January 05, 2007
“It's Like a Phish Concert for Terrorists”
BEIRUT – While Hezbollah occupied the Beirut city center in an attempt to bring down the government, I teamed up with my American friend Noah Pollak, who works as assistant editor at Azure Magazine in Jerusalem, and took a trip to Hezbollah’s stronghold in South Lebanon. We wanted to survey the devastation from the July War and see if we could find civilians who had been used as human shields by the Party of God.
Before we went to the south, however, Noah wanted to meet Hezbollah members downtown. He had never been to Lebanon before, and I was happy to show him around and introduce him to the “party” that fired missiles in our direction when we covered the July War together from the Israeli side of the border.
He arrived in Beirut at 2:00 a.m. His taxi driver took him alongside the edge of Hezbollah’s downtown encampment. Even in the middle of the night demonstrators were out the streets screaming slogans.
“What are they saying?” Noah said to the driver.
The driver rolled down his window and told the demonstrators an American was in the car and wanted to know what they were saying. One of the men in the street came up to the taxi.
“We will cut Seniora,” he said, referring to Lebanon’s elected prime minister. “We will cut him!”
Noah laughed to himself and knew he had come to Lebanon at the right time.
The next day I took him downtown so we could sit and talk with the malcontents and the disgruntled. First, though, we had to stop by one of the Hezbollah propaganda stands so I could buy a “resistance” scarf and go incognito into the tent city. Don’t laugh. It actually worked. All the hostile paranoia I had to put up with from Hezbollah’s security agents vanished entirely as soon as I put a Hezbollah scarf around my neck. The goons with their sunglasses and ear-pieces stopped staring at me, stopped tracking my movement, and stopped getting twitchy when I took pictures. They are strikingly obtuse individuals if wearing a scarf is all it takes to blend in.
So I picked up a scarf at the stand. Flags, t-shirts, and rear-view mirror ornaments were also for sale. Noah bought the biggest Hezbollah flag he could find.
A Lebanese woman walked by and smirked as she asked us where we were from.
“United States,” I said.
“And…” she said. “You like Hezbollah?” She tried hard not to laugh at us.
“Not really,” I said under my breath so the vendor couldn’t hear. “We just want souvenirs because we think it’s funny.”
She smiled and knowingly nodded.
I bought a Hezbollah t-shirt in Baalbeck last year – because it’s ironic and funny, not because I would ever actually wear it. A Lebanese army soldier watched me hand the vendor five dollars, and he shook his head sadly in grave disappointment. He was twenty years older than me, and I doubted he would understand the flip ironic GenX/Southpark sense of humor. Surely he thought I was a duped useful idiot.
Noah and I paid for our items. I put the scarf around my neck and felt as ridiculous as I must have looked.
Oh well. Hezbollah’s security brutes left me alone, so it was worth it. (Needless to say, I would not dare wear that scarf in any other part of Beirut.) Noah’s complexion allows him to pass as Lebanese (or as someone from anywhere else around the Mediterranean) so his appearance wasn’t a magnet for the paranoid and the suspicious.
He and I walked toward the tent-city and passed an angry-looking group of young women on their way out. One woman narrowed her eyes at me.
“Where are you from?” she said. She looked me in the eye, looked at my Hezbollah scarf, looked me in the eye again, looked back and my Hezbollah scarf. Then she yelled at me: “Are you from the States?!”
“Yes,” I said. “We’re from the States.”
For a second I thought she was yelling at me because she was anti-American. We were at the Hezbollah encampment, after all. But that wasn’t it. She yelled at me because she thought I was a stupid American who supported Hezbollah. (Not everyone who ventured downtown during the sit-in supports the “resistance.” Some were there as horrified onlookers.)
One of the young woman’s friends took her by the shoulders and turned her away from Noah and me. As they began walking away she nodded her head and flexed her hands as though she were trying to restrain herself and calm down.
Some Westerners really do show up in Lebanon and support Hezbollah, or at least get defensive on Hezbollah’s behalf. (Meanwhile they spend all their time in the liberal parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah is hated. So on some level they know who their friends are.) I wasn’t at all annoyed that this young woman yelled at me. She reminded me of a man I met last year while hitchhiking in the mountains.
"Tell me something," he said. “Lots of Americans come here and think we like Hezbollah. Why? We hate that. We hate Hezbollah!”
So Noah and I walked the grounds without getting any attitude or even attention from Hezbollah security. We did, however, get some unwanted attention from Hezbollah’s fans.
Next to the closed-off area of downtown where most of the restaurants are located is a small Roman ruin site. It was discovered for the first time in the 1990s when civil war-era rubble was cleared out of the way.
Noah and I leaned up against the railing next to two young Shia women wearing headscarves. Noah snapped a picture.
“Look,” one of the women said and pointed down at the ground next to a pillar. “It’s a picture of Hassan Nasrallah.”
Sure enough, there is was.
“Yeah,” Noah said. “It’s down there with the trash where it belongs.”
“Noah,” I said under my breath. “No need to be rude.” I did agree with him, though, that Nasrallah belonged in the garbage.
We talked amongst ourselves, about what I don’t remember. I smiled at the two women so they wouldn’t feel bad.
Then an older man walked up to Noah and me. He said something in Arabic, something I did not understand. Then he plowed his shoulder into Noah’s and knocked Noah sideways. He hadn’t heard Noah’s insult directed at Hassan Nasrallah. Nor could he have possibly known our political views. He was just mad because he heard us speaking English. My Hezbollah scarf didn’t ward everyone off. It only seemed to work with the oblivious security agents.
“Hi,” Noah said to him as though nothing had happened. “What’s up?”
I braced myself for anything. Our rude new “friend” said something else unintelligible and stalked off.
“Merry Christmas!” Noah said to his back.
Beirut is a cosmopolitan city when Hezbollah doesn’t squat in the middle of it.
Aside from this guy and two other random hostile individuals, Hezbollah’s camp-out was more mellow than it was the first time I went down there. The passion had cooled. Fewer people screamed slogans. The energy level was lower. Most appeared to have succumbed to some kind or torpor. It isn’t easy to be hopped up on protest adrenaline for several days in a row. Eventually you have to sit down, eat a sandwich, and smoke a nargileh.
The environment downtown was very different from what most Westerners would likely expect from a civil disobedience movement mounted by a Syrian-Iranian proxy militia.
Prominent figures gave public speeches to roaring applause, not to bullets shot into the sky.
College students made circles with chairs and held teach-ins.
Patriotic and Arabic pop music blared through speaker towers.
Snack stands were set up all over the place.
“Dude,” Noah said. “It’s like a Phish concert down here. Only it’s a Phish concert for terrorists.”
We walked the maze of tents and snapped pictures, looking for someone who seemed approachable enough to be interviewed. Few people paid us any mind, and we sat on a curb to drink a soda and smoke a cigarette.
Three young men walked up to us.
“Hello,” said the first. He introduced himself as Jad. “Where are you from?”
“We’re from the U.S,” Noah said.
“Welcome to Lebanon,” he said. “What is your impression?” Lebanese often ask me this question.
“You mean, what do we think of the political situation?” I said.
“Yeah,” he said.
“Eh,” I said. “We’re Americans. We’re not the biggest fans of Hezbollah.” The contrast between what I said and what I was wearing (the Hezbollah scarf) did not seem to register.
“Where are you from?” Noah said.
“From Beirut,” said another of the young men.
“Do you mean the dahiyeh?” I said. Dahiyeh means “suburb” in Arabic. It specifically refers to Hezbollah’s “capital” of Haret Hreik just south of Beirut.
“Yes,” he said. “From the dahiyeh. Have you been there?”
“I have, he hasn’t,” I said and gestured to Noah.
“This is your first trip to Lebanon?” Jad said to Noah.
“Yep,” Noah said and sipped from his drink. “It’s great.”
The five of us discussed Lebanese and international politics. The conversation was perfectly civil and pleasant even though they supported Hezbollah and Noah and I (obviously) did not. I didn’t write everything down, so I can’t quote very much. The discussion was more social and less of an interview. But I did take some notes when Noah asked a very important question.
“So,” Noah said. “What do you guys think of Iran?”
“Syria and Iran are helping us,” Jad said. “We don’t want them to rule in Lebanon. I like drinking and chasing girls and having a good time. We don’t want to be like Iran. If Hezbollah tried to make us like Iran, that would be a big problem for us.”
They were secular Shia. And yet they supported Hezbollah, an Islamist militia that is controlled by an Islamist dictatorship. As a noteworthy counterpoint (and I’ll write much more about this in the near future), I met a Shia cleric in the dahiyeh with a PhD in religion from Qom in Iran who is a strident opponent of Hezbollah.
Counterintuitive as it may be, Islamists are sometimes supported by secular people while facing hostility from the religious. The Middle East is rarely as simple as it appears.
The Shia have long been politically and economically marginalized by the Sunnis and Christians of Lebanon. Hezbollah, you might say, is the revenge of the Shia. Their appeal is much more sectarian and political than it is religious.
Two men heard that we were speaking in English and, once again and for no other reason, felt compelled to come over and harass Noah and me.
“Where are you from!” the first man yelled.
“United States,” I said and looked away from him, uninterested.
He grit his teeth, leaned forward, and jutted his face up next to mine.
“Do you like Bush?” he demanded.
“No,” I said passively.
“Do you like Olmert?” he said, referring to the Israeli prime minister in a particularly nasty tone of voice.
“No,” I said. “No,” I repeated more forcefully. I was honest with him, too. Ehud Olmert is arguably the worst prime minister in Israel’s history. Huge numbers of Israelis agree with that assessment, and even many Lebanese I spoke to said they wished Ariel Sharon (who is seriously hated in Lebanon) were prime minister instead of Olmert.
This guy really looked like he was spoiling for a fight. If I were Olmert’s biggest cheerleader I would likely have kept my mouth shut at that moment. He was satisfied, though, when I said I didn’t like Olmert. So he and his buddy walked off.
An older fat man in a red shirt interjected himself into our conversation. He had the wide open eyes of an agitated extremist. He got into a mildly heated political argument with Noah, who remained calm and collected throughout. I was having my own conversation with the more civil and interesting young man named Jad. I did catch two telling points from the enraged man in red, however, and they bear repeating.
“Gulf Arabs give bombs to Israel to kill my people!”
