli bombing of a U.N. camp and the killing of four U.N. peacekeepers, we really do seem to be in a "deja vu" all over again phase. Already Kofi Annan is under attack for condemning the "apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post."
It is reminiscent of the trouble his predecessor Boutros Boutros-Ghali got himself into last time the Israelis tried shock and awe on Lebanon back in 1996, when he failed to suppress a report that said pretty much the same thing about the IDF shelling of the U.N. post in Qana, which macerated some 106 Lebanese civilians to death.
It is worth remembering that of all U.N. secretaries-general, Annan has done the most to end Israel's isolation in the organization and maintained the closest relations with Israel's friends in the United States. In the end, however, he is also a secretary-general who sets great store by protecting U.N. staff, and so the palpable anger of his statement is entirely understandable.
"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire. Furthermore, Gen. Alain Pellegrino, the U.N. force commander in southern Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack."
So to accept it was yet another accident presupposes a level of incompetence or insubordination in the Israeli army that should result in some serious courts-martial but never does. That feeling was doubtless exacerbated when the IDF shelled the site and prevented a rescue operation.
So what could be the motive? It is clear that there are many in the IDF with a profound contempt for the United Nations and all it stands for, and who would not shed many tears at such an accident. It may also rankle that UNIFIL has, with the dearth of Western reporters in much of southern Lebanon, provided independent corroboration of many incidents of IDF attacks on civilians. One only has to think of the fate of the USS Liberty in 1967 for being in a position to observe what the IDF was up to when the Israelis bombed and shelled an American ship for over an hour, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 170 more.
And most sinisterly of all, there are many Israelis -- including the government only a few days ago, who do not want an international force between them and their targets in Lebanon, who would have no great scruples about bombing a U.N. compound "accidentally on purpose."
This time, the "collateral damage" is not just four dead U.N. personnel. The bombing scotches any realistic chance of a reinforced U.N. or multinational peacekeeping force -- which it is worth remembering that Israel itself opposed until a few days ago, and which the war party in Israel sees as a potential obstacle to its attempts to emulate Ariel Sharon's disastrous invasion in 1982. (See the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom's ad in Ha-Aretz at the end of the article.)
Already, while many countries have endorsed the general idea of putting foreign troops on the Lebanese side of the border, there has been a complete lack of specific volunteers -- for the understandable reasons that the attack on Khiyam now so forcibly demonstrates.
Third-world militaries like the Fijians and Ghanaians make lots of money out of providing peacekeepers for UNIFIL and seem to think weekly humiliation by the Israelis and Hezbollah is worth it. There are few serious military powers that would tolerate sending their troops for IDF target practice, let alone Hezbollah attacks. And who knows? If any were so bold as to put in contingents, they may well stand up to Israeli incursions as well.
Some Israel supporters are already arguing that the bombing could not have been deliberate because it was a public relations disaster for Israel. Excuse me, but only an American or Israeli commentator could say that. Manifestly, for the rest of the world, the whole Israeli campaign is a PR disaster, with massive majorities even in Blair's Britain regarding the Israeli attack as a massively disproportionate reaction, let alone how Israel's assault is turning Hezbollah into the toast of the Third World. There is some added piquancy that both the Lebanese and Iraqi prime ministers (until this week at least champions of the democratic "New Middle East") are condemning Israel's assault.
Condoleezza Rice's statement that it is "too early" for a ceasefire, when only 500 were dead and countless more dismembered, should go down with Madeleine Albright's since regretted statement that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was "a price worth paying."
Since Annan is already going at the end of year, which puts him beyond reach of Bolton's veto, we can but hope that he will not be browbeaten by Rice, Bolton or Bush, but will use the sacrifice of the U.N. observers to shame the Security Council into demanding an immediate ceasefire.
And who knows, while he is still angry, he may wish to remind them that Israel was defying Resolution 242 for many decades before Resolution 1559, and that it has to be a crucial foundation for any peace settlement for the region.
1982 and 2006, side by side
THEN: The war was prepared well in advance.
THIS TIME: The same.
THEN: We went to war only to protect "the Peace of Galilee".
THIS TIME: We go to war to protect Haifa and Afula, too.
THEN: We waited for a provocation (the attempt on the life of Ambassador Argov).
THIS TIME: We waited for a provocation (the capture of two soldiers).
THEN: "We shall advance only 40 KM in order to eliminate the Katyushas."
THIS TIME: "We shall advance only a few kilometers in order to eliminate the rockets."
THEN: Sharon acted behind the back of the cabinet.
THIS TIME: Olmert-Peretz-Halutz act behind the back of the ministers.
THEN: We destroyed Lebanon.
THIS TIME: We are destroying Lebanon.
THEN: Only the PLO profited from the war. A few years later they returned to Palestine.
THIS TIME: Only Hezbollah will profit from the war. Their prestige in the Arab world increases every day.
THEN: We were stuck in the quagmire for 18 years.
THIS TIME: How long shall we be stuck?

http://www.alternet.org/story/39518/
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
And with the attack on the U.N forces in the El Arish Massacre, the U.N forces although who were unarmed people did not run away from the israelis and they went to assist their fallen comrades and were gunned down like animals.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/f0e5cf015592d4d10525672700590136?OpenDocument
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9df8193bd64114c105256559005d4b7c?OpenDocument
And you have never erred?
They had Egypt at one door and Palestine at the other, just poised to attack, and you think this event was a key to what?

They were facing annialation and these men got in their way. It happens, it's called the fog of war. Are you sure you're really related to the sibling that attempted to join the CDN AF's?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
This is proof you can not read...

You said...
That is a bunch of BS that the Hezbollah was using the U.N as a shield.

A U.N guy is not going to say that okay, Hezbollah is nearby bomb us to hell along with the Hezbollah. They would give them the area where Hezbollah is and say stop targeting us, go to the left or right. Or north or south.

What was really siad but you failed to grasp...

This is from the Email sent by the CDN UN Soldier killed by an Israeli air strike...

''What I can tell you is this,'' ''We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing."
''The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity.''
''What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),'
''The most important thing in combat these days, funnily enough, is not to win the firefight but to win the information battle and the PR battle,''

Now re-read and get back to me about what he really said ok?
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
BEAR!!!! This is a great fact filled post, way to go...you get the award for best fact-filled post!!!!!!!!!:cool: :cool: :cool: