Misplaced Pages

help support

lenin,

stalin,

mao,

pol pot,

ayatollah,

jiang zemin,

kim jong-il,

arafat,

assad,

saddam,

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

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

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

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

Nasrallah does not live in South Beirut anymore

Hi.

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

this happend in the past few days.

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

Clarification on UNSCR 1559

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of Nasrallah

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

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

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

This article is far beyond neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exactly...nasrallah is a terrorist because HE ATTACKS PRIMARILY CIVILIAN TARGETS WITH WEAPONS DESIGNED FOR INDISCRIMINATE SLAUGHTER. oh, and HE USES HUMAN SHIELDS. why can't you people get it through your thick heads? oh right. you're anti-semitic. and to say that he's fighting for land that was arabic, never jewish, you're dead wrong. the land israel currently occupies was traditionally jewish land. the west bank is comprised of the provinces of judea and samaria. judea? as in land of the jews? "merely fighting for the land". right. by killing innocent civilians. OF COURSE BY NOW YOU CAN ALL SEE WHAT A BIASED STUPID BRICKTOP I AM, i mean to forget about all the massacres that the israeli's commited during their wrongful existence in the region, could i be a blood sucking parasite that lives on the land & blood of others, i know that is what the state of israel is doing, but hey, Jews have the right to kill people, remember..WE R GODS FAVOURITES, we r the spoiled brats of Jehovah, we even had the pleasure of hammering whats his name to a piece of wood, so please stop trying to exist on account of our pleasures & god's given right to suck your blood.

Latest video ???

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

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

picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invalid links

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

Cheers, Aimable

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

Terrorism Controversy

There's no controversy.

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

Fenrir2000 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

3 is an easy question

<<There's no controversy.

1.The US considers hisballah a terrorist organization, while the EC does not. 2.EC are a bunch of pussies, led by the French. 3.How else would you call an organization that murders civillians for political causes? Fenrir2000 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

How else would you call an organization that murders civillians for political causes?

Israel

How do you explain the hundreds of civilians murdered by Israel over the last few weeks? NOT FOR POLITICAL REASONS I HOPE. YIKES, OTHERWISE THAT WOULD SORT OF.... HYPOCRITICAL.

I am not yet a member of wikipedia, but I just HAD to respond to the idiocy of the above statement. Israel is fighting a difficult war against guerrilla fighters who (cowardly) hide behind civilians. Israel clearly does not kill civilians for political reasons. It serves them no purpose. It looks bad in the world arena and it inflames the Muslim world, not to mention that it achieves no strategic goal. A majority of Isrealis are truly hurt to see civilian deaths in either country. On the contrary, civilian deaths on BOTH sides serve Hizbolla's interests, creating terror in Israel on one side and garnering world sympathy for its cause on the other. An organization such as Hizbulla that is known to inculcate children as young as seven with a desire for martyrdom clearly does not worry about exploiting civilian deaths (even its own) to meet its goals. THAT's what makes it a terrorist group. -Matt

matt, i couldn't agree more with you. hezbollah uses the lebanese as meat shields to hide behing. they store weapons in civilian buildings and fire rockets from populated areas, so that when israeli counter-battery fire comes in, it kills civilians. they purposely fire rockets very near u.n. posts so that when israel returns fire, it looks as though israel is targeting the u.n. -nate

Hi matt am not a member of wikipedia too but i couldn't fight the urge to try & force into your thick skull a little common sense, first of all please stop using the phrase (hide behind civilians), these civilians happen to be the families, neighbours, & supporters of Hezbolla fighters, if you are suggesting that israel has the right to demolish a building & kill everybody in there because a member of Hezbolla resides with his family in that building then it is only fair to give Hezbolla the right to fire rockets into israel since a number of IDF forces have their homes over there. Unless you are suggesting that Hezbolla fighters should all gather in remote areas & then send the address to the IDF so that the israelis can avoid hitting the civilians. If Hezbolla were firing rockets near the UN bases why didn't UN officials say anything about it, or perhaps they didn't know that, yet you have managed to reveal the truth.. o hail to thee oh wise one..As for your bullshit about how Israel will benefit nothing from killing civilians, in 1996 when the israelis needed an excuse to halt their war against lebanon without exposing their failure of demolishing Hezbollah all they had to do was commit a massacre against the civilians in Qana, hence increasing world pressure against them & convincing the israeli people that the only reason they didn't acheive their target was their concern over civilians in lebanon. I think the israeli's are using civilians as there way out of the mess they have created. Now lets talk about how israelis are hurt to see civilians in lebanon suffering, how come that the latest polls in israel revealed more than 80% support for operations in lebanon when 95% of the casualities are lebanese civilians.