This, of course, is nonsense on stilts. Israel does not receive weapons from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other Arab country. Don’t write off what he said as just another Middle Eastern conspiracy theory, though. He is aware that an important geopolitical shift has occurred.
Sunni Arab regimes – most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia – took Israel’s side during the opening of the July War. And every Arab government in the world except for Syria’s supports Lebanon’s government against Hezbollah’s “resistance.”
Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has a new talking point that seems to be filtering down. He’s accusing Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora of being a tool of the “Zionist Entity.” Seniora is continuing the July War on Israel’s behalf, according to Nasrallah, because he’s pushing for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
Seniora gets a lot of grief from commenters in the West for not moving quickly or decisively enough against Hezbollah. Look, though, at what he has to deal with.
It’s also worth pointing out that Al Qaeda accuses Hezbollah of being Zionist tools because Nasrallah won’t allow Sunni terrorists to come into Lebanon and use the south as a launch pad for strikes into Israel.
Six Arab governments – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Tunisia – say they will pursue nuclear weapons programs now because Iran’s atomic bombs need to be countered. None of these Arab countries sought nuclear weapons to offset those acquired by Israel. They fear and loathe the Shia of Lebanon and Iran (and most likely Iraq, as well) more than they worry about the Zionists regardless of what they may say.
The wider Sunni-Shia war in the Middle East, whose epicenter now is in Baghdad, may supplant the Arab-Israeli conflict some time in the future. For now, though, the Arab-Israeli conflict is used by both sides of the inter-Islamic divide to score propaganda points against the other.
“We have one enemy,” said the angry man in the red shirt. “The Israeli army. Us and the Yehudi people are friends.”
Hardly any Jews in the world are silly enough to believe Hezbollah are their friends. Israel does have friends in the Shia community, however, even though they are a minority.
This should not be too hard to believe. When Israel invaded South Lebanon in 1982 to evict terrorists in the (Sunni) Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Shia of Lebanon hailed the Israelis as liberators. This was the natural, instinctive, default position of Lebanon’s Shia as recently as the 1980s. It was only after Israel stayed too long and behaved obnoxiously during the occupation, and after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards infiltrated the area and whipped people up into a radical frenzy, that the current Hezbollah-Israeli conflict took shape.
Israel’s Lebanon proxy – the South Lebanese Army – later was formed in the south to combat the “resistance.” It started out as predominantly Christian, but most of its members were Shia at the end.
I was slightly embarrassed on Lebanon’s behalf after showing Noah downtown. He hadn’t met any liberal or moderate Lebanese people yet. Hezbollah would like you to believe that their warmongering and bigoted conspiracy theories are mainstream, but it isn’t so. Even their Christian “allies” in the Free Patriotic Movement part ways with them on this stuff. Only Amal, the other major Shia political party, defends Hezbollah as a militia and a state-within-a-state any more.
No matter, though. First thing in the morning Noah and I had plans to take a road trip to the South, to Bint Jbail and the surrounding region, with serious professional Lebanese enemies of Hezbollah. They were well-trained in combat and they knew the safest roads in the area. It was time to go looking for civilians who were used as human shields during the war. Our time together in Beirut was over.
Post-script: Please help support independent journalism. I have no corporate backing, and I cannot visit foreign countries and file these dispatches without your assistance.
If you would like to donate money for travel expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, you can send a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Like many American arabists, you know everytrhing about the Middle East, but you understand nothing.
Posted by: Michael at January 5, 2007 11:44 AMTHANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
(for exposing the truth behind Hezbollah and its supporters)
may i note for readers who are not knowledgeable of what has been happening in Lebanon:
The article clearly stresses in one part that Hezbers are asking for the downfall of Sanioura's government while calling it a "zionist hand".
You (readers) have to realize that during the war, Nasrallah always praised the government in those taped speeches, and right after the war, his ally head of Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, called this government that "government of resistance" due to its role in stopping the war and defending Lebanon in the UNSC, where it did a tremendous job.
Now, these same people, (Nasrallh, Berri) calim that this governemnt is the government of the Devil, etcetera...
Orwell once warned of this day, Nasrallah is our Big Brother.
Posted by: a Lebanese at January 5, 2007 12:01 PMLooks like Hizbullah is about to have another go at the government:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348833,00.html
Posted by: Renée C. at January 5, 2007 12:03 PMI completely agree with your feelings on Olmert. Sharon's stroke will probably turn out to be one of those watershed moments in history where had it not happened things would have been completely different.
I'm no big fan of Netanyahu, but he would be better than Olmert. Hell, my grandmother would be better than Olmer (and make better latkas too).
Posted by: Scott Kirwin at January 5, 2007 12:13 PMMichael: Like many American arabists, you know everytrhing about the Middle East, but you understand nothing.
Brilliant response (not), and perfect timing considering that a Lebanese person came along immediately afterward and debunked your non-argument.
Go ahead and throw Chomskyism at us, but believe me when I say we've heard it all before.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 12:15 PMThe rascist imperial silent genocide conducted by the American government is comparable to the Nazi regime. Stop your stalinist oppression of my clones. Bring down the rascist aparthied state Isramerica and buy my books. (the trust funds don't fill themselves people)
Posted by: Nom Choomsky at January 5, 2007 12:36 PMAnother insightful report Michael.
One question- I keep hearing contradictory information regarding sectarian rifts in Lebanon and other countries (like the much different Iraq).
One one hand I hear that the average person gets along fine with individuals from other sects, yet also there are examples of one or more sects oppressing or otherwise "keeping down" certain sects.
In what ways were the Shia held down in Lebanon by the Sunnis and Christians? Was it unfavorable government policies of some sort, or a kind of unofficial discrimination? Would a Shia living in a Sunni area have the same kinds of problems?
The entire Sunni vs. Shia thing seems pretty difficult for us Western types to grasp.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 5, 2007 01:17 PM"Slip of tongue or admitting bitter fact"
The Israeli daily "Yediot Aharonot" published in its website last Tuesday an interview with the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in which he admits that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is "the bravest man in the world". The interview with a Romanian journal was published in Hebrew for only five minutes before the site's administration deletes it. Olmert said that Sayyed Nasrallah "is the bravest man in the world, fears nothing and works courageously and as an experienced for the future although he is a leader for a terrorist organization."
But when the journalist asked Olmert "do you really mean Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon?" he noticed the "slip of tongue"- according to Yediot - and answered, "I'm joking!"
The website also mentioned that the interview tape was seized from the Romanian journalist, and the interview was made again with a promise from the journalist not to mention Olmert's words.
Olmert has said previously, in an interview last October, that he does not want to "insult, annoy or underestimate Nasrallah, but he has lost his appetite to fight Israel for several years."
I really want you to comment this article while i comment yours...
---------------------------
I really like the article's title (not), especially since you quoted Mr.N saying it....
However, I dont really know what you are trying to prove with your adventure in downtown beirut, anyways heres what i noticed through ur article:
(1)- first of all i quote you "All the hostile paranoia I had to put up with from Hezbollah’s security agents vanished entirely as soon as I put a Hezbollah scarf around my neck." and "Hezbollah’s security brutes left me alone, so it was worth it."
mmmm... let me ask you a question here, what did you expect? i mean let's say you didnt buy ur scarf and Mr.N ddnt buy his flag neither... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
have you ever tried to enter the area... no no wait... :"the tent-city" without your scarf??
I mean you should be very queen and sure that as long as you dont want "to act badly" they wont interfeer ur buisness...
hundreds of reporters (westerns) go around the area without anyone bothering them.... SO AGAIN! WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT?
whats the worst case scenario for you??
is it for them to know ur american and that ur anti-hezbollah?? well understand this very well my friend they wont bother you at all and by they i mean the hezbollah members cuz the people will treat you a lil differently;) lol
unlike israeli freedom...
(PS: israeli freedom is aterm born after the freedom of journalism during the last war on the israeli side)
everyone overhere is allowed to express his opinion even if it was non-sens-racist-stupid-imperialist-anti-arab/muslim opinion....
(2)- my second comment is based on the pictures you took and some of ur comments on them...
well i noticed through out the article you spoke abt a city-tent controled by hezbollah members and a demo organised by hezbollah and a low activity day after day and other stuff...
lol, first of all the area you and Mr.N covered is thee martyrs square , in other words (and since you claim ur an expert) its the square where most of the demonstrators are supporters of FPM , SNP , Marada , etc... and not hezbollah supporters ( i mean there are of course some but the vast majority are supporters of the other parties in the opposition)
however im sure ur sence of... i dont really know how to say it... maybe "journalism"?? im sure ur sense of journalism have pushed you to take a tour in the riad el soloh square but not with Mr.N maybe before...
and im also sure you noticed that noone will ever bother you nore interfere in ur buisness but again ur an anti-hezbollah journalist... a man like you lives on ruining the opinion of people in hezbollah sumtimes even for no reason....
so like i said in a previous post in ur blog... you are ready to change stuff, make stuff, lie even...just to support a story/an adventure and this is of course the case in ur last couple of articles.
3- my third comment is based on some conclucion u made from how the people dealed with you downtown...
A- the woman
"A Lebanese woman walked by and smirked as she asked us where we were from.
“United States,” I said.
“And…” she said. “You like Hezbollah?” She tried hard not to laugh at us.
“Not really,” I said under my breath so the vendor couldn’t hear. “We just want souvenirs because we think it’s funny.”
She smiled and knowingly nodded."
----------
the woman my friend did not smile at you bcuz she believes ur right.... she feels sorry for ur A$$ lol hehehe (this is in case she heard what u said "not really" and understood it) coz maybe she thought u wer joking...
overhere if i was buying a hezbollah scarf bcuz i like them and someone asked me do youlike hezbollah? a majority will answer NO!
NO! as in.... what the hell do you think i mbuying a freakin hezbollah scarf...is it possible that i hate them?
B- THE ANGRY WOMAN
"He and I walked toward the tent-city and passed an angry-looking group of young women on their way out. One woman narrowed her eyes at me.
“Where are you from?” she said. She looked me in the eye, looked at my Hezbollah scarf, looked me in the eye again, looked back and my Hezbollah scarf. Then she yelled at me: “Are you from the States?!”
“Yes,” I said. “We’re from the States.”
