Monday, August 14, 2006

Say what?

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that his guerrillas achieved a “strategic, historic victory” against Israel — a declaration that prompted celebratory gunfire across the Lebanese capital.


...perhaps if the terrorists spent less time on spraying bullets in celebration and flying through mockup Israeli flags they'd fare better in wartime?

Their efforts are rewarding them; people are giving up by the bucketloads.

11 comments:

Matt said...

Not exactly a "victory". That's for sure. But when looking at the history of israeli conflicts, hezbollah has been the most successful in confronting the "zionists". Therefore, hezbollah is now the new hero of the muslim world. To these terrorists, that seems to be enough to justify the declaration of victory.

k2aggie07 said...

Spot on. However, the true winner in all of this mess is the anti-Zionist media, avidly devouring anything that the Hezbollah propaganda machine will feed them.

The terrorists should be cheering on Al-Reuters, not Nasrallah.

You know you're in a nutty culture when getting the snot beat out of you until the referee says "break it up" is a win.

Matt said...

Haha, come on... anti-zionist media? The media reporting the death toll in each country, 24 hours a day doesn't make them "anti-zionist". I haven't heard one person on television say that Israel was wrong to attack hezbollah in southern lebanon. I haven't seen any major publications saying that either. Where is your evidence of the MSM being against Israel? I thought "the jews" ran the media. That's what your hero's savage and limbaugh say at least. Isn't that a slight contradiction?

Matt said...

I have yet to see any evidence that would indicate that the MSM is "anti-zionist". Have you? Reporting the death toll doesn't make them against Israel. Some photo-journalist working for Al-Reuters doctoring photos to show slightly more smoke then there actually was isn't a concrete piece of evidence that the whole american media is anti-israel.

k2aggie07 said...

Except for Kofi Annan. He definitely said that Israel was wrong. CNN has reported next to nothing on displaced Israeli civilians. There has been no censure of Hezbollah's intentional targeting of civilians by the media, but loads of coverage of poor abused Lebanese.

Somehow the media has managed to typify them both as the victims and the victors in the same breath, a feat which is impressive, to say the least.

Matt said...

Okay, and that justifies your claim that they are anti-zionist how? Sounds like regular old sensationalism to me.

k2aggie07 said...

As far as a two-sided war is concerned, being pro-hezbollah is effectively anti-Israel.

When a BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters or other major news outlet comes out to say that Hezbollah is wrong here for attacking a sovereign nation without provocation, or when editorials start popping up praising Israel for reacting to acts of war by factions that have political power in Lebanon (and approval of the Lebanese government), then I'll believe the MSM is neutral. Until then, as long as everything that comes out is slanted towards the Lebanese side, as long as the MSM keeps referring to Hezbollah fighters as a "grassroots guerilla group" instead of the terrorists they are...I'll call it like I see it.

Matt said...

Weird logic. If the MSM publicly said that Israel was 100% right in everything that they did militarily against hezbollah, that would make them NUETRAL? Okay....

Hezbollah IS a grassroots organization. They were voted into power democratically. I haven't heard anyone call them a guerilla group as opposed to a terrorist group. There really isn't much of a distinction there anyways. Don't get your panties in a bunch here. No one in any american publication ANYWHERE has come out and praised hezbollah for it's actions, or for that matter labeled themselves "pro-hezbollah". The issue here is whether or not Israel went overboard in its military actions (or if they didn't go far enough). Don't make it soooo black and white like usual. One more time: PLEASE MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN GENERAL.

k2aggie07 said...

I dont think they need to give a free pass to Israel, but yes, they need to say "By the rules of war, Israel is justified in their response". Or "Hezbollah is perpetrating a fraud by claiming human rights violations why flagrantly disregarding all accepted rules of engagement" or even "Hezbollah is the agressor in this situation".

Every editorial I've seen published has been reminding us why Israel is a mistake, effectively denying their right to exist as a nation.

Hezbollah may be a grassroots organization, but that doesn't make them non-terrorists. And there is a distinction. Its the same tripe that the media shoves down our throats when they call those AQ operatives in Iraq "freedom fighters". What are they trying to free? Its base propaganda, appealing to a sense of patriotism.

This article refers to them as a grassroots organization, and is as bald a piece of emotinally appealing propaganda as I've ever seen. If you can find me ONE equivalent story about displaced or killed Israelis I'll concede the point.

I don't think the issue at all is whether Israel went overboard. I think the issue is that the world is consistantly challenging Israel's soveriegnty by denying them the right to defend themselves from acts of war.

Matt said...

I have a feeling this is a pretty good representation of what you might see when you look at the cover of the NYTimes:
http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

k2aggie07 said...

What do you mean? That I'm pretty sure some of those headlines were straight from the pages of the NYT. :-p

Incidentally, I'm guessing you couldn't find the article I asked you about?


This article refers to them as a grassroots organization, and is as bald a piece of emotinally appealing propaganda as I've ever seen. If you can find me ONE equivalent story about displaced or killed Israelis I'll concede the point.


I'm still waiting.