intro

Contracting "Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite organization and political party" (1) to "Lebanese political party Hezbollah" cuts it too short. "Islamist Shiite" is a qualifier for party too, arguably a meaningful one. "organization" and "political" is redundant - all parties are political organizations, besides "Islamist" covers that. Shiite Islamists are a Islamist variant, so:

Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah

is IMO correct. --tickle me 01:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention current war??

Hey-- even in the face of all the vandalism and POV-flinging this article needs some mention of the current war, which will definitely make or break Nasrallah as a leader. Anyone care to propose a sentence here? JDG 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an article on Nasrallah, the person, not about the war, for which an article already exists. Although Nasrallah makes morale boosting appearances on Al Manar, I don't think there is much public information about his role in the current war. I therefore do not see what can be said about the topic in a Hassan Nasrallah article other than "He led Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" -- not a very useful statement. --Asbl 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has obliged with your request, but as I wrote above, the sentence is essentially void of much useful information. --Asbl 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal life, cleanup-date, July 30, 2006

Too much taken verbatim from aljazeera.com, too many {{fact}} tags. --tickle me 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard that today(1/8/2006) more than 100 Hezbollah terrorists were killed. Way to go!!!

Hassan Nasrallah is dead!!! He slipped while he painted his beard. The policemen that came from the scene said also that Ahmadinejad sucked Nasrallah's pennis very hard, and there was nothing left from it.

Views section

Are the only views Nasrallah have related to hating Israel? This section consists of a bunch of out of context quotations and some analysis, much of it from Neocon types. It strikes me as pretty blatantly POV. Obviously a discussion of Nasrallah's views should include a discussion of his views on Israel, but the current section is clearly designed to advance a partisan POV rather than to actually inform. john k 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are out of context and incorrectly translated from Arabic. Thus these quotes are simply wrong.

The Sayyed (or Sayyid?) debate

First off, the wiki page spells it Sayyid, so is that perhaps how it should be written if it is to be kept? Second, the Sayyid page states that a Western equivalent to the term would be "Sir" or "Lord". I looked up a few of the latter-day people granted knighthood by the UK (e.g. Ian McKellen, Elton John, and on their wiki pages they are listed as "Sir".

So, if that is to remain, then my opinion would be that Sayyid is equally acceptable. Opinions? Tarc 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's fine. Muslims don't even consider it a title that is similar to "Sir" or "Lord" but just take it to mean that he is a descendant of the Prophet. BhaiSaab 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid vs. Sayyed. BhaiSaab 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid? Sir? Lord?... I would suggest a little piece of shit, this is more appropriate.

One might also suggest that an extremely uncivil anonymous (the above comment came from 84.94.3.9, which traces back to an Israeli ISP) person has little to contribute to the discussion. Tarc 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Israeli (no, not the one above) I am disgusted to see the "Lord" Nasrallah and would prefer a neutral name, with no prefixes. I am also in doubt that every Sayyid is a descendant of the Prophet; it seems to me that it is not a proven fact, but just a funny title that people use to honor this terrorist. But since it is used for the Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar and also some other Islamist leaders, maybe Nasrallah should regrettably be honored as well. --Gabi S. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The true terrorists in this war are the Zionists, but thats quite unrelated. BhaiSaab 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether we prefer or not. I believe "Sayyid" should be mentioned as it the way he's being called in Lebanon. You may add a note explaining why he's called so. -- Szvest 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)