For a second I thought she was yelling at me because she was anti-American. We were at the Hezbollah encampment, after all. But that wasn’t it. She yelled at me because she thought I was a stupid American who supported Hezbollah. (Not everyone who ventured downtown during the sit-in supports the “resistance.” Some were there as horrified onlookers.) "
------------------------
again... a very stupid conclusion... (as much as it hurts me to say it)
the angry woman you saw is a smart woman who felt in ur eyes that ur taking the scarf as a cover... she yelled at you not because ur were a stupid american who supported hezbollah!! (well maybe bcuz ur a stupid american..) but bcuz its very weird and ridiculous act what you were doing with Mr.N ... i mean really!! i didnt know untill now.. whats ur goal of the adventure and the cover especially...
a proof of what i said is: "
One of the young woman’s friends took her by the shoulders and turned her away from Noah and me. As they began walking away she nodded her head and flexed her hands as though she were trying to restrain herself and calm down. "
lol she felt for a second like she wanted to convince you that u didnt need the cover noone will ever harm u nore bother you, she felt verry sorry for you am sure.... but the other woman thought differently ( stupid f**ks!! hehe the 2 of you ... lets leave them alone) and decided to take her friend whos still feeling sorry 4 u away...
C- THE MAN IN THE MOUNTAIN
DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY... ITS UR STORRY.... i cant tell ur lying and some people do hate hezbollah of course...
finally this...
"It’s also worth pointing out that Al Qaeda accuses Hezbollah of being Zionist tools because Nasrallah won’t allow Sunni terrorists to come into Lebanon and use the south as a launch pad for strikes into Israel. "
its very worth pointing at this Mr.T.... this means hezbollah are not the terrorist you claim they are... a terrorist is just like osama's people a person who just wants to harm others... and thats not hezbollah's case....
like the man in the red shirt said: we have one ennemy...and that is the israeli army! and the israeli army only... the americans and the jews are our friends... i bet u dont know jewish communities stiill live in lebanon and unlike u said shiaa dont like jews... look at iran's case... they held a meeting not so long ago... ahmadi nejad sat witgh many anti-zionism jews... JEWS!
but again this is u Mr.T you are the person whos ready to do anything to change reality and lie just to make a point and opinion whos more and MOREE people are not believing it anymore...
thanks a lot
ALi*
Wow. Your reporting is particularly interesting in the light of this and this. The central contention in these two articles is that we err and indeed assist Al Qaeda when we roll up these hatreds and grievances into one campaign, that being precisely what the enemy and his media campaign needs.
Understand, disaggregate and either delay, resolve or defeat in detail are instead the way to go. Your account helps enormously to illustrate this.
Posted by: ZF at January 5, 2007 01:39 PMi mean let's say you didnt buy ur scarf and Mr.N ddnt buy his flag neither... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
have you ever tried to enter the area... no no wait... :"the tent-city" without your scarf??
LOL! I'm speechless. Brilliant question ALi*. Brilliant.
Posted by: Mertel at January 5, 2007 01:47 PM"Hi," Noah said to him as though nothing had happened. "What’s up?"
I braced myself for anything. Our rude new "friend" said something else unintelligible and stalked off.
"Merry Christmas!" Noah said to his back.
Eh. Noah should consider himself lucky. In Iraq, his head would've already been rolling on the floor. And that's only if they didn't find out he was a Jew visiting from Israel.
Posted by: abraham at January 5, 2007 01:51 PMIt was only after Israel stayed too long and behaved obnoxiously during the occupation, and after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards infiltrated the area and whipped people up into a radical frenzy, that the current Hezbollah-Israeli conflict took shape.
What do you mean?
Israel came in in 1982, the same year Hezbollah was born. The Iranians had already been there.
The chronology you're implying doesn't quite add up.
Posted by: Tony at January 5, 2007 01:56 PMAli is banned for trolling.
Sorry, Ali. No one who accuses me of lying and making things up is allowed to post you. Your accuses do not even deserve a response.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 02:04 PMThe environment downtown was very different from what most Westerners would likely expect from a civil disobedience movement mounted by a Syrian-Iranian proxy militia. Prominent figures gave public speeches to roaring applause, not to bullets shot into the sky.
I'm sorry your expectations were not met. Usually when people are confronted with a reality quite different than what their preconceived notions would have predicted they re-evaluate. You seem to lack the capability to alter your thinking in the face of conflicting evidence. That's a trait I find most depressing in people.
"Syria and Iran are helping us," Jad said. "We don’t want them to rule in Lebanon. I like drinking and chasing girls and having a good time."
...
Counterintuitive as it may be, Islamists are sometimes supported by secular people while facing hostility from the religious. The Middle East is rarely as simple as it appears.
This is a rather banal (if not misleading) observation. You act like this sort of thing is foreign to America, when it practically defines our culture. The Middle East is not as complicated as you think. It is to you because you're an outsider.
I was slightly embarrassed on Lebanon’s behalf...
I think your dispatch shows that some Lebanese were embarrassed for you.
Posted by: abraham at January 5, 2007 02:11 PMAbraham: I'm sorry your expectations were not met.
I didn't expect anything of the sort. I have lived in Lebanon and know the place well.
The Middle East is not as complicated as you think. It is to you because you're an outsider.
Um, no. I understand this very well. Most Americans, however, do not. Most think Hezbollah is motivated primarily by what is written in the Koran and that people support Hezbollah mostly because they want an Islamist state in Lebanon.
I think your dispatch shows that some Lebanese were embarrassed for you.
Yes. The ones who thought an American was stupid enough to support people who scream Death to America.
You are an exceptionally tedious individual, and there is no longer any point in talking to you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 02:17 PMUm, no. I understand this very well. Most Americans, however, do not. Most think Hezbollah is motivated primarily by what is written in the Koran and that people support Hezbollah mostly because they want an Islamist state in Lebanon.
Please explain how anything you've said doesn't reinforce this incorrect stereotype? Amidst all of your demonzation of Hizballah, whatever little useful information you might be relaying is lost on the reader. I don't see you attempting to explain Hizballah in any useful way, i.e. as someone without bias would explain a highly nuanced situation such as this. So please explain to me how your constant denigration of Hizballah, which mirror your personal hatred for them, serves either your readers or the people of Lebanon? All you are doing is stirring up more hatred and distrust.
You may have lived in Lebanon at some point, but Hizballah lives there. It is their home and their country, not yours. I wish you would expend your money and energy on the problems in your own neighborhood, which would actually make a difference.
You are an exceptionally tedious individual, and there is no longer any point in talking to you.
I already made the same conclusion about you, but I was being polite by attempting to engage in debate, which is more productive. I'm sorry you're not receptive to conflicting ideas and opinions, although I give you a point for being (at least somewhat) tolerant.
Posted by: abraham at January 5, 2007 02:32 PMEh. Noah should consider himself lucky. In Iraq, his head would've already been rolling on the floor.
Counterintuitive as it may be, Islamists are sometimes supported by secular people while facing hostility from the religious. The Middle East is rarely as simple as it appears.
Talk about mixed messages - are you trying to sell stupid, simplistic terroristic threats or are you trying to sell the idea that terrorists are complex, honest and misunderstood? If you've ever studied marketing (and from the propagandistic nature of your comments, I assume you have) you'll know that a campaign to sell soap, dog food or Hezbollah needs to stay on message, at least for the length of a comment string.
And the whole 'pretending to be an expert' routine is also tired. We already know that 9 out of 10 Chomskyites and Stalinists prefer Hezbollah, but their opinions just don't matter
Posted by: mary at January 5, 2007 03:19 PM
Abraham: Please explain how anything you've said doesn't reinforce this incorrect stereotype?
Because I'm saying the exact opposite of the stereotype is what's real.
See, this is why you're tedious, Abraham. You aren't reading carefully, and you can't get over the fact that I don't like Hezbollah.
I can't imagine why you think I should support a bigoted and illegal warmongering militia in Lebanon anyway, especially when most Lebanese don't even like them and would rather live in peace and prosperity.
I wish you would expend your money and energy on the problems in your own neighborhood, which would actually make a difference.
I'm a foreign correspondent, not a local school board reporter. I am not going to demote myself because you think I should.
You really have your work cut out for you if you expect Americans to support Hassan Nasrallah's agenda of perpetual war.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 03:21 PMTalk about mixed messages - are you trying to sell stupid, simplistic terroristic threats or are you trying to sell the idea that terrorists are complex, honest and misunderstood?
Mary, one of the two paragraphs that you quote abraham as saying was actually from Michael's post.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 5, 2007 03:45 PMMichael,
You are repeating the same old leftist/arab nationalist/islamist propaganda that blames Lebanses Christians and Sunnis for the Shi'a's poverty:
The Shia have long been politically and economically marginalized by the Sunnis and Christians of Lebanon. Hezbollah, you might say, is the revenge of the Shia.
In fact, Lebanon's economic system is mainly free-market capitalism, meaning the political system is economically NEUTRAL; because the government is involved so little in the economy, it does not have the power to favor or marginalize ANYONE. (Unless you are a Marxist, in which case you think that government allowing wealth-earners to keep their money constitutes opression of the poor.)
The Lebanese Christians' wealth is a consequence of the value they (in general) place on education and hard work. The Lebanese Sunnis' wealth is a consequence for their value (again, in general) of enterpreneurship.
Hizb Allah is not a response to anything; like Shi'a poverty, like the Shi'a customs such as their Ashura parades where men slash open their heads and children's heads with swords, it is a symptom, product and consequence of the primitive cultural values that dominate Shi'a Lebanese society.
Posted by: Tony Abu Tuz at January 5, 2007 03:50 PMAbraham:
Are you really that thick? You quote MJT concerning what most Westerners might expect from a Hezbollah rally. If you had bothered reading more than one or two of his posts, you would know that MJT enjoys de-bunking the prejudice that some Westerns hold concerning "the violent and dangerous" anture of the Middle East.
You wrote: "You may have lived in Lebanon at some point, but Hizballah lives there. It is their home and their country, not yours." The domestic opponents of Hezbollah, supporters of the March 14th movement, also live in Lebanon. Thus, it is also their home, and thus by your own logic, it is you that might benefit from confining your energies solely to your own local issues.
You also write; "Please explain how anything you've said doesn't reinforce this incorrect stereotype [Hizbollah supporters are advocates of an Islamist state]?"
Did you fail to read Michael's last post? It plainly states "And although they are an Islamist party [Hezbollah], their main goal at this point, I don’t believe, is to turn Lebanon into an Islamist state, because they know it’s impossible. For one reason, more than a third of the country are Christians, and they will fight them to the end if they try to create Lebanon as an Islamist state. But also, there is the fact that the Sunni don’t want it, either, and if they did, they would be arguing about which kind of Islamist state to have. But also, the truth is that the majority of the Shia also do not want an Islamist state in Lebanon, and they never have."
Also, in his linked interview with Hugh Hewitt, MJT states, "But you should keep in mind, though, that these Aounist Christians, they have what they call an understanding with Hezbollah, and one point of that understanding is that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, and mainstreamed into Lebanese society." In that same interview, he further opined, "And they [Hezbollah supporters] said look, Iran helps us, but Iran doesn’t control us. And if Iran were actually trying to control us, this would create a serious problem, because they like to drink alcohol, they like to date and chase girls and have fun, and they know these things are not allowed in Iran."
I am not sure how MJT could have more clearly expressed his opinion that Hezbollah supporters are generally not advocates of a Lebanese Islamist state. In the future, I suggest that you please do try to read a bit more carefully before insulting our host.
Posted by: Mark-In-Chi-Town at January 5, 2007 04:13 PMMichael,
Another correction:
Israel’s Lebanon proxy – the South Lebanese Army – later was formed in the south to combat the “resistance.” It started out as predominantly Christian, but most of its members were Shia at the end.
Actually the SLA was formed in the 1970's in response to the PLO's brutal occupation of south Lebanon at that time.
SLA was not a "proxy" of Israel; although it was helped immensely by Israel, it was a real Lebanese group arising in response to severe situation (occupation and terrorism by the PLO) on Lebanese soil against Lebanese people.
By contrast, Hizb Allah IS a proxy of Iran.
Also, my impression was that the SLA was comprised of 1/3 Maronite Christians, 1/3 Druze, and 1/3 Shi'a, but those are only rough estimates based on what I heard.
Posted by: Tony Abu Tuz at January 5, 2007 04:22 PMThey are strikingly obtuse individuals if wearing a scarf is all it takes to blend in.
Yep.
I recall some Israeli official, either IAF or Mossad (probably Mossad), saying something to the effect of "the reason we have such a formidible reputation is because our adversaries are idiots".
Posted by: rosignol at January 5, 2007 05:43 PMHI MICHAEL TOTTEN !!!!!!!
I have few comments about your article:
“Lots of Americans come here and think we like Hezbollah. Why? We hate that. We hate Hezbollah!”
I think it should be “Lots of Americans come here and think we hate Hezbollah. Why? It’s not like that. We like Hezbollah!”
Do you agree with me?
When you talk about the old man and say that “he was just mad because he heard us speaking English.”
He seems pretty rude. But are you trying to conclude anything else apart from that?
And I stopped reading the article at this point.
I truly find you writing style very interesting and intriguing. I also genuinely respect that you are not trying to be objective; I mean your bias is clear. Whoever reads the article will immediately know your position which is “all the way anti-hizbullah”.
To conclude with, your friend Noah seems cool, but I think he might have an attitude problem.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts
Posted by: calculator at January 5, 2007 06:44 PMMichael, don't ban Ali. His rambling & insane comments are quite entertaining. Ali why don't you post at the Comment is Free Guardian site, you will find many soulmates there. Unfortunately Ali represents a good chunck of the so called educated engaged youth. Scary.
Posted by: ruth at January 5, 2007 06:49 PMLet Ali stay. I think he provides an interesting window into the mind of a conspiracy theory obsessed Arab.
Posted by: Corinne at January 5, 2007 07:12 PM“And…” she said. “You like Hezbollah?” She tried hard not to laugh at us.
“Not really,” I said under my breath so the vendor couldn’t hear. “We just want souvenirs because we think it’s funny.”
Now that's great journalism.
Posted by: TallDave at January 5, 2007 07:22 PMHas anyone noticed something? It even nearly escaped me when i was caught off-guard. I have to hand it to you Professor, you are really doing a hard job bitterly searching and trying desperately hard to find certain individuals who bear a scratch of a mild anti-social act. Such as barging your poor friend.
When you disgustingly diss and cuss a leader whos popularity reaches a peek of thousands, or to be kind, tens of millions, and who is known by billions across this globe, you are demeaning these people to the lowest grade anyone can bring down any person, because this person is their ideoological, spiritual, political role model, when you are no-ones. This guy has never hurt you, or touched you, but you seem very keen on taking the piss out of him. Whoever does this, i believe deserves more than a tiny bardge. From this article, i could see the only people acting ignorant and anti-social and extremely rude and offensive were you two, not individual hizbollah supporters.
Back to my point, while you vainly look for these people in order to write about them, when no-one even has first-hand or live evidence that what you claim is not a fabrication, at least a photo pf someone just looking threatening, because surely every picture you have taken of the hizbollah supporters seem to be friendly, especially those 3 smoking the nergilah, while the pro-governmentaql people were recorded on video rioting against the demonstrators and at least 7 convicted for killing a total of two demonstrators so far, now please tell me which is worse. Or where we say SINIORA GET OUT, while they insult our imams. Anyway, your vain search always finds you really pathetic results in which you have one person asking you, maybe rudely maybe not, whether you like the two persons responsible for butchering their people i.e. olmert and bush. Please, step out your small soon to become self-destructive bubble in which you and your friend live in.
Put yourself in the shoes of these people. You are a shia whose people have been living for hundreds of years deprived of any rights, prosecuted, ignored, deprived and living in the worst living standards possible, and bearing the brunt of nearly every war. Then, your community forms a resistance which later develops into a legitimate political party and a social organisation which happens to be the only party created by the people, for the people to help the people. They magically happpen to be the only people willing to represent the shias, the only, sry not PEOPLE, the only organisation that doesn't ignore the shias, the only organisation to look after them etc etc you know the rest and most importantly the only organisation that strugles to deprive them of poverty, illness and illiteration as well as introduces and protects their rights, even if it means to fight for them.
Anyway. It is worth noting that this is how israel was even created, the jews worked together, formed alliances etc etc to create israel. The only difference is that the roots of the creation of israel goes back to the terror stern gangs which used to bomb british hotels housing both palistinians and jews, as well as christian british. Another difference is that israel was the main cause of how many wars during its 60 year long existence? exactly, how many are hizbollah responsible for? Im going to go with the flow and say one, the july war. Thats it. Im not talking about skirmishes or small covert campaigns or operations or incidents because everyone knows israel has commited a couple of million only in the west bank, let alone gaza and the rest. Israel is starting to threaten america's lead with the total number of wars started, and it has only existed for 60 years. So yes, israel is a virus that must be removed, before it spreads as much as it has.
Go back to UN maps and see how much israel was ENTITLED to recieve, and look at todays map and look at how much they control, they countrol nearly double their permitted size, and im not going to go into the settlements.
I think everyone will agree that YES, the jews were deproved, and prosecuted etc but so were many other people, including the shia. Here's iran the axis of evil, they have never started a war since their revolution, why? They fought in one war, that was with iraqs saddam, but everyone knows who started it and who promoted and sponsored it, and who provoked it and who funded it and whos interest it played in first and foremost. Compare that with israel, which has nukes already, why don't you attack israel for that, but iran who don't even have them yet you attack them as if they own the biggest arsenal of them. You are starting to make a contreversy over something that hasn't existed yet, and thats iranian nukes. Israel has nukes, get rid of them first, then come to get rid of the iranian none existant nukes. Not the twisted other way round.
Your reporting totten is VERY double sided, even i mostly argue both points, i always give encoutering points and then tend to explain those too. It does not need two to find out HOW israel was created. They didn't just walk into palistine and wow theirs really big land with no-one their so they made it into a country. Why, i can right now step into a rain forest or desert or high mountain or barren land in america and claim its mine because no-one was their if the case was like that. But its not. They slaughtered the palistinians and the rest fled, when they fled the israelis said oh oh oh look, theyre going on the enemies side so now they are not entitled to their land anymore. That is one sick and twisted method. Iran was not created like that and niether was even syria.
I do not like the syrian regime, or even the leaders. What i like is some things about their politics. I like the fact the Baathi political priority is to oppose israel no matter what, and to work for a unified arab super or mother state, just like the united states, but instead of american united states, this would be arabian united states. Not that i support their ideology, no way, only those two factors. Arab unification and opposing and staying opposed to the enemy while they still commit crimes and atrocities day in day out.
We, my friends, are the last people to drive anyone in the sea, we have been deprived, but unlike the zionist jews, have learnt how bad an experience it is/was and do not wish it on ANYONE, which is why we do not oppress anyone, not in iran and not in southern lebanon. If a jew goes to south lebanon and sits in a circle of hizbollah men and says "im a jew, my political view is this this...." the hizbollah men would probably ignore the person who was talking and listen to the man, not stand up and shoot him.
I also wanrt to point out that it is factually incorrect and inacurate to say iranian REGIME. they are not a regime. They are a fair democratic system who hold elections, who have multiple parties, even communist ones which is quite extraordinary to find in any religious nation, they have all sorts of elections such as presidential, governmental, parliamentary/assembly etc etc Their islamic law is their constitution, just like every country has a formal constitution based on an ideology, theirs is based on islam. Their contitution can be summed up into thiese few words wich were said by khomayni "our religion is our politics, and our politics is our religion", at least iran HAS a formal contitution, unlike britain, which has an informal, i.e. unwritten one. As far as i know mr totten, you were never stopped and searched/strip searched and held for weeks and months on suspicious of being a terrorist in niether iran or lebanon, any paert of lebanon, but you have in israel and you do in western countries, believe me.
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 5, 2007 07:30 PMGo back to UN maps and see how much israel was ENTITLED to recieve, and look at todays map and look at how much they control, they countrol nearly double their permitted size, and im not going to go into the settlements.
...of course, that additional land was captured in wars started by Israel's neighbors, not the Israelis.
Sorry, 'hezbollah lover', the rule is that when you lose a war, you should not expect to get all of your marbles back when it's over, thanks for playing.
Please educate yourself.
Posted by: rosignol at January 5, 2007 07:36 PMHezbollah lover, who needs to argue with you when you manage to contradict yourself within the one comment:
So yes, israel is a virus that must be removed, before it spreads as much as it has.
We, my friends, are the last people to drive anyone in the sea... but unlike the zionist jews, ... do not wish it on ANYONE, which is why we do not oppress anyone,
I wasn't going to read it all, but now I'm glad I did. Entertaining stuff.
Posted by: Mertel at January 5, 2007 07:56 PMMary, one of the two paragraphs that you quote abraham as saying was actually from Michael's post.
oops - true, I meant to grab this one ..."This is a rather banal (if not misleading) observation. You act like this sort of thing is foreign to America, when it practically defines our culture. The Middle East is not as complicated as you think. It is to you because you're an outsider."
Posted by: mary at January 5, 2007 09:10 PMHey Abu Tuz,
You need to clean out your teez before it soils your thoughts any worse that it already has. Last time I checked the Shia are doing pretty damn well all over the world. Have you been to West/East Africa to see their little empire or how about Australia or how about right here in the US. Next time you run your mouth with that anti-Shia shit, try to clean out your own first. I have no tolerance for your kind and as far as i'm concerned you can have your sunni-shia war all you want; find me one single sunni dominated army that would be ready to stand up to hizballah's fighters. when you do, let me know.
as for you, you're shit is getting funnier and funnier each time i read it. it's honestly the most unprofessional, worthless, entirely unintelligent, excessively simple-minded yet somehow comical enought to be entertaining piece of enquirer-esque rubbish. you need to get off your high horse and come back down to this planet where rational human beings don't go to foreign countries and run all over the locals only to come back home and denigrate the fuck out of them. hizballah is not going anywhere my friend, and as for bint jbeil, well i'm afraid you stumbled upon the wrong town to find anti-hizballah crowd. and if you're looking for human shields, you'd probably find thousands b/c the shia of the south are willing to die for their land and that's why they fight b/c they're not like the cowardly egyptian, jordanian and syrian armies that came before them, they're ready to die for their land, for their dignity and for their children's future, not for some fucked up idea of religion or "islamism" as you put it. it's funny how popular nasrallah is in the middle east today and yet you think everyone hates hizballah. they're the single most efficient and uncorrupt provider of public goods in the entire region. find me one of your democratic "moderate" governments in the region that can do things w/ even half the efficiency and equity of hizballah. until you can clean up your act my friend, you are nothing but an irrelevant shmuck begging readers of his half-assed blog for money. so keep begging my friend, keep begging. meanwhile, hizballah is going to keep getting stronger and stronger and justice will prevail. it always does.
mary, you don't give me anything to respond to other than the same tired cliches ("Chomskyist", etc.) that I can read if I decide for some reason to violate my sensibilities and visit LGF.
I'm sorry that what I write is considered too "expert" for you, but I don't have time to summarize it in a Cliff Notes version for those who aren't capable of parsing it properly.
Posted by: abraham at January 5, 2007 10:11 PMNext time you run your mouth with that anti-Shia shit
I am not anti-Shia, I am anti-Hezbollah. And since you have nothing interesting or productive to say, only insults, you are summarily banned.
Buh-bye.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 10:21 PMOne thing you can say for Islamist fanatics:
They take criticism well. :P
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 5, 2007 10:44 PMSorry Abraham, but i have no interest in the opinion of someone who cheers for terrorists and headchoppers.
But, just in the interests of blog etiquette, I should point out that in some blog comment boxes, if you want several separate paragraphs to be italicized (to indicate that the paragraph is part of a quote), each paragraph needs to be enclosed by its own individual italics tag. (ie. <I>quote</I>)
That way, when someone is trying to get ready for dinner while proofreading a legal document and commenting on a blog post, they won't mistakenly copy the wrong (non-italicized) paragraph.
Posted by: mary at January 5, 2007 11:05 PMMary: Sorry Abraham, but i have no interest in the opinion of someone who cheers for terrorists and headchoppers.
I second that. It's probably best to ignore him at this point.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 5, 2007 11:18 PMFirst, my response to Corine. Please don't generalize! I am an Arab and I hate conspiracy theories. I even argue with my wife who is obsessed with conspiracy theories! I hate Hizb-Iran!
Second, my response to the Christians and Sunni caused poverty to the Shia. Lebanon is a very society. You get education, you have more opportunities. You have money, you get education. But how can you educate your 12 kids when you are not educated yourself?
I think that the root problem in Lebanon now is the tribunal! Hizb-Iran is afraid that they will come after them (Do you remember the marines that were killed by Hizb-Iran?)
Last comment, Iran is acting like Germany when Hitler was a rising star but with potential nuclear weapons! We better take care of Iran's nazi regime and the Bashar Asad's gang in Syria before they do a 9-11 event on our land!
Posted by: Ghassan at January 5, 2007 11:19 PMI love how you Hezbollah freaks have the nerve to come on here and tell us that you don't hate Jews as IF THEY CARE FOR YOUR VALIDATION! We DO hate you for killing both Jews and 241 American peacekeepers and we will never forget what you've done no matter how hard you try to whitewash your crimes and murderous ideology.
Posted by: Corinne at January 6, 2007 12:24 AMGhassan, I did not write that ALL Arabs are conspiracy theory obsessed, I was only writing about Ali in particular who is clearly an example of one. I apologize if I was not clear and my intention was not to offend...
Posted by: Corinne at January 6, 2007 12:31 AMAbraham: Please explain how anything you've said doesn't reinforce this incorrect stereotype?
Because I'm saying the exact opposite of the stereotype is what's real.
See, this is why you're tedious, Abraham. You aren't reading carefully, and you can't get over the fact that I don't like Hezbollah.
I assure you I'm reading every word. However, you did not address my primary criticism, which is that you demonize Hizballah, using pejoratives such as "brute", "goon", "terrorist", "dictatorship", "extremist", (and then there's "The conversation was perfectly civil and pleasant even though they supported Hezbollah"), and you relate stories of being harrassed by them as if you're an innocent reporter just trying to get a story, when you are admittedly an anti-Hizballah agitator. What are your readers supposed to come away with when you only provide selective quotes and incidences that support your agenda driven writing? If not purposely, you are subconciously steering your readers towards the conclusion you want them to have, which is your opinion that Hizballah is a menace to Lebanon, while ignoring the many positive aspects of that organization. It is a disservice to people trying to understand the situation.
My primarily complaint is that your writing on the topic is superficial and rife with your own personal opinions that do not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation.
I read your articles and honestly I come away with the impression that they are just one big string of hyperbole written by someone who deep down inside really doesn't like Arabs (or perhaps just poor Arabs). Furthermore, it doesn't help that you link to LGF and other blogs of that ilk. The company you keep makes you suspect, which is one reason why I am not inclined to take what you write seriously in the way that you intend.
When I ask you to supply background or sources for material you reference (such as the opening "quote" in this latest screed) I get no response. This is a big bright red flag flapping in the wind. These aren't "tedious" inquiries: they are very simple and yet serious questions that I would like answered so that I may guage your credibility. If you won't provide sources, you have no credibility. It's as simple as that. I'd like to be able to take what you say seriously, but I cannot accept it as it is presented.
Correct me if I have the wrong impression but I assume you are not attempting to write fiction and you consider this political analysis of sorts. So when I read political analysis, I only find it useful to the extent that traditional journalistic practices are employed so that I can properly weigh your analysis against other material that I've read and against my own personal knowledge and experience. I may be "tedious" but perhaps it's because I want to find you useful.
You really have your work cut out for you if you expect Americans to support Hassan Nasrallah's agenda of perpetual war.
This is what I'm talking about. You make these types of unfounded proclamations and then get irritated when you're called on it. All I'm saying is back up your assertions: provide me with some manner of support for your claim that Nasrallah has an "agenda of perpetual war" and I will just shut the fuck up already.
If you want to continue putting out these dispatches based on your own personal opinion, replete with your own admitted biases, fine, more power to you. But as long as I continue to read it I will question the veracity of what you write and demand evidence to support your claims.
One other criticism I have is that it's evident that you don't have a sense for Arab idiom, especially as it's rendered into English by people who don't have a command of the language. Case in point: your quote of the man who exclaimed that he wants to "cut" Sanyurah. What is your take on that? Do you literally think he meant he wanted to cut Sanyurah, as with a knife? I am not necessarily asking for an answer. Just consider it.
Posted by: abraham at January 6, 2007 12:39 AMSorry, your system doesn't preserve HTML tags across linebreaks. Perhaps I shouldn't try to be so clever with my HTML typesetting.
The first section above should have appeared as follows:
Abraham: Please explain how anything you've said doesn't reinforce this incorrect stereotype?
Because I'm saying the exact opposite of the stereotype is what's real.
See, this is why you're tedious, Abraham. You aren't reading carefully, and you can't get over the fact that I don't like Hezbollah.
Posted by: abraham at January 6, 2007 12:42 AMI do not like the syrian regime, or even the leaders. What i like is some things about their politics. I like the fact the Baathi political priority is to oppose israel no matter what, and to work for a unified arab super or mother state, just like the united states, but instead of american united states, this would be arabian united states. Not that i support their ideology, no way, only those two factors. Arab unification and opposing and staying opposed to the enemy while they still commit crimes and atrocities day in day out."
The way I see it you advocate perpetual war over someone else's grievances and support the imperial ambitions of a foreign country (the ruling ideology of which you do not support, except for its central tenets). Way to go!
Posted by: Bruno at January 6, 2007 12:43 AMAll I'm saying is back up your assertions: provide me with some manner of support for your claim that Nasrallah has an "agenda of perpetual war" and I will just shut the fuck up already.
Stop assuming that people are writing in bad faith just because they write something that contradicts your own ignorance. If he says something you don't know about:
1. Go back through the archives.
a) Michael's a good writer who deserves to have all of his articles read before you pass judgment on him
b) It's not his responsibility to repeat anything for you.
c) This isn't a university class, so he's not responsible for your education. That's up to you, so he doesn't have to prove anything.
So
d) If mike never supported something you want proved, look it up yourself and
e) follow the links to the Lebanese bloggers and newspapers etc. so you can find out the things you won't find in books.
And don't mind that there's no point 2, everything seemed to fit better as subpoints [is "subpoints" a word?].
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 12:53 AMAnd Abraham, don't be surprised that you're not getting much traction in this comment section. We come here to read Michael Totten, who is an interesting read, an intelligent writer and a nice guy. And you're none of the above.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 12:56 AMMichael
for your information and knowledge.
the roman ruins near st.Georges church have been excavated in the late sixtees.
as well as another site under the clock in front of the parliament.
Hariri senior put back the clock on the roman ruins because it was offered by one of his sect.
it is called abed clock
Posted by: the real joe at January 6, 2007 01:30 AMTo follow the two Tony's, a few factual "adjustments":
1. The SLA was not created to combat Hezbollah. In 1978, Israel entered Lebanon. The Lebanese government send the troops to the southern region, and those troops commanded by Haddad became the SLA.
2. (countering one of the Tony's) they were an Israeli proxy army.
3. The GCC (of which Saudi Arabia and the UAE are members) announced that they will begin nuclear programs for energy purposes. Obviously, they are developing a nuclear program for the possibility to create nuclear weapons, but they have not announced a weapons program.
Posted by: Charles Malik at January 6, 2007 03:00 AMThis is an excellent write up. MJT more greese to your elbow. I will keep reading your blog.
Posted by: Furica at January 6, 2007 03:43 AMAbraham:
The company you keep makes you suspect, which is one reason why I am not inclined to take what you write seriously in the way that you intend.
Posted by: Mertel at January 6, 2007 05:58 AM"Some Westerners really do show up in Lebanon and support Hezbollah, or at least get defensive on Hezbollah’s behalf."
There was an "International Conference for Solidarity with the Resistance" in Beirut from 16 till 19 November in the UNESCO buildings. Organised by Hezbollah and the Lebanese communist party. 300 people where present "from Brazil to India, from Congo to Norway". They wanted to "strengthen the international solidarity with the resistance against war and exploitation in Lebanon, but also in Palestine and Iraq". The report of 2 of the Belgian participants can be found here: http://www.uitpers.be/artikel_view.php?id=1523 (in Dutch) Ironically, it was published in a magazine called “Vrede” (Dutch for Peace).
One of the speakers on this conference was the Socialist Belgian (Walloon) senator Pierre Galand. http://www.pierregaland.be/ (in French)
Socialists in Europe seem to think all enemies of the United States are their comrades.
Abraham, the Nasrallah quote is from the Daily Star.
And, I'm sorry, but if you want me to "back up" my claim that Nasrallah is has an agenda of perpetual war, you're a fool. Give me a break.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 08:19 AMAbraham: I come away with the impression that they are just one big string of hyperbole written by someone who deep down inside really doesn't like Arabs
Because I don't like Hezbollah?
You're a lunatic. And this sort of lunacy is precisely the sort of thing that makes right-wing American bigots think Arab=terrorist. Because the minute someone criticizes or opposes terrorism we're accused by people like you of being a anti-Arab, as if they are the same thing.
I'm opposed to Hezbollah primarily because I don't want Israel to invade Lebanon again and ruin the country. But you feel free to think whatever stupid bullshit you want. It's a free country.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 08:35 AM"this sort of lunacy is precisely the sort of thing that makes right-wing American bigots think Arab=terrorist. Because the minute someone criticizes or opposes terrorism we're accused by people like you of being a anti-Arab, as if they are the same thing"
This is the money-quote of the thread. It can easily be applied to the tactics of CAIR and MPAC as well as fellow terror-supporter 'Abraham'.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at January 6, 2007 09:05 AMrosignol,
...of course, that additional land was captured in wars started by Israel's neighbors, not the Israelis.
Sorry, 'hezbollah lover', the rule is that when you lose a war, you should not expect to get all of your marbles back when it's over, thanks for playing.
No, actually the rule is that when you militarily occupy land you don't transfer parts of your own population into it. Please educate yourself.
If Israel wanted to formally annex the West Bank, that would be one thing. But then they'd have to make the WB Palestinians Israeli citizens, and goodbye Jewish ethnic supremacist state!
Posted by: hed at January 6, 2007 09:38 AMRosignol: @Please Educate Yourself"
You are an official joker my friend. Israel was officially in a state of war with only Egypt in 1967, British secrets revealed around 1 or 2 years ago, nearly 40 years after the 6 days war, revealed that syria and jordan were drawn in the conflict by israeli generals who placed brigades near each other on all borders and started attacking each other. This gave Israle the excuse to attack it's neighbours under the name of self-defence and pre-emptive attacks because it saw itself so strong that it could win, and did win.
Therefore, your claim is baseless, because it was israel that started the war, and it was started by deception and pre-emptiveness, which means they tricked the people they were NOT in war with, and suprise attacked all neighbours, wether they were at war or not.
So, my friend, you go educate yourself and find another source of info other than those of rupert murdochs.
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 6, 2007 10:26 AM"Next time you run your mouth with that anti-Shia shit
I am not anti-Shia, I am anti-Hezbollah. And since you have nothing interesting or productive to say, only insults, you are summarily banned.
Buh-bye." Professor totten, he wasnt talking to you, he was talking to abu tuz who insulted the shia religion the worst possible way anyone could ever do it. Why don't you ban abu tuz? Why only Ali* and this guy 'abu teez abu tuz',,,im surprised im not banned yet. But your a regular, when you hear something you can't counter or you don't like because your brainwashed head can't sink t in because you're too fanatical about your neo-con ideas that your reject and delete them instead of aprehending them and using them as some source of info, opinion or statistic, it shows how efficient you are as a human, let alone as a writter. Do not ban everyone that criticises you, because believe me you could gain more good than bad if you actually listen to the criticism, because then you can take something to mind or heart, lead to some kind of change and make you a better person.
cheers
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 6, 2007 10:46 AMhe was talking to abu tuz who insulted the shia religion the worst possible way anyone could ever do it.
I'm guessing that the insult you're refering to is this:
Hizb Allah is not a response to anything; like Shi'a poverty, like the Shi'a customs such as their Ashura parades where men slash open their heads and children's heads with swords, it is a symptom, product and consequence of the primitive cultural values that dominate Shi'a Lebanese society.
I understand entirely that if Hezbollah runs Lebanon then all criticism will be silenced. However, in the more civilized west, we DO allow society to be criticised. That's why our society is better than yours, since it allows criticism, it actually adjusts and improves over time.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 11:07 AMHezbollah Lover, I don't ban everyone who criticizes me. The fact that you are still posting here is proof enough of that.
Ali was talking to me, at least part of the time, telling me to "keep begging" for money, et cetera.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 11:23 AMAbraham:
provide me with some manner of support for your claim that Nasrallah has an "agenda of perpetual war" and I will just shut the fuck up already.
Allow me to assist:
"For 23 years, we have been talking to our people, motivating them, talking about martyrdom, the honor of martyrdom, and the place of the martyrs… We love martyrdom... each and every one of us hopes to be destined to martyrdom at the hands of those people, the killers of the prophets”
Hassan Nasrallah, July 24, 2006, Al-Jazeera TV
“Two parties are fighting in Southern Lebanon, the highest hope of a soldier or an officer in one of the parties [IDF] is to return to his family and his home, while the highest hope of an individual of the other party [Hizbullah] is to achieve martyrdom”
Hassan Nasrallah, Thisreen newspaper, June 1999
“Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.' Some people may wonder and say: 'Is there no end to this hostility?' Yes, there is an an end. If the Zionists leave our lands and holy places and give them back to their owners, this conflict will come to an end.”
Hassan Nasrallah, Al-Manar TV, Feb 20, 2005
So, now, are you going to keep to your side of the bargain?
Posted by: Mertel at January 6, 2007 11:40 AMAbraham, the Nasrallah quote is from the Daily Star.
WHERE??? What volume, what issue, and what page? Haven't you ever heard of a fucking reference!?
The article that "quotation" came from has been subsequently disavowed by Jamil Mrowe, the editor-in-cheif and publisher of the Daily Star! But don't believe me, ask your buddy Michael Young. No other account of that quotation exists because it was never spoken. But you bought it hook, line and stinker because it fits your bullshit agenda!!
And, I'm sorry, but if you want me to "back up" my claim that Nasrallah is has an agenda of perpetual war, you're a fool. Give me a break.
What's with the name-calling, Totten?
You're just pissed off because I've called you on your bullshit and you have no good response. Any "journalist" worthy of the title could easily present references to back up their claims. Why can't you?
I'm opposed to Hezbollah primarily because I don't want Israel to invade Lebanon again and ruin the country.
You're opposed to Hizballah because they pose a threat to Israel, which is your real concern.
Why do you link to LGF, Totten?
Posted by: abraham at January 6, 2007 11:43 AMSo, now, are you going to keep to your side of the bargain?
I will, as soon as you present something that actually proves Nasrallah has an "agenda of perpetual war" and doesn't instead contradict this bullshit thesis.
Some people may wonder and say: 'Is there no end to this hostility?' Yes, there is an an end. If the Zionists leave our lands and holy places and give them back to their owners, this conflict will come to an end.
Fucking DUH!
Posted by: abraham at January 6, 2007 11:47 AMAbraham, you've been disputing one quote while ignoring a dozen equivalent and suggestively similar quotes (most with references) that have been given over the past few threads.
In such a context you can't get away with posing righteous like this, you just seem like a dishonest asshole.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 11:50 AMAbraham, if Jamil Mrowe disavows the quote, I'll check with Michael Young about it. This is the first I've heard of it.
Why do I link to LGF? Because Charles provides useful links to interesting articles. I often disagree with his opinions, but so what? He provides a useful service.
You're opposed to Hizballah because they pose a threat to Israel, which is your real concern.
Wrong answer. Hezbollah's threat to Israel is exagerrated, while Hezbollah's threat to Lebanon is understated. (Although I do support Israel's right to not be attacked from Lebanon.)
I opposed Israel's invasion of Lebanon from the very beginning. Lots of my readers were angry at me for this. Oh well. I have my opinions, and I will write them no matter who doesn't like it.
Now sod off. You're an asshole, and I'm sick and tired of you. So is everyone else here except perhaps for "Hezbollah Lover."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 11:55 AMMike, I should probably put this in the Hugh Hewitt section, but I wanted to stick it nice and tight where you'd be looking.
Not that you necessarily have to, will, or should care, but here's a good example of the aspects of your posts that bother me, i.e. the non-dispassionate nature and the easy labeling.
I've suggested before that the loose moral labels and judgments you slip into your articles are sort of a code you use to say what side you're on - your own version of sectarianism. You make sure regulate a given percentage of red meat ("Nasrallah belongs in the garbage") into your stories to make it palatable when you introduce contrary figures (nice Aounians, the pro-Hizb shias who like to chase women, etc).
The problem with this sort of thing is that the sectarian conditioning of your tone crowds out whatever nuances of the scenario itself you are depicting in your content.
In your interview with Hugh Hewitt, to get to my point, you came right out and said, "There's probably not going to be a civil war, because there were various escalations suggested by Hizb, and Siniora promised generalized violence in response, and therefore Hizballah... decided not to create a scenario of mass violence in response,". Even though Hizb the biggest and strongest party around and might easily perceive itself as having a decent shot at winnning.
Now you say that in an off-link middle-of-interview with Hugh Hewitt, but I don't think your posts on the situation make that point. I don't think your readers get that point either, usually.
The reason is because of the sectarian coding of your articles. (terrorists choosing to refrain from violence? what! terrorists don't do that!) Most of your articles build up a picture of a Hizballah that would stop at nothing to destroy its enemies. But their decision making in the critical scenario has contrasted with that. I know that, and you know that, but you have a hard time getting near that kind of nuance when you just stick to the facile impressions on the street (The security guys yell at me, so Hizballah is evil)
Loose, negative language and labels condition readers to perceive the objects of reporting as likely to behave according to the cariactures created by the labels.
That's why the dispassionate tone of mainstream media started in the first place. The opposite of dispassionate is sectarian. And you've seen yourself as well as anyone how sectarianism leads to wildly illogical thinking and false simplification.
Posted by: glasnost at January 6, 2007 12:24 PMPoint taken, Glasnost.
But I do take issue with the label "sectarian." I don't oppose Hezbollah because they are Shia, and I don't support Seniora because he is Sunni, etc. I did not grow up in Lebanon and I don't think in those kinds of categories.
"Partisan" might be the word you're looking for.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 12:37 PMI haven't really read the comments section closely to form detailed opinions, except perhaps that I think it's a shame (a nice, neutral, nobody's fault-shame) that the pro-arab commentors and Mike + his crowd can't find a way to debate facts and ideas without so much in the way of insults and acts of symbolic rejection.
But, this quote from abraham caught my eye:
I will, as soon as you present something that actually proves Nasrallah has an "agenda of perpetual war" and doesn't instead contradict this bullshit thesis.
That sounds like something I might have said in another place and time, even though today, Nasrallah's perpetual war sounds reasonable as well. (Context is everything, ain't it?) So, to change the tone and raise a polite question, if Nasrallah has an agenda of perpetual war, yet we just had an inter-Lebanese confrontation that seems to have decidedly occurred without war, how do we reconcile this discrepancy? If Nasrallah's agenda is perpetual war, why did he choose to avoid war with March 14?
Posted by: glasnost at January 6, 2007 12:38 PMGlasnot,
He doesn't want a civil war in Lebanon, but I think it's obvious that he wants war without end with the Israelis.
Israel would make peace with Lebanon and Hezbollah in two seconds if Nasrallah (and Assad, etc.) decided to knock it off. And everyone but the most delusional knows it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 6, 2007 12:42 PMHey, look, it's the pat on the head every dissident hopes for. :-) Thanks, Mike. Maybe I'll pick on your opponents for a few days now.
Posted by: glasnost at January 6, 2007 12:42 PMGlasnost, if I can add my U$0,02, it seems to me HA seeks to prolong the conflict with Israel indefintely, not because of any real serious grievance, but because playing the resistence gives them cross-sectarian legitimacy and cover for their guns.
In this sense only I agree with the assertion that HA wants perpetual war. I don't see any enthusiasm on the part of Nasrallah and his supporters for a hot civil war.
Posted by: Bruno at January 6, 2007 12:52 PMIsrael would make peace with Lebanon and Hezbollah in two seconds if Nasrallah (and Assad, etc.) decided to knock it off. And everyone but the most delusional knows it.
Ah, one of my favorite topics of semi-philosophical speculation on this kind of subject - two opposing sides, one which really wants to make peace and blows a whole bunch of stuff up, and the other which really wants to slaughter everyone and ends up giving four people leg cramps instead, upon whom can we bestow the coveted title of "The Other Guy Is The Real A**hole, not us"?
I don't know what Nasrallah wants, myself (The next progressively irritating question to Mike would be "If Nasrallah wants perpetual war, why hasn't Hizballah launched anymore rockets since the ceasefire? Do you mean he wants intermittent perpetual war?"., but his organization derives more benefits from it than other organizations in Lebanon.
Comparing the Israel-Lebanon conflict to suing your neighbor about his driveway for a minute, the problem with it is the difference between the end of hostility and actual peace. In an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hostility, every little random event becomes another war, even under the far-fetched possibility that no one is really gunning for it. Whoever really wants to make peace the most in this mess, whoever it is, should make more of an active, systematic campaign to make friends, on an organizational, institutional, and societal level, with whoever wants to make peace less than them. If it doesn't work out, you can always kill them later, like you're otherwise going to end up doing anyway.
If you're convinced war is certain and inevitable, what does it mean to want peace? Does your organizational behavior differ from one who wants both wants war and considers it certain and inevitable?
Posted by: glasnost at January 6, 2007 01:35 PMWhoever really wants to make peace the most in this mess, whoever it is, should make more of an active, systematic campaign to make friends, on an organizational, institutional, and societal level, with whoever wants to make peace less than them.
Yes of course, the only reason that Hezbollah and Israel aren't best of friends is that Israel never really tried to be friendly. After all Nasrallah just wants to be loved!
May I suggest an alternate course? The saner members of Lebanese society should throw out the laws that make contact with Israel treason, on a social level they should shout down the bigotted, fascist assholes that make up Hezbollah and then you can have ties between the countries.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 01:50 PMThat's why the dispassionate tone of mainstream media started in the first place. The opposite of dispassionate is sectarian. And you've seen yourself as well as anyone how sectarianism leads to wildly illogical thinking and false simplification.
A logical, dispassionate evaluation of Hezbollah's influence on Lebanese politics would note that Hezobllah's existence as an armed and powerful militia objectively threatens the sovereignty of the democratically elected Lebanese government. That dispassionate, factual evaluation would also note that Hezbollah's very existence is a threat. Therefore, any demands they make are de facto extortion.
Many people in the mainstream media think that they have to give equal weight and equal respect to all sides in a conflict. That's not an objective evaluation of the facts, it's more like a media version of the special olympics, where everyone gets a prize, not because they deserve it, but because everyone is equally special.
This 'everyone is special' brand of non-objectivity is relatively new. Ernie Pyle didn't feel the need to present both sides of the conflict during WWII, he didn't objectively present the Nazi point of view.
Hezbollah will actively seek peace when they're too weak to demand war. Instead of parroting Hezbollah's propaganda, the media should objectively evaluate the threat they pose and objectively evaluate their weaknesses. Their job is to provide necessary information, and that's the information we need.
Posted by: mary at January 6, 2007 01:56 PMThe point of "everyone is special" journalism is that it's cheap to produce:
1. it requires no knowledge to produce and no time to write, because the 'journalist' just has to nod his head no matter what's told him
2. it burns no briges so you always have access
3. it offends no dangerous people, so you rarely have to protect your 'journalists'
Another problem with a lot of modern media outlets, I have noticed, is their propensity to paraphrase or quote sources with nary a care about the said source's veracity.
"Jews believe the Western Wall, also known as the Kotel, is the last remaining retaining wall of the ancient Jewish Temple." But some Muslim scholars and political leaders disagree. The late Yasir Arafat repeatedly claimed that the Jewish Temple never existed in Jerusalem at all..."
The above is a made up example. However, Arafat did in fact deny the temple ever existed in Jerusalem, and the NYT's and others simply repeated his delusion without qualification, as if it might be a legitimate point, which historically and archaeologically it most certainly is not. They are "Dispassionate" to the point of having not enough "passion" to bother to inject truth into a story that is, in the end, designed to educate and explain a situation, not muddy the waters. Indded, people read news articles to understand a situation, to get the facts, not for the media to simply parrot lies of one source or another.
That is why MJT's style of reporting is so refreshing. If one of his sources spouts lies or non-facts, MJT let's his readers know. The result is greater understanding of a conflict and not just a "he said she said" news story.
Posted by: Zak at January 6, 2007 02:16 PM"Ah, one of my favorite topics of semi-philosophical speculation on this kind of subject - two opposing sides, one which really wants to make peace and blows a whole bunch of stuff up, and the other which really wants to slaughter everyone and ends up giving four people leg cramps instead, upon whom can we bestow the coveted title of "The Other Guy Is The Real A**hole, not us"?"
Ah, my favorite pseudo-intellectual, Chomskyesque, European style argument where the side who inflicts the most damage is most definitely the more evil of the 2 and the aggressor EXCEPT of course, when such a country is European, (i.e. Britain bombing of Dresden).
Can someone please point me to a war that was won by "proportionate" response?
"I don't know what Nasrallah wants, myself (The next progressively irritating question to Mike would be "If Nasrallah wants perpetual war, why hasn't Hizballah launched anymore rockets since the ceasefire? Do you mean he wants intermittent perpetual war?"., but his organization derives more benefits from it than other organizations in Lebanon."
Too easy, my friend. Hezbollah obviously does not have an unlimited arsenal in Lebanon and therefore couldn't re-arm during the summer conflict as Israel was bombing the ports and airport, etc. However, if Hezbollah engages in an "intermittent perpetual war" there is time and ability to re-arm under the useful eye and cover of UNFIL. Besides, as a "divine" political terror organization, they have other responsibilities in addition to war.
They also need to repay the favor to Syria for helping them arm in the first place, so they need a kind of "time-out of conflict" to persue their other agenda which is seeking the 1/3 +1 seats in gov't where they will be able to block the International Tribunal against Syrian dictator, Bashir Assad. One hand washes the other you see.
There it is in simple terms laid out for all to see except those who, of course, don't want to see it.
Posted by: Katy at January 6, 2007 02:34 PMbuss tizi abu tuz,
"Hey Abu Tuz,
You need to clean out your teez before it soils your thoughts any worse that it already has"
hahaha, i like it so much, apparantly nobody did understand it unfortunatly, abu tuz was really ashamed he didn't reply yet.
we should always call him abu tuz, that's what he looks like.
"So, my friend, you go educate yourself and find another source of info other than those of rupert murdochs."
"The above is a made up example. However, Arafat did in fact deny the temple ever existed in Jerusalem, and the NYT's and others simply repeated his delusion without qualification, as if it might be a legitimate point, which historically and archaeologically it most certainly is not. "
Is this the same American MM that the anti-islamists like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer rail against because they just don't get it about the muslim threat? The same American MM that people like hizbo/fatso mullah lover says that just bleats anti-muslim/arab propaganda?
Is this the same Murdoch of Fox that blows Prince Alwaleed on a regular basis since he owns a substantial interest in Fox (who lavishes his billions on CAIR and every other front and Columbia and Harvard to maintain their Chomskyesque ministries)?
Naah. That would be some whacked-out conspiracy theory.
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at January 6, 2007 03:12 PMdo u know what i really like and admire about hassan nassrallah:
i love him, because he pisses off all the stupid arabs outside lebanon, and the americans, and the israeilies yes, i love him a lot and thank god we in lebanon have him.
MJT no matter how much you are trying to destroy his image like a lot of your freinds, we will always love him, god bless him.
by the way, i am christian, and i started liking hezbollah the day israel waged war against lebanon, actually thx god for oppening my eyes so clearly.
to israelies, good luck in the ME as long as you will stay behind this stupid idiology: israel racist state or jewish state as u wish to be called, actually you are same as iran "the islamic state" or KSA the islamic kingdom.
understand that there is no presence of a pure race or upper race, we are all equal.
and just remember that you were born through humun reproduction and not somthing else, coz simply there is no other way.
Posted by: sandra at January 6, 2007 03:30 PMto israelies, good luck in the ME as long as you will stay behind this stupid idiology: israel racist state or jewish state as u wish to be called, actually you are same as iran "the islamic state" or KSA the islamic kingdom.
It doesn't surprise me that, in the middle east, there is an endless stream of propaganda that tells every imaginable lie about Israel.
But what I can't get over is that Arabs never question it. In other parts of the world people resent being lied to. Arabs seem to revel in it.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 04:05 PMIn other parts of the world people resent being lied to.
Uh huh.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 6, 2007 04:18 PMSorry, that was snarky. What I meant to say was that there is a large amount of media manipulation done in our own societies, and we don't seem to mind it much. The stream of lies surrounding Pat Tillman's death comes to mind, for example, and the self-censorship of the American media dealing with civilian casualties in Iraq.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at January 6, 2007 04:23 PMIsraeli-Arabs cerainly have more rights than Palestinians living in Lebanon (or elsewhere, for that matter). You should learn some basic facts, Sandra, and stop projecting.
Posted by: Zak at January 6, 2007 04:25 PMI was thinking of more pervasive lying such as what passed for news when the Soviet Union was still censoring and spinning. Certainly our media isn't the highest quality possible, but it's infinitely better than the yellow press of the middle east. But your unwillingness to make the critical distinction between, say a yellow press that promotes hated and a commerical press that's merely cheap and shoddy, between the unredeemably bad and the ordinary is exactly what I expect from you DP.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 04:30 PMBut after all, I was talking about the dynamics of mass hatred, a subject that DP has shown himself to be entirely blind to, again and again.
I should expect his unclear on the concept, missing the point snarks every time I bring up that subject.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 04:35 PMI shouldn't imply that all of the hatred-promoting press in the middle east is an offical yellow press. Mostly the middle eastern press just reflects the horrible state of the society it's in, yellow or not. Just as the press in the southern states once promoted hatred of blacks, the middle eastern press promotes all sorts of hatred, and, even more disturbingly there is absolutely no voice countering it, at least in the case of hatred of Israel.
It's the lack of any sane counterweight (of any size) which indicts the culture.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 04:43 PM“We will cut Seniora,” he said, referring to Lebanon’s elected prime minister. “We will cut him!”
Just another "peaceful" demonstration.
She yelled at me because she thought I was a stupid American who supported Hezbollah.
I wish there were more Lebanese like this, which brings us to:
sandra "writing," by the way, i am christian, and i started liking hezbollah the day israel waged war against lebanon,
So that would be AFTER hezbollah waged war against Israel? (Not to mention, everything that happened to Lebanon this summer would NOT have happened but for Hizballah! Duh. But keep on "loving" them! Jeezus.)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that logic is not exactly a strong suit of a Hizballah lover.
And even more daft, srael racist state or jewish state as u wish to be called, actually you are same as iran "the islamic state" or KSA the islamic kingdom.
So funny. The wishful thinking of the "moral" (and I use that term loosely) relativist.
By the way, how's sectarianism working out for you these days, anyway?
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 6, 2007 04:51 PMThe very idea of a pro-Hizballah Lebanese (or other pro-Arab Government) individual whining about Israel being racist is priceless. The hypocrisy is staggerting.
Your government belongs to a regional international organization called "The Arab Leauge."
That would be as if there was no such thing as the EU, but instead was called "The White Union" and if the continent of Africa ditched the "AU" for "The Black Union."
Change the name of "The Arab League" to "The Middle East League" before you start complaining about "racism."
Everyone else uses geography, not ethnicity for their international organizations.
Grow up or - honestly - shut up about it already. It just makes you look like huge hypocrites.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 6, 2007 05:06 PMsoclajustice, "By the way, how's sectarianism working out for you these days, anyway?"
great especialy against jews, they finally have killed the christ.
Posted by: sandra at January 6, 2007 05:09 PM"Now sod off. You're an asshole, and I'm sick and tired of you. So is everyone else here except perhaps for "Hezbollah Lover."" Michael J. Totten.
Why thank you, even though you were slightly harsh, but still. Im just hoping that not another GenX/Southpark ironic/sarcastic homour where im actually the biggest asshole :(. Lol i hope not.
Anyway, this just shows me that you are at least taking into consideration what i have to say, and you respect my views, and i respect you for that, and don't worry, i also take all points made by any/everyone, not jsut you. Believe me, i study them, i research and i do my best to find out the truth which will make me more knowldgeable. Knowledge is power.
And believe me Mr Totten, that everything i say is what i solemnly believe in and think is the most honest answer i can give, which is why i even bother to type on blogs, because i know others wil reply and suggest totally different ideas and i take them into account, but obviously all the while referring back to my morals and sensibility.
I am sorry if i insult you, or any others, or if i shout i.e. caps, at you or anyone else. I just don't know how to do italics or bold so i just do caps hehehehe.
PS, call me Ahmed Youssef, or just Ahmed.
Cheers
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 6, 2007 05:12 PMWTF?
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 05:12 PMsandra,
no - your Nasrallah is still alive, Habibi.
*sigh
What a waste.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 6, 2007 05:13 PMOops I was responding to Sandra's frankly insane:
soclajustice, "By the way, how's sectarianism working out for you these days, anyway?"
great especialy against jews, they finally have killed the christ.
I'll say it again. What the fuck is wrong with her?
I grew up in Canada and the United States, both cultures that find hatred shameful. But look at her, reveling in it and (as I first pointed out) in lies designed to promote hatred.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 6, 2007 05:18 PMA logical, dispassionate evaluation of Hezbollah's influence on Lebanese politics would note that Hezobllah's existence as an armed and powerful militia objectively threatens the sovereignty of the democratically elected Lebanese government. That dispassionate, factual evaluation would also note that Hezbollah's very existence is a threat. Therefore, any demands they make are de facto extortion.
Lots of assumptions. Did Saddamn Hussein's Fedayeen Saddamn, his armed militia, threaten the sovereignty of his government? Do the janjaweed (sp?) threaten the sovereignty of Sudan? Or, if that's too easy of an example, why did the Irgun, rather than the Palmach, become a threat to the sovereignty of Israel, and at what point in the formation of Israel was that decision made - and in what manner was it made?
But let's take what you've said at face value. Hizballah, a threat to the sovereignty of the Lebanese government. To the extent that they're not the same thing, sure, there's nothing illogical or anti-dispassionate about noting Hizballah's capacity to threaten, contest, interfere with the sovereignty of the Lebanese government. It's accurate.
Of course, to equate "sovereignty" with "control", all independent, non-government actors have some capacity to threaten the control of a government over some outcome it is trying to achieve.
Nevertheless, the Hizballah / March 14 conflict is , yep, not something you'd want to leave out of the story.
So..... we ... agree.
As for extortion, most demands (at least, successful ones) made of everyone by anyone are backed up by an ability to produce unpleasant consequences otherwise, i.e. threats and demands go hand in hand. At least as far as I can see. So... we agree? Except, some people have the right to make threats, and others don't, I imagine you'd say. The elected ones? So who elected my boss?
Here we have a microcosm of my point to Mike: you've given Hizballah's demands a name, extortion. But "extortion" can apparently be used to describe a wide variety of behavior, even if the connotations of the name suggest a narrow variety. Thus you inhibit your readers from perceiving the anomalous aspects of the situation (how does civil disobedience differ from armed robbery?), and therefore, genuinely perceiving the situation as a whole. Thus, ultimately, you have not educated them: the reverse, in fact.
The sovereignty of the government is ultimately built on the people, including the third of them that support the other armed organization in the area. Thus, we're back at the root of the problem. What both segments do to solve it is a choice with a wide variety of possible results.
Posted by: glasnost at January 6, 2007 05:19 PMSoClJustice:- Your government belongs to a regional international organization called "The Arab Leauge."...no such thing as the EU, but instead was called "The White Union" and if the continent of Africa ditched the "AU" for "The Black Union."
Well, firstly, Arab is not a colour, its the native person living in an area or country or state that talks its native language, arabic. The arabs are not only present in the middle east, which is why it is not replaced by middle east, i.e. there are arab countries in northern, eastern and even western africa. Secondly, iran is part of the middle east, but isn't arab. So to use the middle eastern term is incorrect. The european union cant replace european by white because not all europeans are white, and same goes to africa, not all africans are black. You've mixed up colour, race, ethnicity and ...well, language.
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 6, 2007 05:29 PMNot everyone living in Arab countries is Arab either. Ask the Kurds, or the Greek orthodox, or the Berber, or the Copts...
Posted by: Bruno at January 6, 2007 05:35 PMhezbollah lover,
That's quite a list of apologia and excuses you've come up with to justify your own particular (and obvious) brand of racism.
Congratulations.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 6, 2007 05:59 PMSo to use the middle eastern term is incorrect.
Wow. It's only "incorrect" as a term because of the ethno-exclusionary practices that the group of "Arab" countries comprising the "Arab League" chose to employ.
They could have decided to organize on region (like everyone else has) rather than ethnicity. That's the point - which you have clearly missed.
Your racism is so ingrained, you're blind to it.
Amazing. Or, actually, judging from your name and your allegiance, decidely not amazing.
Just sad.
Posted by: