Hezbollah [Archive]

Mikhail Frunze

20th January 2007, 21:25

Hezbollah is a positive force among Lebanon's Shia population in that they preach peaceful coexistence with other ethnic and religious groups. Hezbollah is supportive of giving equal rights to women. Hezbollah is to be supported due to the fact that it is a mass party supported by the proletariat and because of its national resistance to foreign occupation. Hezbollah has generously provided an education and medical care to the toiling Shia community. Hezbollah should be supported because there would be a blow to western imperialism should its proxies fall from power. "Lebanon" should cease to exist and instead reunite with Syria.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Lebanese society across sectarian lines supported the resistance of Hezbollah against the illegal Zionist occupation.
http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?c...d=692&MenuID=46 (http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?contentid=692&MenuID=46)

Hezbollah are not only reactionary, they canot win their conflict in Lebanon in the long term. They can only rely on support from shi'ate muslims.

You seriously have got no clue as to what you are talking about. Hezbollah's national resistance forced Israel to withdraw from much of southern Lebanon in 2000 after nearly 20 years of illegally occupying the country.

The only solution for Lebanon is for the working class, the vast majoraty to unite behind socialism rather than fighting itself via sectarian ehtnic/religous groupings.

That is not realistic considering the deep ethnic sectarian conflict which has plagued Lebanon. In case you weren't aware, they had a devastating civil war between Zionist-backed Christians and the PLO.

So did Hitler (working people of Germany of course).

No, he did not. Working people in Germany supported the KDP and SDP. In contrast, Hitler got support from the middle class and bourgeoisie. The NSDAP started to draw support from dissatisfied middle classes only after Black Tuesday whereas the KDP had the support of the proletariat throughout the 1920s.

Yes, they did, by lining up workers behind the national bourgeoisie and sending them to death and to kill fellow workers, they did unite the Lebanese nation. This makes them reactionary.

Are you saying Hezbollah bears responsibility for the Zionists murdering 1000 workers? That is simply incendiary. You are essentially ignoring the destruction brought to Lebanon by Israel.

Phalanx

21st January 2007, 00:21

Here's the article I was referring to:

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-01-18T141553Z_01_L18731689_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEBANON-HEZBOLLAH-SHEBAA.xml&src=rss)

Obviously it may not be the most trusted source, but I think it gives you an idea.

Phalanx

21st January 2007, 00:25

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 20, 2007 01:43 am
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath.
It doesn't matter if 'roman soldiers used it'. Now it means something completely different, just like the swastika was an ancient Hindu symbol.

guest187

21st January 2007, 02:12

Originally posted by Mihail Frunze
Are you saying Hezbollah bears responsibility for the Zionists murdering 1000 workers?

No, Hezbollah bears responsibility for murdering these workers:

A high-explosive bomb made of ammonium nitrate was driven in a van through the front gates of the AMIA building in the Once district near downtown Buenos Aires. The 7-story building was the headquarters of Argentina's Jewish community. According to the police, the bomber detonated the bomb, leveling the building and reducing it to rubble, along with nearby buildings.

Eighty-five people died, most of them Jewish. More than 300 others were wounded. The attack came two years after the 1992 Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires that killed 29. The authorities weren't able either to find the responsibles of the bombing.

The day after the AMIA attack, a suicide bombing on a Panamanian commuter plane killed 12 Jews and 9 others.

The Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires was a bomb attack against Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina on March 17, 1992. A pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy located on the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha, and detonated, destroying the embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many of them children. The blast killed 29 and wounded 242. It was Argentina's deadliest terror attack until the AMIA Bombing of 1994, and as of 2006 it remains the deadliest attack on an Israeli diplomatic mission.

Mikhail Frunze

21st January 2007, 03:58

The Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires was a bomb attack against Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina on March 17, 1992. A pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy located on the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha, and detonated, destroying the embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many of them children. The blast killed 29 and wounded 242. It was Argentina's deadliest terror attack until the AMIA Bombing of 1994, and as of 2006 it remains the deadliest attack on an Israeli diplomatic mission.

Just because there are implications from Israel and pro-Zionist media that Hezbollah did this does not necessarily mean that there is serious evidence showing Hezbollah was behind this. This is just as baseless as the claim that Hezbollah pulled off the barracks bombing or that the Syrian government had Lebanese politicians assassinated

Hiero

21st January 2007, 05:38

Originally posted by Jello+January 21, 2007 06:13 am--> (Jello @ January 21, 2007 06:13 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 03:43 pm
OMFG WE GET IT. Hitler was popular. Only one person has to say it you fucking retards.
When one can't contribute to a discussion, the best thing to do is lash out angrily for no reason! [/b]
For no reason? People kept making teh same point, surely people only need to hear the same lame point once.

Really? Are you sure you don't want us to repeat again? Because really, you seem as if you will not understand until it is repeated for, say, a couple of thousands times more.

Yes I get it, Hezbollah is similar to Hitler and the Nazis. Though it makes no sense, though your politics never did.

Leo

21st January 2007, 06:10

Yes I get it

No you don't... Sigh, okay, lets go through this one more time; being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

I feel that you need me to repeat again;

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Now write this sentence in your little notebook a hundred times. If you still fail to understand, I would patiently try to help you understand it better by repeating the sentence.

Hiero

21st January 2007, 06:38

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 05:10 pm

Yes I get it

No you don't... Sigh, okay, lets go through this one more time; being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

I feel that you need me to repeat again;

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Now write this sentence in your little notebook a hundred times. If you still fail to understand, I would patiently try to help you understand it better by repeating the sentence.
Wow you are dumber then I thought. Can you find somewhere I argued the opposite?

Leo

21st January 2007, 07:46

Can you find somewhere I argued the opposite?

The point is that you keep on not getting the point with the Hitler example; this was the sentence you used:

Yes I get it, Hezbollah is similar to Hitler and the Nazis. Though it makes no sense...

See?

Now repeat with me, perhaps it will help you understand the point;

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Being "popular" among the masses is not enough to make something revolutionary.

Spirit of Spartacus

21st January 2007, 08:27

I think Mikhail Frunze has provided an adequate response to the accusations against Hezbollah.

I believe Hiero too is trying to make a point, which everyone is missing. So let me spell it out:

The comparisons between the Nazis and Hezbollah are baseless. The Nazis were a regime which occupied foreign territories in a war of aggression. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is a defensive force which protected Lebanon against Israeli aggression.

Hiero

21st January 2007, 08:39

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 06:46 pm

Can you find somewhere I argued the opposite?

The point is that you keep on not getting the point with the Hitler example; this was the sentence you used:

Where did I show I did not get the point? Although I do agree with Spirit of Spartacus, and was going to make the same point, i withheld because I didn't want to get involved in this arguement.

My initial anger directed to the people who repeated the point not more then 1 and 2 post after it had been raised. No where did I put forward an arguement against the point, only against the unoriginal repetition. Which makes your rambling rather foolish. It also shows your arrogance that you would jump to correct someone who has not yet made the mistake (well a mistake in your mind).

Next time I hope you concentrate more on your reading and comprehension, and stop being a jerk.

Leo

21st January 2007, 08:52

The Nazis were a regime which occupied foreign territories in a war of aggression.

In 1945 they weren't, they were a defensive force which "protected" the fatherland against American and Soviet aggression. I'm taking that you would have supported the Nazi Germany in 1945?

Hiero

21st January 2007, 09:03

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 07:52 pm

The Nazis were a regime which occupied foreign territories in a war of aggression.

In 1945 they weren't, they were a defensive force which "protected" the fatherland against American and Soviet aggression. I'm taking that you would have supported the Nazi Germany in 1945?
There was no Soviet or American aggression. There was alot of evidence that the Nazi's would soon be marching over the world.

Though if you ever watch tv, read a book or read a newspapaer who would know every well that the Zionist State is very aggressive.

See, one is a lie, one is a fact. Are you even a materialist?

EwokUtopia

21st January 2007, 09:20

Godwins law has deffinately been breached here multiple times.

That said, Hezbollah, while not the greatest organization in the world, is certainly far from being the worst. Hezbollah stems from the Shi'ite minority of Lebanon, and for those of you who are unfirmiliar with the social situation of Lebanon, to be Shi'ite is not so much a religious affiliation as a class affiliation, and the shi'ite minority (which is an economic minority far more than a population minority) is at the bottom of the economic pyramid of Lebanon. The Maronite Christians (does the Kataeb ring any bells?) are at the top.
Why?
The answer is simple: French Imperialism.
The French did to the Lebanese what the Belgians did to Rwanda. Think of the Shi'ites as being comparable to the Hutu's of Rwanda, that is the underclass unfavoured by the imperial power. Of course, there was no genocide in Lebanon as there was in Rwanda, and many Shi'ites want to work with Lebanese Christians (Catholics are much less hostile towards their Muslim neighbours then Maronites, however, and I remind you that these are political and class divisions as much, if not moreso, than they are religious, think of the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland for example).
Hezbollah is a working class movement, and although many leftists in the west believe it to be a ridiculous fundamentalist movement, I say that you are unaware of the political situations in the Mid-East. This is an area that is deeply religious, as with the vast majority of the people there. Now, just because some German said "religion is the opiate of the masses" nearly 200 years ago does not mean that it should be done away with post-haste. If you believe this, then you are not taking into consideration the metaphor Marx made. To illustrate my point, try denying an Opium addict from his precious poppy product. Not only will it not work, you'll make instant enemies with them. This is why leftist groups in areas like the Middle East, Latin America, and other regions with deeply religious people do NOT go about saying the things you privaledged western leftists do.
Hezbollah does not want to start an Islamic State, nor will they ever weild any power in Lebanon without the people's consent. They are what they are because of the consent of the people. Lebanon is a nation which has been cursed by Imperialism for centuries (Turkish, French, Israeli, and of course, the curse of Free Trade). Hezbollah is the ONLY organization that can currently resist some of these imperialisms effectively, and what I see is a bunch of privaledged western leftists who I suspect have never fealt the grip of hunger nor the sting of war attacking this organization because it does not adhere to your doctrine of absolute secularism. Such an idea is unfeasible to apply to most people in the world in our lifetimes (One does not go about quitting opium pro-bono), and your dislike of this group seems to me to be unrational and unrealistic.

You think you can do a better job at helping the Lebanese people than Hezbollah? then put your money where your fucking mouths are, otherwise shut up and let the people of Lebanon make their own damn choices without a bunch of unwarrented criticism coming from people who live in very different situations than they do.

Spirit of Spartacus

21st January 2007, 10:10

Hezbollah are not only reactionary, they canot win their conflict in Lebanon in the long term. They can only rely on support from shi'ate muslims. The only solution for Lebanon is for the working class, the vast majoraty to unite behind socialism rather than fighting itself via sectarian ehtnic/religous groupings.

That's just not true.

I'm sure you realize that it takes time to mobilize the working masses of a country to the point where they'd demand a socialist revolution.

The struggles of the Lebanese people against Israeli aggression bring closer the moment of revolution, they unite the people like never before. Did you realize that Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims and Druzes, all four religious groups came out in support of Hezbollah's resistance?

Any political group, be it armed or otherwise cannot hope to challenge the status quo if its main objective is the expansion of theocracy. In short, they're reactionary.

OK, let's put it this way.

In many Muslim countries, especially in the Middle-East and South Asia, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans.

So it all boils down to this:

Are you with them or are you not? Just because your scientific education enables you to rise above their medieval beliefs, will you abandon their cause?

The revolutionary class consciousness which you are referring to does not arise magically in a population. It arises through the numerous struggles in which the working-class participates.

The struggle against Israeli aggression is just one of those struggles of the Lebanese workers and peasants, and it was spear-headed by Hezbollah. I pointed out the support of the Lebanese Communist Party for Hezbollah's resistance, and one "Left Communist" comrade went so far as to refer to the Lebanese communists as "reactionaries".

Clearly, some comrades here are mistaken to the point where they oppose the only force capable of uniting Lebanon's working-class against foreign aggression.

One must ask such comrades if they have a better alternative. It is easy to build revolutionary castles in the air, but the moment you talk about the practical politics of the revolutionary struggle, you must do away with some of your illusions.

Spirit of Spartacus

21st January 2007, 10:22

I fucking hate Hezbollocks.

They can all rot in hell, Anti-semetic Muslim-fundementalist idiots.

So I'll put the same questions to you.

In many Muslim countries, especially in the Middle-East and South Asia, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans.

So it all boils down to this:

Are you with them or are you not?
Just because your scientific education enables you to rise above their medieval beliefs, will you abandon their cause?

Do you want poorly-educated Muslim workers to go rot in hell? :rolleyes:

I'm asking this because when you say:

They can all rot in hell, Anti-semetic Muslim-fundementalist idiots

you might well be talking about a lot of Muslim working people, not just Hezbollah party cadres or guerillas.

Forward Union

21st January 2007, 10:22

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 21, 2007 08:27 am
The comparisons between the Nazis and Hezbollah are baseless. The Nazis were a regime which occupied foreign territories in a war of aggression. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is a defensive force which protected Lebanon against Israeli aggression.
I care more about my own faeces than the good of lebanon.

I do however care about the working class in Lebanon. And have a lot of distaste toward preachers and Bureaucrats that send the proletariat to die for Race, Nation, Faith or whatever bollocks Hezbollah is peddling these days.

As Leo pointed out, Neither hezbollah or Israel did badly out of that war. But all the working people who died for that fat islamic bigot, or those that died for the Israeli polititians and capitalists did suffer, as did their families. I support them. Not the people that made workers fight eachother for political points.

So fuck Hezbollocks.

Forward Union

21st January 2007, 10:26

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 21, 2007 10:22 am
Just because your scientific education enables you to rise above their medieval beliefs, will you abandon their cause?
There is a difference between working with religious people against organised religion, capitalism, and the state.

And actively killing working class people for that religion, like hezbollocks have done. There are plenty of Libertarian Communists in Lebanon, though they are not very well organised. Some are muslim, but they don't agree with sending workers to die for the Party of God. :rolleyes:

Spirit of Spartacus

21st January 2007, 10:29

I care more about my own faeces than the good of lebanon.

I do however care about the working class in Lebanon.

Admirable sentiments, but the working-class in Lebanon cares more about the good of Lebanon than their faeces. ;)

That's why workers rallied under Hezbollah leadership to defend towns and villages from Israeli assaults.

And have a lot of distaste toward preachers and Bureaucrats that send the proletariat to die for Race, Nation, Faith or whatever bollocks Hezbollah is peddling these days.

So do I. But how about preachers who send the proleteriat to die supposedly for race/nation/faith, but actually for defending the working-class against US-Israeli aggression?

Forward Union

21st January 2007, 10:42

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 21, 2007 10:29 am
That's why workers rallied under Hezbollah leadership to defend towns and villages from Israeli assaults.

But that doesn't mean anything. The parallel has been drawn enough times, just because the workers rally around something doesn't mean that it represents their best interests. See; Nazism.

So do I. But how about preachers who send the proleteriat to die supposedly for race/nation/faith, but actually for defending the working-class against US-Israeli aggression?

Hezbollah used the lebannese working class, to defend Islamic values, and the hezbollocks power structure, and killed Israeli workers in doing so. It was part of their long term goal to kil lal lthe jews. Hassan Nasrallah; "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"

:angry:

Hiero

21st January 2007, 12:36

But that doesn't mean anything. The parallel has been drawn enough times, just because the workers rally around something doesn't mean that it represents their best interests.

It actually means alot to no have your town flatten by Israel. Both you and I have not been in a war zone, but try and imagine what it would be like. I bet you wouldn't be prancing around singing your bullshit when Hezbollah gives you hand outs and are the only active resistance to a highly advanced army.

Hezbollah used the lebannese working class, to defend Islamic values,

Defend Islamic views from who? Last time i checked it was a war.

Hassan Nasrallah; "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"

That means nothing in the overall context.

Forward Union

21st January 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:36 pm
It actually means alot to no have your town flatten by Israel. Both you and I have not been in a war zone, but try and imagine what it would be like. I bet you wouldn't be prancing around singing your bullshit when Hezbollah gives you hand outs and are the only active resistance to a highly advanced army.

So war situations justify fighting for Faith and nation! Absurd. I've heard this "omg if you were being bombed you'd fight for anybody" No, I really, really wouldn't. I'd fight for my class, and that would more than likely put me in the firing line of the Islamist Hezbollocks lot.

If there was no working class resistance I'd set out forming some.

EwokUtopia

21st January 2007, 18:44

Love Underground, You sound like a Zionist.

You are merely repeating the ideas of Hezbollah that the Israeli government (as well as the American and British) would like you to think. Would you please tell my where Nasrallah said that statement? Because, quite frankly, I disbelieve its factual accuracy. I dont think anyone here would deny that governments like the US and Israel would lie and slander their opponents, and Nasrallah is a strong opponent of Zionist aggression. Israel has quite the effective strategy of making themselves look like the victim and portraying all their opponents as Anti-Semite proto-Nazi's, and this slander stops debate immediately.

So please, if you have such quotes to pull from Nasrallah, tell me where he said it, when he said it, who he said it to, what he was talking about, and what the entire paragraph he said it in was. If not, I shall have to assume you just stumbled across a baseless Zionist lie, they are aplenty in this world when it comes to Mid-East politics.

You said you dont give two shits about Lebanon, perhaps you shouldnt talk about it too much than, because you aparently havnt given two wits about it either.

*PRC*Kensei

21st January 2007, 21:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:16 pm
Hezbollah, a progressive force or a reactionary one?

Let us see what the people here think
turn it how u want: They are kicking imperialism in the ass. i support them for now. (however i have a lot more sympathy for hamas)

Coggeh

21st January 2007, 22:24

Originally posted by Love Underground+January 21, 2007 10:42 am--> (Love Underground @ January 21, 2007 10:42 am)
Spirit of [email protected] 21, 2007 10:29 am
That's why workers rallied under Hezbollah leadership to defend towns and villages from Israeli assaults.

But that doesn't mean anything. The parallel has been drawn enough times, just because the workers rally around something doesn't mean that it represents their best interests. See; Nazism.

So do I. But how about preachers who send the proleteriat to die supposedly for race/nation/faith, but actually for defending the working-class against US-Israeli aggression?

Hezbollah used the lebannese working class, to defend Islamic values, and the hezbollocks power structure, and killed Israeli workers in doing so. It was part of their long term goal to kil lal lthe jews. Hassan Nasrallah; "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"

:angry: [/b]
Anti semitism and disagreeing with the occupation of palestine are not the fucking same , im sick of being called a fascist and a rascist because of idiots like you. Hezbollah had everyright to shell the shit out of israel they were the only ones brave enough to stand up to the biggest mockery of human rights on the planet which is the nation of Israel ,an anti-workers ,anti islam and if anything rascist state .

A SCANNER DARKLY

21st January 2007, 22:26

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+January 21, 2007 12:25 am--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ January 21, 2007 12:25 am)
A SCANNER [email protected] 20, 2007 01:43 am
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath.
It doesn't matter if 'roman soldiers used it'. Now it means something completely different, just like the swastika was an ancient Hindu symbol. [/b]
Did I say it mattered? I'm just pointing it out.

Omri Evron

21st January 2007, 22:41

The Party of God is reactionary in every way you look at it, even though it currently opposes some other reactionaries. It is not a progressive liberation force. How did capturing two Israeli soldiers within Israel help the liberate anyone? Did anyone actually think Israel would not retaliate in a huge military attack that would bomb civilian targets. Nassrala realy couldn't see the destruction his actions would bring to the people of Lebanon. Also, in the last war, Hezbollah didn't defend anybody- they shot missles specificaly at civilian targets within Israel, killing innocent civilians (half of which were Arab). Also, when the Hizbollah soldiers hid in Lebanese villages and cities, and even shot missiles from there, did they not expect the IDF would bomb these villages without a second thought? Or maybe the IDF has no record of mass human rights violations and collective punishment?
You can say Hezbollah kicked Israel's ass, but how is the death of a few Israeli soldiers a relief to a thousand dead Lebanese? How did Hezbollah help liberate the Palestinian People by provocking a war that made Gaza a worst hightmare than it ever was- and it has been through many nightmares. How did Hizbollah promote peace by this act?
So in addition to the fact that their ideology is reactionary and fundementalist- their tactics are plain stupid and criminal when it comes to the interests of the working people of the Middle East.

Leo

21st January 2007, 23:03

There was no Soviet or American aggression.

Oh this is a fucking classic, people should put this in their signature... There was no Soviet or American aggression. This has to be a fucking joke.

Did the Soviet Union and the USA not invade the majority of Europe? Are you such an ignorant liar who would say that they didn't occupy territories that did not belong to their "nation"? After all you are the one who is a nationalist, who supports nationalism and recognizes nation as a "reality". Why don't you defend one "nation"'s right to so-called "independence" while you defend another's?

You contradict yourself too often, but so does most of Stalinists.

The fact is that all the nationalists are bourgeois and all kinds of nationalism is bourgeois and you can't support "the enemy of your (most visable) enemy", as (not you but) proletarian politics upheld the interests of the working class, recognizes that every bourgeois is anti-working class and the butchering of workers in nowhere by each other is "progressive" or "revolutionary".

This is called class conflict.

One class against another, the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Now, I know this is a very hard concept for you to understand as you are too used to giving support to bourgeois factions, but still perhaps you are still capable of thinking.

There was alot of evidence that the Nazi's would soon be marching over the world.

Yeah, and when the American and Soviets came they just said: "Oh shit, they came before us so let's abolish the master plan of marching over the world"?

The Nazis reaction to the invasion of their "fatherland" was as justified as the Hezbollah's reaction to the imperialist Israeli invasion. Third Reich was incredibly weak, they had lost the war, they were in no condition to attack anyone anymore. What they did is exactly the same with what Hezbollah is doing now, and Hezbollah's struggle is as revolutionary as the Nazis in 1945.

and one "Left Communist" comrade went so far as to refer to the Lebanese communists as "reactionaries".

They are reactionaries and have been reactionaries for a long time like all of the Stalinist official Communist Parties. In the past they served the national interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, now they found new and different masters.

So I'll put the same questions to you.

In many Muslim countries, especially in the Middle-East and South Asia, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans.

Who the fuck are you you to decide this? Are the Islamic reactionaries who "like" you for a change telling you that this is the situation?

So I'll put the same questions to you. What would you do if left-wing groups in Muslim countries say that "in many Christian countries, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans. So it all boils down to this: Are you with them or are you not?" The Worker-Communist Party of Iran and organizations coming from the same tradition hold a similar line, they even work with the BNP in England in "free speech" demonstrations.

You are not any different or better from either the BNP or the WCPI; you are doing the exact same thing.

For how many times should you hear that being popular is not enough? Hitler was "popular", Reagan was "popular"; this doesn't mean that they came into power because they represented the "masses".

Perhaps it is time to understand that the exploiting bourgeois classes in the places you look down upon are not better than the exploiting bourgeois classes in where you live.

If you want to hold a proletarian perspective, you have to oppose all fractions of bourgeoisie.

Although I don't think you give a shit about either the proletariat or perspective.

Mikhail Frunze

21st January 2007, 23:39

The Nazis reaction to the invasion of their "fatherland" was as justified as the Hezbollah's reaction to the imperialist Israeli invasion.

Yet again here is the absurd, asinine, elementary argument of comparing everything to the Nazis. First, there was never any invasion of Germany because any military penetration by the USSR into Germany was a continuation of hostilities started by Germany. There has never been an invasion of Israel by another state. To compare Lebanon to Germany simply does not make sense because there has never been a case in which Lebanon or Hezbollah has been an aggressor. It is Israel which has continually occupied Lebanese territory and it is Hezbollah which resists this foreign occupation. Frankly your comparison of Hezbollah to Nazi Germany does not begin to make any sense. What country has Hezbollah ever invaded and whose land has it ever occupied? To answer Israel would be invalid because almost all the land controlled by the illegal Jerusalem regime was stolen from the Palestinians therefore rendering it Palestinian territory.

Who the fuck are you you to decide this?

He is not deciding that most peoples in the Middle East are religious. He is pointing out a well known fact.

If you want to hold a proletarian perspective, you have to oppose all fractions of bourgeoisie.

I like it when people misuse the term bourgeois. To call Hezbollah a bourgeois movement when its support is derived from the Shia working class reveals that you do not know what you are talking about. Hezbollah does not represent the interests of Lebanon's financial, commercial, or industrial elite but simply represents the impoverished Shia masses. Communist parties have not been proletarian simply because of their outlook but rather because their membership and sympathisizers have been drawn from the industrial working class. But at the same time, communism in the Muslim countries has primarily found support among the urban petit-bourgeois. Hezbollah has thus been far more proletarian in terms of its social composition than have most communist parties in the Middle East.

Did the Soviet Union and the USA not invade the majority of Europe?

This can be said about America but it cannot be said about the USSR. The USSR was reacting to foreign invasion and occupation by Germany, Romania, Hungary, Finland, and Slovakia. When the USSR invaded Bulgaria in 1944, not a single shot was fired and Soviet troops withdrew in 1946.

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:16 pm
Hezbollah, a progressive force or a reactionary one?

A rabble of reactionary fascist scum, who should be fought against and destroyed.

EwokUtopia

22nd January 2007, 07:26

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 22, 2007 12:57 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 22, 2007 12:57 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:16 pm
Hezbollah, a progressive force or a reactionary one?

A rabble of reactionary fascist scum, who should be fought against and destroyed. [/b]
Interesting statement, care to reiterate?

You people drop the word reactionary so much it loses all meaning. Why not take a vote, between the Lebanese and Palestinian people (who are far more qualified to answer this question than anyone in the western left) on whether or not Hezbollah should be smashed and destroyed. If the workers of Lebanon support Hezbollah, than you should back off and let the people make their own damn decisions and not give your opinions (which are comming from an immense cultural difference) and let the people decide whether or not they are benefitial in fighting off imperialism. Can you name me any other organization as sucessful in fighting off racist imperial powers than Hezbollah? Can you even deny that the vast majority of people in the countries it affects support it?

Oh, but of course leftists in the west, with their subtly racist chauvanism, will say "they are religious, which means they are instantly reactionary, end of story. All reasonable people are anti-religious like me and most leftists I know in my country, therefore it is and should be the same everywhere." You do not take into account the vast differences between the West and the Islamic world. If all religious people are reactionary, do you plan on leaving religious workers out of the revolution? You must be mad if you think any revolution is going to come out of the complacent west, at best we will hop on a revolution that will likely begin in Latin America, Africa, or the Islamic World, all of which are deeply religious areas, and any revolutionary with success in mind will take that into account. This does not mean that they will be religious fundamentalists, but they will acknowledge religion, and not alienate the religious workers. If this is reactionary to you, just sit back in America (or wherever) and wait for the revolution to come walking out of Wal-Mart.

Christians, Muslims, Druze, and I can guarentee many Atheists in Lebanon support Hezbollah. They are not an "Islamist" (this is a false statement, as the people we think of as Islamists are mostly Salafists or Wahabists, and you paint all of Islam under the same banner by saying "Islamist") party bent on a theocratic Islamic state, this is a Zionist lie. I almost get the feeling you watch a tad too much CNN or FOX news when you say such things. If they are hell-bent on a Shi'ite theocracy, then tell my why about 90-95% of Lebanon supports them, despite the fact that only about a third are Shi'ite?

And, to note the war in the summer, the Israeli military killed 3 times as many civilians as it did military personell (be they Hezbollah or the technically neutral Lebanese Army), whereas Hezbollah killed three times as many IDF as it did Israeli civilians (quite a feat, if you dont agree, than I dare you to try aiming a bloody Katyusha). Hezbollah is one of the most successful anti-imperialist groups in the world, they are not the bloodthirsty Islamist butchers the western media would like to portray them as, and if you make reactionaries of all religious people, you make enemies with the vast majority of the worlds workers.

Good luck on your anti-flag powered revolution, you'll need it.

Vargha Poralli

22nd January 2007, 08:20

EwokUtopia

Nice post comrade. These persons never live a life that is anywhere near those of Lebanese and Palestinians so they don't know the real plight of those people and do not analyse both Hezbollah and Hamas in a materialist perspective.Regardless their stupid opinions the people of Lebanon and Palestine will continue their resistance to Israeli agression.

Spirit of Spartacus

22nd January 2007, 11:28

They are reactionaries and have been reactionaries for a long time like all of the Stalinist official Communist Parties. In the past they served the national interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, now they found new and different masters.

Irrelevant here. Hezbollah is not a communist party, it represents the Shia working-class and petit-bourgeoisie of Lebanon, who took the lead in resisting US-Israeli aggression since the 80s, and the other sections of Lebanese society followed them and supported their resistance activities.

So I'll put the same questions to you.

In many Muslim countries, especially in the Middle-East and South Asia, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans.

Who the fuck are you you to decide this? Are the Islamic reactionaries who "like" you for a change telling you that this is the situation?

I didn't decide this, I merely pointed out an observation that I made, an observation shared by any communist who has ever operated in a Middle-Eastern or South Asian country.

And no, its not Islamic reactionaries who tell me this, its something I've observed for myself in trade union meetings and in my communication with workers and peasants. I live in a Muslim majority country.

We must acknowledge the realities on the ground before we can change them. That is materialism, in case you didn't realize.

So I'll put the same questions to you. What would you do if left-wing groups in Muslim countries say that "in many Christian countries, the working-class is very religious, socially conservative and mobilizes rapidly behind religious slogans. So it all boils down to this: Are you with them or are you not?"

Naturally, I'd take the time and effort to establish whether this is indeed the case, and then I'd acknowledge it as a fact. As a communist, I'd adopt a political line which emphasizes secularism but at the same time remains sensitive to the backward superstitions and beliefs of the people I'm supposed to work with.

If those religious Christian workers rally behind a priest who uses Biblical slogans to mobilize them against imperialism and capitalism, then I'd work with that priest, even though I personally don't accept his medieval nonsense.

This is Materialism 101, welcome to class. :rolleyes:

If you ever go to a trade union meeting in a country like Pakistan or Bangladesh, you will observe that they start it with recitations from the Koran. You will also see that many female workers, the most exploited section of the working-class, will come in dressed in veils, like this: :ph34r:

You might observe that in study circles for workers and peasants, scientific arguments from Kapital will be combined with quotations from religious texts which the workers and peasants unfortunately believe in very fervently.
You might even observe trade union leaders and atheistic communists telling workers that "God" doesn't want them to suffer under capitalist exploitation.

But oh no, our puritan Left Communist comrade won't stand for this nonsense. Religion is the opiate of the masses, remember? No, our Left Communist comrade will walk off and give a Fuck for the workers, just because they thought they were fighting for their "faith". Our dear Left Communist comrade would rather have one worker fighting for proleterian class interests, rather than 100000 workers who supposedly fight for "faith" but actually defend nothing else but their class interests.

Our puritan Left Communist comrade, having forgotten what materialism is all about, would have nothing to do with such a workers' movement, and will call it a reactionary cause, and will wait for years and years, hoping that the workers suddenly realize that their religion is a load of bullshit fed to them by the ruling-class. :)

But guess what? The Left Communist comrade would be fucking WRONG. :angry:

The Worker-Communist Party of Iran and organizations coming from the same tradition hold a similar line, they even work with the BNP in England in "free speech" demonstrations.

The WCPI is a pathetic little front for Iranian exiles who would like to help the imperialist First World to invade Iran and restore the Shah and the old ruling-class.

You are not any different or better from either the BNP or the WCPI; you are doing the exact same thing.

Hardly. I'm supporting a resistance force which mobilizes Third-World workers to struggle against Israel, the lackey of First World imperialism in the Middle East.

For how many times should you hear that being popular is not enough? Hitler was "popular", Reagan was "popular"; this doesn't mean that they came into power because they represented the "masses".

The class struggle is not a popularity contest. Objectively, Reagan was popular with the labor aristocracy of the U$A, since he represented their class interests, as opposed to those of the Eastern bloc workers or the Third World workers and peasants.

Let me spell it out for you:

Reagan was a popular REACTIONARY, while Nasrallah is a popular THIRD WORLD RESISTANCE LEADER.

Perhaps it is time to understand that the exploiting bourgeois classes in the places you look down upon are not better than the exploiting bourgeois classes in where you live.

Perhaps it is time for YOU to understand that the workers and peasants of places which you do not understand will fight for their class interests in ways of their OWN choosing, and that if you wish to call yourself a communist, you will have to stand by them in their struggle, even though you disagree with their APPARENT religious motivations.

If you want to hold a proletarian perspective, you have to oppose all fractions of bourgeoisie.

As someone already pointed out, Hezbollah is popular with the Shia WORKING-CLASS.

Although I don't think you give a shit about either the proletariat or perspective.

Like I said before, the perspective of the proleteriat is an empirical reality, which you must try to find out.

The perspective of the proleteriat can't be what YOU want it to be.

It is YOU who must uphold (if not adopt) the perspective of the proleteriat. Not the opposite.

It takes time and effort to build a revolutionary class consciousness among workers and peasants.

And that revolutionary class consciousness won't arise if a "godless" communist such as you or me goes to them and preaches. This class consciousness will ONLY arise if we communists stand by them in every struggle they take part in, so that when the time comes for a final confrontation with the ruling-class, they will have a scientific progressive perspective.

The Grey Blur

22nd January 2007, 12:20

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+January 22, 2007 07:26 am--> (EwokUtopia @ January 22, 2007 07:26 am)
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 22, 2007 12:57 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 03:16 pm
Hezbollah, a progressive force or a reactionary one?

A rabble of reactionary fascist scum, who should be fought against and destroyed.
Interesting statement, care to reiterate?

You people drop the word reactionary so much it loses all meaning. Why not take a vote, between the Lebanese and Palestinian people (who are far more qualified to answer this question than anyone in the western left) on whether or not Hezbollah should be smashed and destroyed. If the workers of Lebanon support Hezbollah, than you should back off and let the people make their own damn decisions and not give your opinions (which are comming from an immense cultural difference) and let the people decide whether or not they are benefitial in fighting off imperialism. Can you name me any other organization as sucessful in fighting off racist imperial powers than Hezbollah? Can you even deny that the vast majority of people in the countries it affects support it?

Oh, but of course leftists in the west, with their subtly racist chauvanism, will say "they are religious, which means they are instantly reactionary, end of story. All reasonable people are anti-religious like me and most leftists I know in my country, therefore it is and should be the same everywhere." You do not take into account the vast differences between the West and the Islamic world. If all religious people are reactionary, do you plan on leaving religious workers out of the revolution? You must be mad if you think any revolution is going to come out of the complacent west, at best we will hop on a revolution that will likely begin in Latin America, Africa, or the Islamic World, all of which are deeply religious areas, and any revolutionary with success in mind will take that into account. This does not mean that they will be religious fundamentalists, but they will acknowledge religion, and not alienate the religious workers. If this is reactionary to you, just sit back in America (or wherever) and wait for the revolution to come walking out of Wal-Mart. [/b]
I think that while you make some fair points we shouldn't give up on the development of a secular Socialist force in the Middle East, simply because there "religion" has a lot more power than in the West. Looking at the example of the PFLP or of the Communist movements in Iran and other mid east countires, a secular working-class force can gain support. Yes Hezbollah should be supported while they counter Imperialism but that does not mean that we should give up all hope of an independent Socialist movement coming to the fore in Lebanon or in the Middle East in general. Hezbollah's religious leadership can only move so far before threatening their own interests and it will be interesting to see if some of the more radical elements of Hezbollah workers become fed up with this.

This is not directed specifically towards you EU but when you accuse people of being 'chauvinist' and give up all hope of a Socialist movement gaining support in the Middle East because they're "religious" and instead transfer unconditional support to a reactionary group like Hezbollah then you are as equally guilty of over-simplifying and dismissing the Middle-Eastern working-class as the comfy Westerners you are arguing against.

And, to note the war in the summer, the Israeli military killed 3 times as many civilians as it did military personell (be they Hezbollah or the technically neutral Lebanese Army), whereas Hezbollah killed three times as many IDF as it did Israeli civilians
Figures? I was of the mind that Hezbollah just randomly fired rockets into Israel, killing many ordinary Israelis, as well as Palestinians.

YKTMX

22nd January 2007, 14:51

Looking at the example of the PFLP or of the Communist movements in Iran and other mid east countires, a secular working-class force can gain support.

Doesn't it occur to anyone why the "secular working class" is on the decline in the Middle East?

Precisely because the "secular working class" parties have a long and sad history of conciliation and treachery (so do the Islamists, I might add).

Look at the behaviour of the PLO right now for a good example. Undermining Palestine's own sovereignty, cowtowing to the Israelis and the Americans against the "Islamist" Hamas.

The reason people have turned away from the left is because of the History of Stalinism and things that above.

As for the stuff about Hezbollah, as someone already said, most people don't know what the word "reactionary" means in this context.

Hezbollah are the leaders of an anti-imperialist bloc, attempting to push colonialism and imperialism out of Lebanon - that is, by an standard possible, they are a historically progressive force.

Whether a movement is "reactionary" is not judged solely by its position on women in the workplace.

Vargha Poralli

22nd January 2007, 15:08

Who the fuck are you you to decide this? Are the Islamic reactionaries who "like" you for a change telling you that this is the situation?

Obviously he lives in an Islamic Country and he didn't decide anything. He just stated a fact which he had observed personally.

Intifada

22nd January 2007, 15:14

Originally posted by Omri [email protected] 21, 2007 10:41 pm
The Party of God is reactionary in every way you look at it, even though it currently opposes some other reactionaries. It is not a progressive liberation force.
Before I go on to further points, I would like to clarify my position on Hizbullah.

Yes they have a reactionary character, but some of the things that have been written in previous posts is beyond reality.

The premeditated Israeli aggression against the Lebanese people was wholly unjustifiable and needed to be resisted. The only force that was prepared to fight back was Hizbullah, and for that reason alone I (albeit critically) support them.

Who else in Lebanon was ready to fight back?

Nobody. That was the reality of the situation, and that is why even non-Shiites ended up backing Hizbullah.

How did capturing two Israeli soldiers within Israel help the liberate anyone?

Have you ever heard of the concept of "prisoner exchange"?

Israel Responded to an Unprovoked Attack by Hizbullah, Right? Wrong
(http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0808-23.htm)

Did anyone actually think Israel would not retaliate in a huge military attack that would bomb civilian targets. Nassrala realy couldn't see the destruction his actions would bring to the people of Lebanon.

There is no excuse for the targeting of civilian infrastructure that resulted in making hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people homeless, whilst killing more than a thousand innocent civilians and only a few hundred Hizbullah fighters.

Indeed, the very records of the I"D"F show that Hizbullah killed far more Israeli soldiers than Israeli civilians (Link (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm)).

Let us not forget that there are up to a million unexploded Israeli cluster bomblets still in South Lebanon (Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5382192.stm)).

You can say Hezbollah kicked Israel's ass, but how is the death of a few Israeli soldiers a relief to a thousand dead Lebanese? How did Hezbollah help liberate the Palestinian People by provocking a war that made Gaza a worst hightmare than it ever was- and it has been through many nightmares.

The fact that Hizbullah - a largely guerrilla organisation - resisted one of the most powerful armies in the world, is cause for celebration. Moreover, the people of Lebanon have nothing left to hold onto other than the idea that they successfully fought against a brutal war of aggression. Who are we to deny them this one victory?

Moreover, it is wrong to blame Hizbullah for the desperate situation that the Palestinian people find themselves in. That situation has been caused by Israel, albeit with the massive backing of the US and under the eyes of the rest of the International community.

How did Hizbollah promote peace by this act?

The war was about defending Lebanon from Israel.

In this aim Hizbullah was successful.

The Grey Blur

22nd January 2007, 15:15

Doesn't it occur to anyone why the "secular working class" is on the decline in the Middle East?
The working-class is a permanent factor of Capitalism and will always make up the majority of the population in such a society so I don't know what your point is here.

You've taken my post out of context anyway - I said that a secular working-class movement could again grow to a position of influence, just as Hezbollah as a religious working-class movement currently has such an influence.

Precisely because the "secular working class" parties have a long and sad history of conciliation and treachery
I agree completely. Trotskyists within the PFLP argued for an engagement with the Israeli working-class and an avoidance of coalition with the bourgeois, sadly this advice was not taken and these mistakes have contributed to their decline.

Look at the behaviour of the PLO right now for a good example. Undermining Palestine's own sovereignty, cowtowing to the Israelis and the Americans against the "Islamist" Hamas.
Why put "Islamist" in brackets?

Hezbollah are progressive in so far as they defend Lebanese workers from an Israeli onslaught such as we saw in 2006. If you want to abandon all hope in the Middle-Eastern working-class then supporting Hezbollah without criticism is the way to go.

Spirit of Spartacus

22nd January 2007, 15:28

I think that while you make some fair points we shouldn't give up on the development of a secular Socialist force in the Middle East, simply because there "religion" has a lot more power than in the West. Looking at the example of the PFLP or of the Communist movements in Iran and other mid east countires, a secular working-class force can gain support. Yes Hezbollah should be supported while they counter Imperialism but that does not mean that we should give up all hope of an independent Socialist movement coming to the fore in Lebanon or in the Middle East in general. Hezbollah's religious leadership can only move so far before threatening their own interests and it will be interesting to see if some of the more radical elements of Hezbollah workers become fed up with this.

I fully agree with you here.

Our support for Hezbollah's anti-imperialist resistance doesn't mean we give up all hope of a secular progressive force arising in Middle-East politics.

The PLFP, as you mentioned, are a progressive, secular force in the Palestinian struggle for national liberation.

I also agree that Hezbollah can only take the Lebanese struggle to a certain level, and after that the secular groups especially the Lebanese Communist Party have to take up the leadership of this struggle.

This is not directed specifically towards you EU but when you accuse people of being 'chauvinist' and give up all hope of a Socialist movement gaining support in the Middle East because they're "religious" and instead transfer unconditional support to a reactionary group like Hezbollah then you are as equally guilty of over-simplifying and dismissing the Middle-Eastern working-class as the comfy Westerners you are arguing against.

Agreed, again.

Our support for Hezbollah is not unconditional. It is very conditional.

We're supporting them only as long as they play a historically progressive role by uniting the Lebanese workers of all religious affiliations in the struggle against US-Israeli aggression.

The moment they become a reactionary force in all aspects, we're not on their side.

YKTMX

22nd January 2007, 15:29

You've taken my post out of context anyway - I said that a secular working-class movement could again grow to a position of influence

Yes, and you've given no basis for this assertion - which is any case rendundant since the distinction between anti-imperalism and secular working class politics in the Middle East is unimportant

All the genuine movements of the working class, specifically and most obviously the Lebanese Communist Party form part of the anti-imperialist movement of which Hezbollah forms a party. And they do so proudly and with great courage and honesty.

The workers and poor people of the Middle East who don't give fidelity to "working class politics" nevertheless are predominantly anti-imperialist.

Why put "Islamist" in brackets?

Because the term Islamist is arbitrary, it's like saying the "Catholic" IRA.

If you want to abandon all hope in the Middle-Eastern working-class then supporting Hezbollah without criticism is the way to go.

"Hope" is a not an emotion I'm particularly attracted to.

Spirit of Spartacus

22nd January 2007, 15:52

You do not take into account the vast differences between the West and the Islamic world. If all religious people are reactionary, do you plan on leaving religious workers out of the revolution? You must be mad if you think any revolution is going to come out of the complacent west, at best we will hop on a revolution that will likely begin in Latin America, Africa, or the Islamic World, all of which are deeply religious areas, and any revolutionary with success in mind will take that into account. This does not mean that they will be religious fundamentalists, but they will acknowledge religion, and not alienate the religious workers. If this is reactionary to you, just sit back in America (or wherever) and wait for the revolution to come walking out of Wal-Mart.

Ewokutopia, that's one of the best pieces I've read anywhere this month. :)

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 16:33

Interesting statement, care to reiterate?

What is there to repeat? My statement I assume was quite clear of my intent and meaning, if you wish for me to explain and elaborate then alright, but I fail to see what bares reiteration.

You people drop the word reactionary

Only, when appropriate.

Why not take a vote, between the Lebanese and Palestinian people (who are far more qualified to answer this question than anyone in the western left) on whether or not Hezbollah should be smashed and destroyed.

This isn't like terribly isolated the DPRK, were we as european, and west Leftists have little from which to judge our decision upon, but bourgeoisie bias, true we have that in this case, but we do however have a plethora of information from which to draw a conclusion from about this group, this is front page news here, hence it's only far to state my opinion, and my opinion is that hezbollah is working against the international proletarian revolution, and is against a Socialist revolution, and the working class, and it's associated struggles, and is in fact a far-right fundamental rabble of fools, and should be fought against.

If the workers of Lebanon support Hezbollah, than you should back off and let the people make their own damn decisions and not give your opinions (which are comming from an immense cultural difference) and let the people decide whether or not they are benefitial in fighting off imperialism.

So I can't give my OPINION, base upon presented facts and data? What kind of non-sense is that? Sure we should take in a cultural and material conditions into account, however there must be a drawn line, and in this case it is quite clear.

That is like saying we should let the working class in germany decide if the NSDAP and it's new chairman hitler are beneficial to germany, because you as other Europeans and americans don’t understand the material and cultural conditions we germans came from, I mean come on now, there is fact and there is fiction, and believing that hezbollah will actually be beneficial in any regard and capacity is pure fictitious nonsense.

Can you name me any other organization as sucessful in fighting off racist imperial powers than Hezbollah? Can you even deny that the vast majority of people in the countries it affects support it?

The USSR under Stalin, fought against the Nazis, and liberated countries that became Communist, should we all become pro-Stalin Marixist-Leninists now? Irregardless of whether or not it has mass support, or not, and if it is truly fighting off imperialism, means nothing if then in turn, the people will be ruled under a domestic despot!

Oh, but of course leftists in the west, with their subtly racist chauvanism, will say "they are religious, which means they are instantly reactionary, end of story. All reasonable people are anti-religious like me and most leftists I know in my country, therefore it is and should be the same everywhere."

Well considering that this is a religious fanatical group, it would only be prudent to assume that religion, and religious fervor would play a role in the analysis of said group, however it’s not only religion alone, but what kind of policies would such organization enact if in power, what kind of cultural oppression would they keep and enforce when in power, what kind of various myriad of bondages would they instill upon the people, and the working class.

Also, why you would charge me and other comrades with “racist,” chauvinism, while in the same breath rant about how we are staunch Atheists is beyond me, and only seems like a slanderous insult, with absolutely no backing whatsoever, because this has absolutely nothing to do with race, at all, this has to do with ideological, political, and cultural positions, and where in which hezbollah stands, and it is clear the prefer the far-right.

I mean hezbollah, translates into the “party of god,” and one of it’s main political agendas and aims is to destroy, multi-confessional system, an erect a islamic state, and I wonder just what kind of policies an islamic state would put into place, :rolleyes: .

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli."-Hassan Nasrallah.

Hmm, this hezbollah sitatuion does seem dreadfully hard to sort out doesn’t it? :rolleyes:

You do not take into account the vast differences between the West and the Islamic world. If all religious people are reactionary, do you plan on leaving religious workers out of the revolution?

The differences mean nothing, that simply isn’t what I am looking at, nor is the mere fact that there are religious change my decision, I am looking at what they are saying, what there aims are, what they want to accomplish, which clearly goes against international revolutionary aims, and Socialist goals, and I refuse to stand idly by, and keep my tongue tied, and mouth shut, to appease the overtly sensitive ears of the few, and furthermore, there can and should be no comprise of the revolution, and revolutionary efforts, especially by supporting a far-right group no less, and are they really fighting against imperialism? Or is that just a big farce covered, with fancy word and veilings, when they are hurting the working class just as the foreign despots abroad?

Also, the religious, anti-religious stance has been debated time and time again, and my theory is that we should instruct the working class, and work with them to overcome this infantile yoke, as a cultural struggle, along with other struggles, which would not cuase any sort of alienation, that is like saying working for homosexual struggles will alienate the workers whom are homophobic, and thus we shouldn’t teach and fight for homosexual equality and normality, since it causes “alienation.”

Religion has served its evolutionary psychological purpose, and it is now time, to throw off said yoke, to achieve full intellectual maturity, and not taking a anti-religious stance only breeds inconsistancy and failure.

You must be mad if you think any revolution is going to come out of the complacent west, at best we will hop on a revolution that will likely begin in Latin America, Africa, or the Islamic World, all of which are deeply religious areas, and any revolutionary with success in mind will take that into account. This does not mean that they will be religious fundamentalists, but they will acknowledge religion, and not alienate the religious workers. If this is reactionary to you, just sit back in America (or wherever) and wait for the revolution to come walking out of Wal-Mart.

So you don’t believe a revolution is possible in the west? I am sorry, but unlike you, I will fight for a revolution whether here or abroad, and I fully believe a revolution is capable in the west, and I think you would have to be mad, to fully rule out a revolution taking place in the west, nor do I stand idle and do nothing as your post implies.

Also, again this isn’t only about fucking religion, this delves farther than that, this is about what kind of policies will they enact, where do they stand, and as stated previously, they stand happily and idiotically on the far-left.

Hezbollah: Politics & Religion by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb.

Atheists in Lebanon support Hezbollah.

This matters?

They are not an "Islamist"

Oh, yea, of course, so that’s why they are called the party of god, and rant about god every fucking second.

(this is a false statement, as the people we think of as Islamists are mostly Salafists or Wahabists, and you paint all of Islam under the same banner by saying "Islamist") party bent on a theocratic Islamic state, this is a Zionist lie.

Don’t start this bullshit of zionist lies, it is quite clear that hezbollah is an islamic party, hence there name, hence them refrencing god every fucking five seconds, hence there anti-semitic stance (yes their anti-jewish stance), and anti-zionist stance, they show all the clear signs of this bullshitry, and I say it’s damn near ignorance to try to argue that hezbollah is somehow a secular party, I think they are lieing and using veilings for PR purposes, and to gain support, while hiding what they are actually doing, in typical fascist fashion, I mean they are doing nothing different from what the fascists have done in the past.

I almost get the feeling you watch a tad too much CNN or FOX news when you say such things.

I think it’s not only steroetypical but bordering racist to assume because I am a westerner, and take a anti-hezbollah stance, then I thus must be blinded by “zionist lies,” and my sole news intake is from bourgeoisie channels such as fox, and ccn, which is complete bullshit.

Good luck on your anti-flag powered revolution, you'll need it.

Good luck with your rosey spectacles, and far-right group backing, don’t blame me, and say I didn’t told you so, when the working class, and revolutionaries in the middle east suffer, under the newest yoke of your despot!

Timeline of Hezbollah Violence (http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148)

Black Dagger

22nd January 2007, 18:01

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus
5.) Hezbollah is not like the usual Islamist reactionaries, they have a relatively progressive view on the role of women, for instance.

What is their 'relatively progressive view on the role of women'?

What is their view/position on homosexuality?

Intifada

22nd January 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 22, 2007 04:33 pm
I mean hezbollah, translates into the “party of god,” and one of it’s main political agendas and aims is to destroy, multi-confessional system, an erect a islamic state, and I wonder just what kind of policies an islamic state would put into place, :rolleyes: .

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli."-Hassan Nasrallah.
I have read a lot of posts that allude to Hizbullah's fanatical Islamist policies, but I have so far yet to see the substance behind the claims.

I would really like you to provide me with the sources you use to base your claims upon.

I have seen the quote from Nasrallah, yet still nobody has provided us with the context in which he said it, let alone where they found the quote in the first place.

I would appreciate some sources.

Timeline of Hezbollah Violence (http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148)

"CAMERA" is a pro-Israeli organisation that is of the same ilk that believes the recently released Jimmy Carter book is anti-semitic.

Find a better source.

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 20:13

"CAMERA" is a pro-Israeli organisation that is of the same ilk that believes the recently released Jimmy Carter book is anti-semitic.

Find a better source.

Yea, because anything that is counter hezbollah, must be pro-israeli right? If even it is I posted the link mainly, because it lists all of the acts commited by hezbollah, and considering you seem like a supporter of hezbollah, how about you provide proof and arguments, that events listed didn't happen? Hmm?

I have seen the quote from Nasrallah, yet still nobody has provided us with the context in which he said it, let alone where they found the quote in the first place.

He was quoted by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb from one of his speeches, and she is both a shiite scholar, and is from lebanon, and the very fact that you try to plead context in defense of Nasrallah, only points to apologetics, because context plays little part in this, especially when the quote is as straight forward as above, honestly what context could this be taken that would be any less anti-semitic, hmm? He clearly said anti-semitic things, and then followed it by saying "notice I didn't say israel."

Also see below quote for further anti-semitism;

Na'im wore bluejeans and a redand-green plaid shirt. He carried a rifle, which he used as a walking stick. He told me that the castle dated back to the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land. In fact, Beaufort was built by the Crusaders, but in Na'im's version the castle began as a Muslim fortress. "Saladin used this to defeat the Crusaders," he said, in a rehearsed manner. "Hezbollah will use it to defeat the Jews."

and

From where we stood, we had a clear view into the Israeli town of Metulla, with its red-roofed, whitewashed houses, small hotels, and orchards. "The Jews are sons of pigs and apes," Na'im said.

and

Fadlallah said that one of Al Manar's goals is to set in context the role of Jews in world affairs. Anti-Semitism, he said, was banned from the station, but he was considering a program on "scholars who dissent on the issue of the Holocaust," which would include the work of the French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy. "There are contradictions," Fadlallah said. "Many Europeans believe that the Holocaust was a myth invented so that the Jews could get compensation. Everyone knows how the Jews punish people who seek the truth about the Holocaust."

and

Mansour pressed a button, and the images disappeared from the screen. "The idea is that even if the Jews are killing us we can still kill them. That we derive our power from blood. It's saying, 'Get ready to blow yourselves up, because this is the only way to liberate Palestine.' '' The video, he said, would be shown after the next attack in Israel. He said he was thinking of calling it "We Will Kill All the Jews." I suggested that these videos would encourage the recruitment of suicide bombers among the Palestinians. "Exactly," he replied.

and

In April, in a sermon delivered in the Gaza Strip, Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, a Palestinian Authority imam, said, "Oh, Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest Heaven. Oh, Allah, show the Jews a black day. Oh, Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters." (The translation was made by the Middle East Media Research Institute.) In Saudi Arabia, where anti-Semitism permeates the newspapers and the mosques, the imam of the Al Harram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman alSudais, recently declared, "Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies . . . the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah." Hezbollah has been at the vanguard of this shift toward frank anti-Semitism, and its leaders frequently resort to epidemiological metaphors in describing the role of Jews in world affairs. Ibrahim Mussawi, the urbane and scholarly-seeming director of English-language news at Al Manar, called Jews "a lesion on the forehead of history."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/arti.../021014fa_fact4 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021014fa_fact4)

I have read a lot of posts that allude to Hizbullah's fanatical Islamist policies, but I have so far yet to see the substance behind the claims.

I believe we have, how about you prove to us countrary, instead of *****ing about lack of proof, ;).

Intifada

22nd January 2007, 23:05

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 22, 2007 08:13 pm
Yea, because anything that is counter hezbollah, must be pro-israeli right?
No.

I know of "CAMERA", and if you did too you would recognise the fact that it is a pro-Israeli body that criticises anything that paints Israel in a negative way.

CAMERA and FLAME: Pressurng US Media (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0793/9307029.htm)

If you think it is acceptable to, for example, urge people to "talk to the managers" of bookshops which sell Noam Chomsky and Edward Said books, you are a bigger idiot than you make out to be.

"CAMERA" is also part of the "Israel Campus Roundtable", which consists of AIPAC and other pro-Israel organisations.

I'm guessing, however, that you are simply unaware that you provided a link to a pro-Israeli pressure group which tries to bully any outlet that fails to toe the Zionist line.

I hope you understand now, why I criticised your choice of source in this case.

Indeed, if you take a glance at the particular "Timeline" that was provided by yourself, you can point out some flaws quite easily. For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran, yet the folks at "CAMERA" refuse to appreciate that fact.

Moreover, it is incredibly easy to label another group "terrorists" whilst skipping over the Israeli atrocities that are very much intertwined with the actions of Hizbullah, which was formed after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Indeed, before 1985, there was no group called "Hizbullah", just a few unorganised Shiite groups that acted independently.

Of course, the good old folks at "CAMERA" will ignore these little facts that may fuck up their pro-Israel perspective on such matters.

considering you seem like a supporter of hezbollah

I stated that I "critically" support Hizbullah.

It's an important word in the context of this argument.

He was quoted by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb from one of his speeches, and she is both a shiite scholar, and is from lebanon, and the very fact that you try to plead context in defense of Nasrallah, only points to apologetics, because context plays little part in this, especially when the quote is as straight forward as above, honestly what context could this be taken that would be any less anti-semitic, hmm? He clearly said anti-semitic things, and then followed it by saying "notice I didn't say israel."

Quotes that are translated from another language can be very easily misconstrued, as we all saw when Ahmadinejad was thought to have supported the idea of "wiping Israel off the map". It also helps in the context of Saad-Ghorayeb's book.

I would like to know where she found the quote, when he said and who he said it to etc.

Indeed, there have been occasions where Nasrallah has apparently been misquoted (Link (http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n19/letters.html)).

Also see below quote for further anti-semitism;

When Arabs refer to the "Jews" or "Yahud", it quite often is a term that is synonymous with "Israeli" or "Zionist".

That said, I do not deny that there is anti-semitism, or "anti-Judaism" (as Saad-Ghorayeb describes it), present within the psyche of many, but not all, Hizbullah supporters in the Middle East.

This is reflective of every religion's claim to superiority over the rest.

I believe we have, how about you prove to us countrary, instead of *****ing about lack of proof, ;).

I just had another look through this thread, and yet again did not find any substance behind the accusations against Hizbullah.

I will "*****" about that because you cannot just say something without evidence that validates your accusation.

Intifada

22nd January 2007, 23:10

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 22, 2007 06:01 pm
What is their 'relatively progressive view on the role of women'?
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_ideology#See_also)

Scroll down to "Women's Rights".

What is their view/position on homosexuality?

I think it is in keeping with traditional Islamic teaching, unfortunately.

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 23:51

you are a bigger idiot than you make out to be.

You say this only, because I don't support your rabble of wannabe despotic fools.

Again your missing the entire point of why I posted the link in the first place, and instead decided to attack more of who said it, and not what was being said, and the very reason I posted the link, was that it lists all of the acts committed by hezbollah, related to hezbollah, etc. You have yet to disprove the majority (or any claims for that matter) of the claims made on the website, nor have you disproved or commented on any of the sayings of the fools of hezbollah from the new yorker link I posted in my most recent post, which celebrated, and espoused, anti-semitism, suicide bombing, and other such bullshitry, or proved that Nasrallah was misquoted or such apologetic nonsense.

In response to the Nasrallah quote, I believe that would be talked about in her book, however at this time I do not know what specific speech she is quoting.

I stated that I "critically" support Hizbullah.
It's an important word in the context of this argument.

Doesn't matter, the point is, that you support hezbollah, to what degree or capacity is of little consequence, because you are thus siding with them, and are at the very least a sympathizer.

When Arabs refer to the "Jews" or "Yahud", it quite often is a term that is synonymous with "Israeli" or "Zionist".

So they are both anti-semitic, and anti-zionist? That is basically what I said before, and judging from the quotes, they are still anti-semitic, and do not seem like they are referring to a political party or organization, but to a group and "race," of people.

This is reflective of every religion's claim to superiority over the rest.

Hence why religion is inherently destructive and should be abolished, and not supported, in any manner.

I will "*****" about that because you cannot just say something without evidence that validates your accusation.

I say the same to you, you haven't disproved anything that I have said with evidence, or proof, just apologetics, and demans, and I didn't see any proof or reason as to why hezbollah should be supported, other than propaganda and false promises and rhetoric, espoused by the very people in question, and their supporters.

Also, to make my position perfectly clear, I do NOT support israel, palestine, hezbollah or anyone in this conflict, and instead only support the people fighting for internationalism, and the international proletarian revolution.

EwokUtopia

23rd January 2007, 01:30

I am a westerner, my critiques of the western views on Hezbollah are inside critiques. Hezbollah is not a radically Islamist party, if it were, you wouldnt see people of all and no religions in Lebanon and the greater Middle East supporting them as they do. You have not explained why this support exists, you merely pull out fabricated Nasrallah quotes that were probably either completely manufactured or otherwise twisted out of context by some zionist sympathet.

You cite the PFLP as a strong secular organization in the mid-east? I fully agree, and I support the PFLP almost 100%, however they fully support Hezbollah in its actions against Israel. Hezbollah is not a permenant party, it is "reactionary" in the sense that it was formed as a reaction to imperialism. The PFLP does not share your almost rabid attacks on religion, they strongly emphasize that the people of Palestine have the absolute right to be Muslim, Christian, Druze, Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any leftist in the Middle East as dead set against religious organizations (excluding Salafists, Wahabis, radical Shi'ites [Hezbollah are not these] et cetera) as the people on this forum are. My beliefs on this subject have been, in large part, shaped by my various friends who come from the places where they deal with these "political issues" as issues of daily life, as well as talks from leftist groups such as the Coalition Against Israeli Aparthied speaking on issues in the region.

You speak of the "international proletarian revolution"....tell me....where is this? as far as I am aware no such global revolution exists, and the various regions of this tiny pebble floating around the sun must fight Capitalism and Imperialism in their own ways, without aid from a global revolution. If there was a global proletarian revolution going underway, I can guarentee you wouldnt be posting blurbs about the relatively small anti-imperialist groups that do effectively exist on a site that is ridden with exploitational leftist images such as the mass produced and mass sold Che photo and the Anarcho-punk symbol. There are many aspects of this site which led me to say that many people here believe in an Anti-Flag powered revolution.

Hezbollah is far from perfect, but it is doing a wonderful job in fighting the Imperial powers of Israel and the US. Once the fight is over, Hezbollah will cease to have a purpose, and whatever remains of it will be a causeless party, which, if it becomes a nuisance, will be dealt with, but that is not the Hezbollah of today.

If there was to be a unified revolutionary force in the Mid-East, you can bet that the greater part of the members of Hezbollah would be a part of it, but since no such force currently exist, Hezbollah will have to do.

Though Im sure most of you have seen it, this video should enter this debate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbmgkCiwTKo)

Severian

23rd January 2007, 02:37

Originally posted by Intifada+January 22, 2007 05:10 pm--> (Intifada @ January 22, 2007 05:10 pm)
Originally posted by Black Dagger+January 22, 2007 06:01 pm--> (Black Dagger @ January 22, 2007 06:01 pm) What is their 'relatively progressive view on the role of women'? [/b]
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_ideology#See_also)

Scroll down to "Women's Rights". [/b]
That says "Hezbollah recognizes and promotes women’s rights (in the mold of the Western liberal tradition) somewhat more strongly than do other groups associated with Islamic jihad, or for that matter than does Iran, Hezbollah’s self-proclaimed "model and example."[10][43]"

So maybe you should say "less reactionary than other fundamentalist groups"?

About this whole "critical support of Hezbollah against Israel" or whatever: how does you declaring that actually help defend Lebanon against Israeli invasion?

Similary with all these groups chanting "We are all Hezbollah" and singing Nasrallah's praises and all that. Does it do anyting at all to defend Lebanon? No.

The correct demands there: Stop the Bombing, Stop the Invasion, Stop Aid to Israel, No Imperialist "Peacekeepers" to Lebanon, etc.

And the clearest way to describe that political approach is the defense of Lebanon, not the ambigous "support" of Hezbollah.

Originally posted by Ewok
Hezbollah is not a radically Islamist party, if it were, you wouldnt see people of all and no religions in Lebanon and the greater Middle East supporting them as they do.

More ambiguity. Do people of many religions in Lebanon support Hezbollah, the political party? No, their support is drawn pretty much entirely from the Shi'a population and only part of that. Now, people of many religions, or none support the armed resistance to Israeli invasion despite the fact it's largely led by this Islamist party based on a single sect.

Because Israel is perceived as a worse and more dangerous enemy. There, I've "explained why this support exists".

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any leftist in the Middle East as dead set against religious organizations (excluding Salafists, Wahabis, radical Shi'ites [Hezbollah are not these] et cetera) as the people on this forum are.

No, you wouldn't. The opposite statement would have more truth. A lot of "Communist" Parties in the Middle East seem to think fundamentalism is the main enemy, even more than imperialism. That's not my attitude, but it's a fact that it exists. The various Iranian "Communist" and "Worker-Communist" groups are especially prone to this - the likely reasons are obvious.

Now, the Lebanese CP and apparently most other Lebanese leftists have a different attitude - that imperialism is a bigger issue than Hezbollah. Because Hezbollah has acted somewhat differently than other Islamist parties, and besides there's no imminent possibility of it taking power and enforcing an Islamic state. That doesn't change the reality that Hezbollah's an Islamist party, it's just acting differently because it faces a different situation.

[email protected]
If there was to be a unified revolutionary force in the Mid-East, you can bet that the greater part of the members of Hezbollah would be a part of it, but since no such force currently exist, Hezbollah will have to do.

On the first part: I have no idea why anyone would think rightist parties are the best recruiting ground for revolutionary parties. On the second part "Hezbollah will have to do" - it won't and can't do, which is not surprising since there is no subsitute for the working class. Only the working class can liberate itself.

Cryotank Screams
Again your missing the entire point of why I posted the link in the first place, and instead decided to attack more of who said it, and not what was being said,

Excuse me, but with sources for facts it does matter who the source is and what their bias is. Pro-Israel sites are likely to exaggerate or even invent Hezbollah's misdeeds, because Hezbollah is in conflict with Israel. So yeah, it is a good idea to find better sources if you want to be sure you have an accurate picture of Hezbollah's actions.

It would take a lot more time and effort for Intifada to disprove everything that pro-Israel people say about Hezbollah, and besides that's not the kind of discussion this website exists to promote, is it? This forum is supposed to be for discussion among nominally revolutionary leftists, not the normal imperialism vs its adversaries arguments.

EwokUtopia

23rd January 2007, 03:48

More ambiguity. Do people of many religions in Lebanon support Hezbollah, the political party? No, their support is drawn pretty much entirely from the Shi'a population and only part of that. Now, people of many religions, or none support the armed resistance to Israeli invasion despite the fact it's largely led by this Islamist party based on a single sect.

Because Israel is perceived as a worse and more dangerous enemy. There, I've "explained why this support exists".

Untrue. About 90-95% of the people of Lebanon are behind Hezbollah. I have already described the religious situation in the Mid-East (particularly Lebanon) where religious identity is comparable to racial or class identity, and it doesnt really matter if you are practising or not. The Shi'a are predominantly the poorest element of Lebanese society due to French Imperialist favouratism for the Maronites, but I have already explained this. For instance, a completely secular friend of mine from Palestine is labelled a Muslim by her passport (under the jurisdiction of Israel at least partially), and she can not alter this because the two options are Christian or Muslim. These distinctions go far deeper than religious beliefs or involvement, and Hezbollah being a Shi'ite organization, in Lebanon, is in its very essence being an organization of the most impoverished elements of Lebanese society. They have many Sunni and Catholic, and even a few Maronite members, though the Maronites tend to be feircely pro-Israel and anti-Muslim (remember the Kataeb).

A lot of "Communist" Parties in the Middle East seem to think fundamentalism is the main enemy, even more than imperialism.
Note where I said "religious organizaions" and excluded the fundamentalists like Wahabi's and Salafists. I should have been more broader to include some more mainstream sunni fundamentalists, as they do exist but are far less severe than the Salafists or Wahabi's and that whole shabang. Hezbollah certainly doesnt represent the "fundamentalists who are worse than imperialists" in the eyes of the vast majority of Arab Leftists.

On the first part: I have no idea why anyone would think rightist parties are the best recruiting ground for revolutionary parties. On the second part "Hezbollah will have to do" - it won't and can't do, which is not surprising since there is no subsitute for the working class. Only the working class can liberate itself.

And here comes the marxist dogmatism...
Hezbollah IS a working class party, and since no secular parties in Lebanon come near to matching them in their struggle against Imperialism and for the working class of Lebanon and Palestine, they will easily suffice. Remember, the majority of the poorest people in Lebanon are classified as Shi'ite, and that is the root of this organization, marginalized impoverished people struggling against imperialism and its effects. Ive no doubt that you are going to break Godwins law with your reply "the Nazi's were working class as well", but this is an unfair, overused, and ultimately tedious comparison. Hezbollah is not genocidal, it is not racist, it is not fascist, it is not even necessarily right wing in any sense of the word aside from religious conservatism. But even that is far overplayed. They do not want an Islamic state, they do not advocate the removal of Jews from the middle east (despite what words were shoved down nasrallahs mouth), and they are the only thing that has been able to turn back zionist aggression in the last 50 years.

An archist

23rd January 2007, 14:19

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+January 20, 2007 01:43 am--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ January 20, 2007 01:43 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:33 pm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

ok wtf is going on here?
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath. [/b]
No, they use the stiff right arm because the nazis did and because they associate it with anti-semitism.

Intifada

23rd January 2007, 18:23

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 22, 2007 11:51 pm
Again your missing the entire point of why I posted the link in the first place, and instead decided to attack more of who said it, and not what was being said, and the very reason I posted the link, was that it lists all of the acts committed by hezbollah, related to hezbollah, etc. You have yet to disprove the majority (or any claims for that matter) of the claims made on the website, nor have you disproved or commented on any of the sayings of the fools of hezbollah from the new yorker link I posted in my most recent post, which celebrated, and espoused, anti-semitism, suicide bombing, and other such bullshitry, or proved that Nasrallah was misquoted or such apologetic nonsense.
Okay.

Either you are blind, taking the piss, ignored everything I wrote on purpose or stupid.

Read my post again.

:rolleyes:

In response to the Nasrallah quote, I believe that would be talked about in her book, however at this time I do not know what specific speech she is quoting.

It would help.

Doesn't matter, the point is, that you support hezbollah, to what degree or capacity is of little consequence, because you are thus siding with them, and are at the very least a sympathizer.

I am a sympathiser of Hizbullah.

I support their resistance of Israeli imperialist aggression.

I do not think there is anything wrong in critically supporting them.

You need to step into the real world.

Nothing is perfect.

Nothing is black and white.

So they are both anti-semitic, and anti-zionist? That is basically what I said before, and judging from the quotes, they are still anti-semitic, and do not seem like they are referring to a political party or organization, but to a group and "race," of people.

According to the very author you quoted, Hizbullah's "anti-Semitism" is more "anti-Judaism" fueled by the perception of religious superiority and, primarily, the actions of Israel.

Hence why religion is inherently destructive and should be abolished, and not supported, in any manner.

How is the abolishment of religion going to work in today's world?

We cannot just ignore the billions of religious people on Earth.

We can only oppose the idea of organised religion.

Also, note the fact that I have never voiced support for any religion in this thread.

I critically (I put it in bold for you this time) support Hizbullah's resistance of Israeli imperialist aggression.

Also, to make my position perfectly clear, I do NOT support israel, palestine, hezbollah or anyone in this conflict, and instead only support the people fighting for internationalism, and the international proletarian revolution.

How idealistic of you.

:rolleyes:

Intifada

23rd January 2007, 18:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:37 am
That says "Hezbollah recognizes and promotes women’s rights (in the mold of the Western liberal tradition) somewhat more strongly than do other groups associated with Islamic jihad, or for that matter than does Iran, Hezbollah’s self-proclaimed "model and example."[10][43]"

So maybe you should say "less reactionary than other fundamentalist groups"?
I didn't say anything about Hizbullah's "progressive" nature, or, for that matter, their "reactionary" nature.

I simply provided some light on an issue someone was keen to learn more about.

About this whole "critical support of Hezbollah against Israel" or whatever: how does you declaring that actually help defend Lebanon against Israeli invasion?

I am simply responding to the comments on this thread, and stating that I critically support Hizbullah in their fight against Israeli aggression.

And the clearest way to describe that political approach is the defense of Lebanon, not the ambigous "support" of Hezbollah.

No matter what you may think of Hizbullah as a political force, the fact is that they were the organisation that led the defence of Lebanon against Israeli attack.

I acknowledge this and voice support for that action.

dso79

23rd January 2007, 19:06

Originally posted by An archist+--> (An archist)No, they use the stiff right arm because the nazis did and because they associate it with anti-semitism.[/b]

Do you have any evidence for that? I’m getting kinda tired of all those baseless accusations.

Cryotank Screams
So they are both anti-semitic, and anti-zionist? That is basically what I said before, and judging from the quotes, they are still anti-semitic, and do not seem like they are referring to a political party or organization, but to a group and "race," of people.

Over here many people say ‘the Germans’ when they actually mean ‘the Nazis’. Nobody considers that racist.

It's true, though, that there is a lot of anti-semitism in the Middle East, but you can't really compare that with, for example, Nazi anti-semitism; the Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat, but in the Middle East the hatred of Jews is the result of decades of occupation and other crimes committed by a Jewish state. Most Palestinians and South-Lebanese have probably never met a Jew that didn’t try to kill them, so I can‘t blame them for not liking Jews. The only solution to that problem is a fair peace deal between Israel and its neighbours.

A SCANNER DARKLY

23rd January 2007, 19:49

Originally posted by An archist+January 23, 2007 02:19 pm--> (An archist @ January 23, 2007 02:19 pm)
Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 20, 2007 01:43 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 11:33 pm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

ok wtf is going on here?
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath.
No, they use the stiff right arm because the nazis did and because they associate it with anti-semitism. [/b]
What a ridiculous assumption. You should know better.

guest187

23rd January 2007, 20:16

Originally posted by Intifada+--> (Intifada)For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran[/b]

Who else do you think could be responsible for the suicide bombings (of the Jewish community center, Israeli embassy and jet)? In any event the Argentinian government blames Hizbullah.

Prosecutors formally charged Iran and the Shiite militia Hezbollah Wednesday in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish charities office in Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured 300. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=11864)

If they are hell-bent on a Shi'ite theocracy, then tell my why about 90-95% of Lebanon supports them

Lie.

YKTMX
already said, most people don't know what the word "reactionary" means in this context.

You are correct, Hizbollah isn't a reactionary Middle East group .. if they were based in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But they're in Lebanon, where the average Lebanese citizen is more progressive than Hezbollah.

Resistance ok, but Hezbollah in itself? Don't think so. Especially when you know the main goal in their agenda is to turn the country into an islamic country. Lebanon is a laic country and some people will make sure it stays this way.

Intifada

23rd January 2007, 21:31

Originally posted by guest187+January 23, 2007 08:16 pm--> (guest187 @ January 23, 2007 08:16 pm)
Intifada
For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran

Who else do you think could be responsible for the suicide bombings (of the Jewish community center, Israeli embassy and jet)? In any event the Argentinian government blames Hizbullah.

Prosecutors formally charged Iran and the Shiite militia Hezbollah Wednesday in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish charities office in Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured 300. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=11864) [/b]
The fact is that the case remains unsolved, as I stated before.

The "CAMERA" link provided by Cryotank Screams stated that Hizbullah (and Iran) was without doubt behind the attack, which is factually incorrect.

Iran denies Argentina bomb charge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6089788.stm)

Have you heard of "innocent before proven guilty"?

As of yet, there has been no concrete evidence that proves Iran and Hizbullah ordered the attacks.

I guess you were also of the impression that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that him and bin Laden were best buddies?

EwokUtopia

23rd January 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by guest187+January 23, 2007 08:16 pm--> (guest187 @ January 23, 2007 08:16 pm)
Intifada
For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran

Who else do you think could be responsible for the suicide bombings (of the Jewish community center, Israeli embassy and jet)? In any event the Argentinian government blames Hizbullah.
[/b]
It doesnt take a huge organization or a big conspiracy to undergo a suicide bombing, all it needs is a pissed off guy with nothing to live for who feels there is much to die for. It pisses me off when people assume that these operations need huge organizational support...I suppose Al Qaeda was behind Columbine as well...

All you need of is a pissed off delusional fuck with some explosives. Dont jump to conclusions like "9/11 needed a huge organization with members everywhere". Such an organization doesnt exist. Bush said "Al-Qaeda is to terra what the mafia is to crime" which proves the dumbing down of the american masses. The Godfatherization of terrorism is ridiculous and it becomes a precedent for wars and imperial aggression.

An archist

23rd January 2007, 22:00

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+January 23, 2007 07:49 pm--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ January 23, 2007 07:49 pm)
Originally posted by An [email protected] 23, 2007 02:19 pm

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 20, 2007 01:43 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 11:33 pm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

ok wtf is going on here?
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath.
No, they use the stiff right arm because the nazis did and because they associate it with anti-semitism.
What a ridiculous assumption. You should know better. [/b]
They hate 'the jews' and use the roman salute.
That's at least a bit controversial and the link with nazis is easily made don't you think?

Cryotank Screams

23rd January 2007, 22:28

Hezbollah is not a radically Islamist party, if it were, you wouldnt see people of all and no religions in Lebanon and the greater Middle East supporting them as they do. You have not explained why this support exists, you merely pull out fabricated Nasrallah quotes that were probably either completely manufactured or otherwise twisted out of context by some zionist sympathet.

So, according to you hezbollah is not a radical islamist party, because if it where then you wouldn't see massive dissent as in the west correct? However, considering you a westerner, how do you know this? How do you know that hezbollah is even accepted by the majority of the working class, legitimately, meaning, people are not apathetic, and people are not being bullied or pressured into liking the party, and support the party out of fear? One would assume that do the terrorist acts, and violent acts committed by hezbollah, it would only alienate the working class, and cause fear amongst the people, thus an agreement upon fear ensues.

Also, the Nasrallah quote was not fabricated, it was a quote taken from a public speech, and said book, is a published book, also, neither of you have stated why you think it's a fake, all you have done is stated "oh it's a fake, taken out of context," however you have proven nothing to show it was taken out of context, and I think it's pure apologetics to say that the Nasrallah quote posted, was taken out of context when it is quite clear, and specific, and considering the author quoting Nasrallah, is both a shiite, and lebanese, so her being a sympathizer for israel is highly doubtful.

You cite the PFLP as a strong secular organization in the mid-east?

I never cited support for the PFLP, nor did even mention the PFLP, and I seriously doubt I would support a Marxist-Leninist party, with nationalist leanings, I mean it's clear in history that Anarchists wouldn't support Marxist groups, case in point Mahkno, and the very fact that they support hezbollah actions, puts me off as well.

However I am not very familiar with the PFLP, so this isn't a set in stone assessment of the group, if they were doing constructive and progressive revolutionary activities, and progressing towards revolution, in an area such as the middle east, I would probably look at it more favorably.

I fully agree, and I support the PFLP almost 100%, however they fully support Hezbollah in its actions against Israel.

See above, I never said I supported the PFLP, nor even mentioned them.

Hezbollah is not a permenant party, it is "reactionary" in the sense that it was formed as a reaction to imperialism.

This argument is stupid, I fail to see how a bunch of kidnappings, suicide bombings, propaganda, anti-semitism, and other such bullshitry is truly fighting effectively against imperialism, and isn't just small attacks that also hurt the domestic workers, and alienating them, which is exactly what suicide bombings, and such would do, and exactly how have the stopped the gears of imperialism? What major steps have they taken at stopping major imperialist steps, and battles? If major steps are present, how do these measure up to the total and amount of steps taken by opposing imperialist forces?

I for one fail to see how hezbollah is truly fighting an effective war on imperialism, and not alienating the proletariat.

The PFLP does not share your almost rabid attacks on religion, they strongly emphasize that the people of Palestine have the absolute right to be Muslim, Christian, Druze, Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever.

Yet again never said I support the PFLP, and my attacks on religion, are based on psychology, and science, I am sorry if that conflicts with people's infantile delusions, but I am not going to sugar-coat the facts, or alter reality, just to appease people, I will explain facts, and theories in a constructive manner, to instruct, and point out specific errors, and I don't care what there stance on religion is really, it doesn't change my position or thoughts on the matter, can a revolution be one by religious revolutionaries, I guess it is plausible, will it be an effective, progressive, consistent, and evolving post-revolutionary society, if said religious tendencies haven't been stopped, certainly not.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any leftist in the Middle East as dead set against religious organizations (excluding Salafists, Wahabis, radical Shi'ites [Hezbollah are not these] et cetera)

Religion, is not just a factor, I could get past this fact, if they were indeed true revolutionaries, fighting for internationalism, and Socialist revolution, who didn't alienate the proletariat, and were actually taking progressive steps to fight imperialism, and were not nationalistic and anti-semitic, who are going against the revolution, want to set up an islamic "republic."

as the people on this forum are.

Irrelevant.

My beliefs on this subject have been, in large part, shaped by my various friends who come from the places where they deal with these "political issues" as issues of daily life, as well as talks from leftist groups such as the Coalition Against Israeli Aparthied speaking on issues in the region.

So from pro-hezbollah, and or hezbollah sympathy and apologetic sources, and not necessarily, revolutionary dissenting sources, correct?

You speak of the "international proletarian revolution"....tell me....where is this?

When I said international proletarian revolution, I mean people, who are fighting for the working class revolution, ie. revolutionaries, I was not referring to a existing and active revolution, in the common sense of the word.

Hezbollah is far from perfect, but it is doing a wonderful job in fighting the Imperial powers of Israel and the US.

I will believe it, when I see tangible proof.

Once the fight is over, Hezbollah will cease to have a purpose, and whatever remains of it will be a causeless party, which, if it becomes a nuisance, will be dealt with, but that is not the Hezbollah of today.

Hezbollah wants to be in a seat of power, and create an islamic "republic," so hence it wouldn't be as simple as saying "oh, when the fight is over, it would disappear," no, then if it were in power, I can almost assure you that it would be a despotic rule, and would be fought against be revolutionaries, the cause is not just about fighting imperialist forces, as the tired rhetoric goes, it's broader than that.

as far as I am aware no such global revolution exists, and the various regions of this tiny pebble floating around the sun

See above.

I can guarentee you wouldnt be posting blurbs about the relatively small anti-imperialist groups that do effectively exist

Again, until you can prove with empirical and tangible evidence that hezbollah is doing this, it's just tired out rhetoric, and a pseudo-argument, and is no reason to support this far-right rabble of fools.

here are many aspects of this site which led me to say that many people here believe in an Anti-Flag powered revolution.

Stereotypical nonsense.

If there was to be a unified revolutionary force in the Mid-East, you can bet that the greater part of the members of Hezbollah would be a part of it, but since no such force currently exist, Hezbollah will have to do.

I highly doubt this, and it is both rash and fool hardy to assume this, and I for one, am against "settling," for anything less of what is efficient and revolutionary, and I certainly will not side myself with a bunch of nationalistic despots.

Either you are blind, taking the piss, ignored everything I wrote on purpose or stupid.

None, of the above, you clearly didn't answer or respond to what was being said, just dismissed it because of alleged pro-israeli leanings, and at the very most, you addressed on to a maximum of two events, and not the large bulk of events included in the timeline, is that is to what you are referring.

It would help.

It is not my duty to search this out, I can if I have the time, however I think I am safe, in taking a quote, from a public speech, and from a published book, and since you support hezbollah, why don't you prove me wrong eh?

I am a sympathiser of Hizbullah.

Which is basically a supporter, case in point nazi sympathizers.

[/quote] sym·pa·thiz·er, -noun
I. a person who sympathizes.[/quote]

And

sym·pa·thize, -verb
1.To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.
2.To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: sympathized with the goals of the committee.
3.To be in accord; correspond.

You need to step into the real world.

Already there, thanks, and arguments/insults, based on "step into reality," show you don't have an argument, are baseless, and stupid.

According to the very author you quoted, Hizbullah's "anti-Semitism" is more "anti-Judaism" fueled by the perception of religious superiority and, primarily, the actions of Israel.

I quoted her yes, but that doesn't mean I'm married to her opinions and position on the matter, and I for one think given the evidence, hezbollah is both anti-zionist, and anti-semitic, especially with their promotion, of holocaust denial, and revisionism.

How is the abolishment of religion going to work in today's world?

It has already begun, I mean look at the world today, look how increasingly popular Atheism is becoming, and how it would work is that the general public, should be instructed in a manner in which is non-confrontational, yet aggressive in persistence, that explains facts, and dispels myths, and the abolishment of the factories of religion, ie. churches, and temples, and thus that would severely damper all religious power, because religion only has power through memetic engineering, pseudo-science, and mysticism.

We cannot just ignore the billions of religious people on Earth.

That's not what I am saying.

We can only oppose the idea of organised religion.

No, we can oppose all religion, this is possible.

Also, note the fact that I have never voiced support for any religion in this thread.

Never said you did.

I critically (I put it in bold for you this time) support Hizbullah's resistance of Israeli imperialist aggression.

Big fucking deal, I know what you bloody said, what does critical mean? Critically means support with some criticism, based upon some argument of resistance to imperialism, however this does not change the fact that you support them, that is like saying you support the national socialists of germany, for such arguments as "ending unemployment," and working to “rebuild germany.”

How idealistic of you.

Not idealism, and is a stupid argument to make, I simply am not going to side with counter-revolutionaries, and reactionaries, that will only be despots to the people, I find it idealistic to support hezbollah, and to think they are not alienating the proletariat, really fighting efficiently against imperialism, and will be progressive, and not despotic once in power, that to me is pure idealism.

EwokUtopia

24th January 2007, 00:45

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law)

Cryotank Screams

24th January 2007, 01:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:45 pm
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law)
It wasn't a comparison, it was an example, like "[x] is similiar to [x] in/because of [x] situation."

EwokUtopia

24th January 2007, 01:58

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 24, 2007 01:30 am
It wasn't a comparison, it was an example, like "[x] is similiar to [x] in/because of [x] situation."
In the english language, that is what we call a comparison.

Cryotank Screams

24th January 2007, 02:00

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+January 23, 2007 09:58 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ January 23, 2007 09:58 pm)
Cryotank [email protected] 24, 2007 01:30 am
It wasn't a comparison, it was an example, like "[x] is similiar to [x] in/because of [x] situation."
In the english language, that is what we call a comparison. [/b]
Point made, sorry, :blush:.

guest187

24th January 2007, 02:20

Originally posted by Ewok+--> (Ewok)all it needs is a pissed off guy with nothing to live for who feels there is much to die for.[/b]

Actually it would have needed three pissed off guys, cuz there were three separate suicide bombers. Oh yeah, and Islamic Jihad - a group that has ties to Hizbullah and is funded by Iran, did claim responsibility for the bombings.

It pisses me off when people assume

No, an assumption would have been to accuse Iran and Hizbullah of the attacks before the investigation (like the lockerbie bombing where the media falsely accused Iran). The investigation is over and the Argentinian government holds Hezbollah responsible.

Bush said

These bombings happened a good seven years before Bush even came into office.

The Godfatherization of terrorism is ridiculous and it becomes a precedent for wars and imperial aggression.

Right, but Argentina isn't going to invade Iran anytime soon, and Bush has never mentioned these attacks as far as I know.

Intifada
I guess you were also of the impression that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that him and bin Laden were best buddies?

Bravo to you for your brilliant assumption.

Severian

24th January 2007, 07:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:48 pm

More ambiguity. Do people of many religions in Lebanon support Hezbollah, the political party? No, their support is drawn pretty much entirely from the Shi'a population and only part of that. Now, people of many religions, or none support the armed resistance to Israeli invasion despite the fact it's largely led by this Islamist party based on a single sect.

Because Israel is perceived as a worse and more dangerous enemy. There, I've "explained why this support exists".

Untrue. About 90-95% of the people of Lebanon are behind Hezbollah.
.....
Hezbollah IS a working class party,
False. Here are the facts:

This is from the survey by Judith Palmer Harik mentioned in the article above.
I had to write it down and type it in, due to limitation in a certain university library's computers. It's a survey of the political opinions of Lebanese Shi'a.

Table 6 - SES is socio-economic status
Preferred Party High SES Medium SES Low SES
Amal 35 22 39
SSNP 21 24 14
Hezbollah 44 53 47
Total 100 99 100

SSNP is the Syrian Social National Party, a secular (nonconfessional) party founded by Christians, which advocates a merger of Lebanon and Syria.
Thread where I originally posted this. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54631) I give other information from this study in my various posts in the thread.

So you can see that 1) Hezbollah is not even supported by a majority of the Shi'a population. It gets few votes from other religious sects. Again, it's necessary to distinguish between support for armed resistance to Israeli invasion and support to the reactionary Islamist party.

and 2) you can see that Hezbollah gets roughly equal support from various classes, and most support from the middle class. The U.S. Democratic Party gets more support from working-class people, and I hope you're not going to claim it's a working-class party.

***

YTKMX points out yet again that the rise of Islamist groups is a product of the defaults and betrayals of the official "Communist" Parties and others who have tried and failed to lead the fight against imperialism. For the first time I've seen, he simultaneously admits the Islamists themselves have also committed plenty of defaults and betrayals.

This is not exactly news. And it's not exactly a point that helps your side of the argument. It's a reason to build revolutionary organizations, not a reason to chant "We are all Hezbollah" and pretty up bourgeois parties as if they're capable of substituting for the working class in the fight against imperialism.

Black Dagger

24th January 2007, 14:42

Hezbollah advocates, what are the groups policies (im talkin about actions) towards gay peoples (well LGBT peoples generally) in lebanon?

Also, is it true that Hezbollah once bombed the offices of the Lebanese Communist Party? (read this in a euro anarcho mag)

Intifada

24th January 2007, 17:23

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 23, 2007 10:28 pm
I for one fail to see how hezbollah is truly fighting an effective war on imperialism, and not alienating the proletariat.
Alienating the proletariat is one thing, but to accuse Hizbullah of not effectively fighting imperialism is naive at best and ignorant at worst.

Were you asleep during the month of Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006?

None, of the above, you clearly didn't answer or respond to what was being said, just dismissed it because of alleged pro-israeli leanings, and at the very most, you addressed on to a maximum of two events, and not the large bulk of events included in the timeline, is that is to what you are referring.

:rolleyes:

I will respost what I wrote on the whole "Timeline" issue:

I know of "CAMERA", and if you did too you would recognise the fact that it is a pro-Israeli body that criticises anything that paints Israel in a negative way.

CAMERA and FLAME: Pressuring U.S. Media (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0793/9307029.htm)

If you think it is acceptable to, for example, urge people to "talk to the managers" of bookshops which sell Noam Chomsky and Edward Said books, you are a bigger idiot than you make out to be.

"CAMERA" is also part of the "Israel Campus Roundtable", which consists of AIPAC and other pro-Israel organisations.

I'm guessing, however, that you are simply unaware that you provided a link to a pro-Israeli pressure group which tries to bully any outlet that fails to toe the Zionist line.

I hope you understand now, why I criticised your choice of source in this case.

Indeed, if you take a glance at the particular "Timeline" that was provided by yourself, you can point out some flaws quite easily. For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran, yet the folks at "CAMERA" refuse to appreciate that fact.

Moreover, it is incredibly easy to label another group "terrorists" whilst skipping over the Israeli atrocities that are very much intertwined with the actions of Hizbullah, which was formed after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Indeed, before 1985, there was no group called "Hizbullah", just a few unorganised Shiite groups that acted independently.

Of course, the good old folks at "CAMERA" will ignore these little facts that may fuck up their pro-Israel perspective on such matters.

Severian also added why using such a source is significant in the context of this debate:

Excuse me, but with sources for facts it does matter who the source is and what their bias is. Pro-Israel sites are likely to exaggerate or even invent Hezbollah's misdeeds, because Hezbollah is in conflict with Israel. So yeah, it is a good idea to find better sources if you want to be sure you have an accurate picture of Hezbollah's actions.

It would take a lot more time and effort for Intifada to disprove everything that pro-Israel people say about Hezbollah, and besides that's not the kind of discussion this website exists to promote, is it? This forum is supposed to be for discussion among nominally revolutionary leftists, not the normal imperialism vs its adversaries arguments.

It is not my duty to search this out, I can if I have the time, however I think I am safe, in taking a quote, from a public speech, and from a published book, and since you support hezbollah, why don't you prove me wrong eh?

Since I do not have the said book in front of me, I would appreciate it if you gave me the source the said author uses in taking that excerpt from Nasrallah's sppech.

If I don't know what the hell you are talking about, how can I "prove you wrong"?

Which is basically a supporter, case in point nazi sympathizers.

sym·pa·thiz·er, -noun
I. a person who sympathizes.

And

sym·pa·thize, -verb
1.To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.
2.To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: sympathized with the goals of the committee.
3.To be in accord; correspond.

Note that not all three of the latter definitions may apply when one uses the word "sympathise".

But, that is beside the point.

When I wrote my first post in this thread, I stated my view on Hizbullah in what I thought would be an explicit enough manner for people like you to understand:

Before I go on to further points, I would like to clarify my position on Hizbullah.

Yes they have a reactionary character, but some of the things that have been written in previous posts is beyond reality.

The premeditated Israeli aggression against the Lebanese people was wholly unjustifiable and needed to be resisted. The only force that was prepared to fight back was Hizbullah, and for that reason alone I (albeit critically) support them.

Who else in Lebanon was ready to fight back?

Nobody.

Moreover, I wrote:

The fact that Hizbullah - a largely guerrilla organisation - resisted one of the most powerful armies in the world, is cause for celebration.

Already there, thanks, and arguments/insults, based on "step into reality," show you don't have an argument, are baseless, and stupid.

Pardon my frustration at the fact that you ignore most of what I have argued.

Like I stated (the part which you left out of that quote to make it look like an ad hominem), nothing in this world (especially the Middle East) is perfect and "black and white".

I wrote that in response to your following statement:

Doesn't matter, the point is, that you support hezbollah, to what degree or capacity is of little consequence, because you are thus siding with them, and are at the very least a sympathizer.

All I have ever supported (or "sympathised with") is the Hizbullah defeat of Israeli aggression, whilst pointing out that the West and Israel has good reason for demonising the group.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

I for one think given the evidence, hezbollah is both anti-zionist, and anti-semitic, especially with their promotion, of holocaust denial, and revisionism.

I have already addressed this issue and stated the following:

I do not deny that there is anti-semitism, or "anti-Judaism" (as Saad-Ghorayeb describes it), present within the psyche of many, but not all, Hizbullah supporters in the Middle East.

It has already begun

There is still an ineffably long way to go, especially in the Middle East.

That's not what I am saying.

You argued that religion should not be supported "in any manner".

It is fact, however, that many struggling people fighting in revolutions or against imperialism will hold religious beliefs.

To then take this one asset of their character and blank them completely as insane nutters, is wrong.

No, we can oppose all religion, this is possible.

That is quite simply not the issue/priority when another state is attacking you.

Big fucking deal, I know what you bloody said, what does critical mean? Critically means support with some criticism, based upon some argument of resistance to imperialism, however this does not change the fact that you support them, that is like saying you support the national socialists of germany, for such arguments as "ending unemployment," and working to “rebuild germany.”

Why compare this argument to Nazi sympathisers?

That is a totally different issue.

For example, if Hizbullah were to "rebuild" Lebanon, based upon their Islamic principles, I would oppose that.

Man I give up.

I support Hizbullah's anti-imperialist struggle against Zionist expansionism... and that is about as far as it goes for me.

I find it idealistic to support hezbollah, and to think they are not alienating the proletariat, really fighting efficiently against imperialism, and will be progressive, and not despotic once in power, that to me is pure idealism.

How is fighting imperialist aggression going to "alienate the proletariat"?

The workers were being bombed out of their homes and made refugees in their own land.

Hizbullah did efficiently resist Zionist imperialism.

Moreover, I never argued that they will be progressive in any other way afterwards, and never did I ever argue that they would not be despotic once in power.

What you have done is make up arguments that I have supposedly made, and then refuted them.

Well done.

Intifada

24th January 2007, 17:33

Originally posted by guest187+January 24, 2007 02:20 am--> (guest187 @ January 24, 2007 02:20 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
all it needs is a pissed off guy with nothing to live for who feels there is much to die for.

Actually it would have needed three pissed off guys, cuz there were three separate suicide bombers. Oh yeah, and Islamic Jihad - a group that has ties to Hizbullah and is funded by Iran, did claim responsibility for the bombings.

It pisses me off when people assume

No, an assumption would have been to accuse Iran and Hizbullah of the attacks before the investigation (like the lockerbie bombing where the media falsely accused Iran). The investigation is over and the Argentinian government holds Hezbollah responsible.

Bush said

These bombings happened a good seven years before Bush even came into office.

The Godfatherization of terrorism is ridiculous and it becomes a precedent for wars and imperial aggression.

Right, but Argentina isn't going to invade Iran anytime soon, and Bush has never mentioned these attacks as far as I know.

Intifada
I guess you were also of the impression that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that him and bin Laden were best buddies?

Bravo to you for your brilliant assumption. [/b]
There has been no definitive proof that Hizbullah (or Iran) gave direct orders to bomb the Jewish targets in Argentina, as far as I am aware.

All I understand is that Argentinian prosecutors blame them for being responsible for the attacks.

The BBC article I linked stated the case was "unsolved" for the moment.

Spirit of Spartacus

24th January 2007, 20:21

Why are some people so quick to jump on the bandwagon of bourgeois lies? :unsure:

I can't believe people are holding Hezbollah responsible for a bombing when a conclusive judgement on this has not yet been reached.

Mikhail Frunze

24th January 2007, 22:09

That is like saying we should let the working class in germany decide if the NSDAP and it's new chairman hitler are beneficial to germany, because you as other Europeans and americans don’t understand the material and cultural conditions we germans came from, I mean come on now, there is fact and there is fiction, and believing that hezbollah will actually be beneficial in any regard and capacity is pure fictitious nonsense.

First off NSDAP no longer exists. Second, find a rational argument because comparisons of an Arabic Muslim party to white supremacist NSDAP do not suffice as being logical.

Cryotank Screams

24th January 2007, 23:20

Alienating the proletariat is one thing, but to accuse Hizbullah of not effectively fighting imperialism is naive at best and ignorant at worst.

Were you asleep during the month of Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006?

All I saw in 2006 between israeli, and surrounding countries, was more or less a nationalist shitfest, filled to the brim with bombings, and other such, violence, however this doesn't prove any point what so ever, other than the fact that they killed more civilians than they did army, and imperialist targets, the total israeli army men killed is about 12 soldiers, whereas the israeli civilian count after the bomb raid is around 30 to 40 people, nor do I see why you are being so evasive on the manner, and trying to manipulate the argument, to make it seem like your repeating yourself, when I have asked you specific answers, you say they are fighting an efficient and effective war against imperialism, then prove it with tangible and empirical facts, I am explicitly asking for you to prove this to me, the skeptic, or heretic if you like, how they are doing progressive and effective actions, and are not just hurting and alienating the working class, if this be the case I would consider changing my stance however I am still waiting.

Alienating the working class from revolutionary matters is no small topic to just be discarded and casually dismissed as nothing, and from what I have witnessed, hezbollah, has done little to nothing truly effective, however I am still awaiting to be proved wrong.

Also, again if you look at the chart, more civilians were killed during the '06 conflict than military targets, which I fail to see how this is waging an effective strike against the israeli imperialist forces.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm
http://hrw.org/campaigns/israel_lebanon/pd...n080406List.pdf (http://hrw.org/campaigns/israel_lebanon/pdfs/israel_lebanon080406List.pdf)

Before you even say it, or try to dismiss it, the above is not biased, because they also criticize the israeli forces as well, and take no side on the issue.

I will respost what I wrote on the whole "Timeline" issue:

I fucking ready the bloody post, at least three time now, nor does reposting it make any damn difference to what was being discussed, but fine, deny these acts if you must to protect your opinion, and also if events where invented point them out, and if you think they were wrong state so, until that time, I am not going to totally overlook, and dismiss these events, in my view of hezbollah.

If I don't know what the hell you are talking about, how can I "prove you wrong"?

If you don't know what I am talking about then, why do you dismiss it, and claim it has been fabricated, it's zionist lies, it was taken out of context, and this, that, and the other? If you don't know what I am talking about then stay neutral, and don't write it off.

Since I do not have the said book in front of me, I would appreciate it if you gave me the source the said author uses in taking that excerpt from Nasrallah's sppech.

As I don't own the book, so I can't exactly look up the sources page, and figure that out, so I guess for now, and for debate purposes will let the quote be taken out of the debate, and that it was rather rash for me to list a quote, with out a full set in stone proof of it, however this doesn't mean that Nasrallah isn't anti-semitic, see below quotes on Al-Jezzera TV;

"For example, a few years ago, a great French philosopher, Roger Garaudy, wrote a scientific book. He did not offend, curse, or insult anyone. He wrote a scientific research of an academic nature, in which he discussed the alleged Jewish Holocaust in Germany. He proved that this Holocaust is a myth."-Nasrallah.

source (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP108806)

Nor does it mean hezbollah doesn't have strong anti-semitic sentiments, and promotes anti-semitism, through it's various medias;

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=sub...ism&ID=SP104905 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP104905)
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=sub...ism&ID=SP105005 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP105005)
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=sub...ism&ID=SP100205 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP100205)
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=sub...tism&ID=SP62303 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP62303)
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=sub...tism&ID=SP61003 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP61003)

in what I thought would be an explicit enough manner for people like you to understand

For people like me? Oh, you mean the people that disagree with you, and don't just believe all the bullshit propaganda that such groups like hezbollah dishes out? I mean it's called propaganda for a reason, but going back to the matter, you didn't specifically lay out your point for my view, nor did I read the entire thread before listing my opinions of hezbollah, so don't sit there, and continue to act like your repeating yourself, when you never laid out the specific's of your support to me, all you said was that you "critically," supported them, and then later said you were a sympathizer.

Pardon my frustration at the fact that you ignore most of what I have argued.

I didn't ignore anything, I have addressed just about every argument you have presented, just because you are choosing to be evasive, and dodging at great lengths my persistent demands for proof, reason, and data, does reflect anything on me, or my argument.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Yea, I do, but your not understanding what I am saying, if you support them, you support them, there is no skipping around this, or dodging this, the fact is you support them, the capacity in which you have stated, is light, or "critical," support for in my opinion, a pseudo-argument, but still this doesn't attack way fact that you support and sympathize with the hezbollah group.

I have already addressed this issue and stated the following:

And I have already addressed this, I said I am not married to her argument, nor believe it is the whole of the matter, and I infact believe they are anti-semitic, do to things like holocaust denial, and revisionism, and nazi like depictions of jews, in there media, which is quite clear, so yet again, reposting stuff doesn't change what I said, or add to your argument, or prove me wrong in any capacity.

There is still an ineffably long way to go, especially in the Middle East.

Yea, hence the need to stop fence sitting, and get the information out there.

You argued that religion should not be supported "in any manner".

It is fact, however, that many struggling people fighting in revolutions or against imperialism will hold religious beliefs.

To then take this one asset of their character and blank them completely as insane nutters, is wrong.

There is a difference between, supporting religion, and religious groups, and fighting a revolution, along side revolutionaries, who just happen to hold religious beliefs, and I would hope the difference would be perfectly clear to you, and it is not about blanking people, or any such lunacy, it's about teaching the public, and the working class, to lead them to this knowledge via dialogues and learning, in that way we don't push them off, but help them throw of the yoke of religion, and progress further to Socialism.

That is quite simply not the issue/priority when another state is attacking you.

Your not understanding my argument, you said it was impossible or the like to oppose all religion, as it now stands, I said no, it is very much possible, this however has nothing to do with another state attacking the people, and if a state were, the revolutionary response would be to form a group yes, however divorced from religion, regardless of the culture and people whom maybe religious, because religion has nothing to do with worldly affairs, or revolutionary affairs.

Why compare this argument to Nazi sympathisers?

It illustrates a point, and that point being, it's like being a nazi sympathizer, and "critical," supporter, a reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and far-right group, due to alleged "good deeds," be its minimum of one, or two, conducted by the group in question, which may or may not be the case, but you still support them and their effort, and fight, and oppose any opposition to said group.

How is fighting imperialist aggression going to "alienate the proletariat"?

You never proved they were fighting against imperialism, other than citing the 'o6 conflict, in which they did no such thing, hence this is just hezbollah rhetoric, and propaganda, and terrorist attacks, bombings, kidnappings, and other such activities are only going to alienate the proletariat, no different than violent acts here in the west, would alienate the working class.

Hizbullah did efficiently resist Zionist imperialism.

PROVE IT.

What you have done is make up arguments that I have supposedly made, and then refuted them.

No, you are just not comprehending the arguments I am making, and being evasive towards my questions and demands of proof, this isn't my fault, or a reflection on me and my argument.

Why are some people so quick to jump on the bandwagon of bourgeois lies?

Why are people here so quick to believe hezbollah reactionary propaganda and rhetoric, when no proof has been given to prove said arguments?

Cryotank Screams

24th January 2007, 23:26

First off NSDAP no longer exists.

Well no shit, er, I mean you just totally fed me a bit of good news, I mean here I have been in a bunker, but hey, thanks for pointing this out, this is good news to hear; is it still 1945, did germany lose? :rolleyes: <_< .

Second, find a rational argument because comparisons of an Arabic Muslim party to white supremacist NSDAP do not suffice as being logical.

It wasn't a bloody direct, cut and dry comparison, it was rather a "it's like [x]," statement, which was more or less a indirect comparison if anything, and was only meant to prove a point, that's it's like supporting another far-right wing group, under the same premises, and I never said that hezbollah is directly comparable to the nazis; don't make up shit.

A SCANNER DARKLY

25th January 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by An archist+January 23, 2007 10:00 pm--> (An archist @ January 23, 2007 10:00 pm)
Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 23, 2007 07:49 pm

Originally posted by An [email protected] 23, 2007 02:19 pm

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 20, 2007 01:43 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 11:33 pm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

ok wtf is going on here?
Probably taking an oath. You know the Nazi's didn't start that salute. Roman soldiers used it. Just last month when Mexico's president Felipe Calderon took office he used the right stiff arm salute while he took oath.
No, they use the stiff right arm because the nazis did and because they associate it with anti-semitism.
What a ridiculous assumption. You should know better.
They hate 'the jews' and use the roman salute.
That's at least a bit controversial and the link with nazis is easily made don't you think? [/b]
They are taking an oath. Obviously

Intifada

25th January 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 24, 2007 11:20 pm
All I saw in 2006 between israeli, and surrounding countries, was more or less a nationalist shitfest, filled to the brim with bombings, and other such, violence, however this doesn't prove any point what so ever, other than the fact that they killed more civilians than they did army, and imperialist targets, the total israeli army men killed is about 12 soldiers, whereas the israeli civilian count after the bomb raid is around 30 to 40 people
<_<

Utter bullshit.

The number of dead Israeli soldiers was 116, according to the IDF, whilst Israeli police stated that 43 civilians were killed (this includes "Israeli Arabs").

Israel, on the other hand, killed 1187 Lebanese civilians, whilst the UN estimates that around 500 Hizbullah fighters were killed.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5257128.stm)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict)

Alienating the working class from revolutionary matters is no small topic to just be discarded and casually dismissed as nothing, and from what I have witnessed, hezbollah, has done little to nothing truly effective, however I am still awaiting to be proved wrong.

I never said it was.

:rolleyes:

What Hizbullah did is not hard to comprehend.

Israel launched an aggressive attack on the Lebanese people, which resulted in the displacement of approximately 25% of the population of Lebanon, the destruction of thousands of homes, hundreds of factories, markets, farms and other commercial buildings, 32 airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, dams and electrical plants, 25 fuel stations, 78 bridges, 630km of roads, whilst leaving around a million cluster bomblets in South Lebanon (Lebanese government and UN estimates).

If that is not an attack that deserves resistance I do not know what is worthy of resistance.

Hizbullah was the only force prepared to defend Lebanon from a brutal Zionist attack that had been planned with the blessing of the USA (Seymour Hersh on Washington's interests in Israel's war (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact)).

With this in mind, nobody should be surprised that almost 90% of the Lebanese population (including non-Shiite communities) were polled to have been supporting Hizbullah resistance.

Hizbullah support tops 80 percent among Lebanese factions.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html)

Even the Lebanese Communist Party were working with Hizbullah.

Unlikely Allies In Lebanon (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=483495e7-f167-4a00-b446-4c544747ef3e&p=2)

As Israel kept up their seige of Lebanon, Hizbullah remarkably kept on sending rockets into Israel, which resulted in pressure on the Israeli generals to hurry up and end the war. Israel's objective was to destroy Hizbullah's powerbase in the South of Lebanon, yet they failed miserably. The US interest in crushing Arab nationalist resistance also failed, whereas paradoxically the Hizbullah victory only emboldened anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiments in the region.

The war was a significant part of the plans of American Neocons in regard to the launching of a full-scale war against Iran. It was all about the long-term plan to build a "new" Middle East that will serve the interests of America.

The real aims of the US-backed Israeli war against Lebanon
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/leba-j21.shtml)

The surprising resistance by Hizbollah against total war waged by one of the mightest armies in he world, led the Bush administration to change course and agree to a ceasfire resolution after blocking it for weeks. A senior official of the Bush administration admitted that it was the realization that “Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory… that led the Americans to get behind a ceasefire”. (NYT, August 11, 06)

The above is from this (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10864) article.

Even those backing Israel admitted defeat to Hizbullah.

I fucking ready the bloody post, at least three time now, nor does reposting it make any damn difference to what was being discussed, but fine, deny these acts if you must to protect your opinion, and also if events where invented point them out, and if you think they were wrong state so, until that time, I am not going to totally overlook, and dismiss these events, in my view of hezbollah.

Since you ignored my arguments against "CAMERA" and it's agenda, I take it you therefore think it is acceptable to, for example, urge people to "talk to the managers" of bookshops which sell Noam Chomsky and Edward Said books.

If you take a quick glance at the particular "Timeline" that was provided by yourself, you can point out some flaws quite easily. For example, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina has never been proved to be the work of Hizbullah and Iran, yet the folks at "CAMERA" refuse to appreciate that fact, because it goes against their pro-Israeli agenda against Hizbullah.

Moreover, it is incredibly easy to label another group "terrorists" whilst skipping over the Israeli atrocities that are very much intertwined with the actions of Hizbullah, which was formed after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Indeed, before 1985, there was no group called "Hizbullah", just a few unorganised Shiite groups that acted independently.

Of course, the good old folks at "CAMERA" will ignore these little facts that may fuck up their pro-Israel perspective on such matters.

I don't think I should be expected to take a pro-Israeli source as seriously as you expect me to. Severian underlined why it would be a waste of my time to do so.

"For example, a few years ago, a great French philosopher, Roger Garaudy, wrote a scientific book. He did not offend, curse, or insult anyone. He wrote a scientific research of an academic nature, in which he discussed the alleged Jewish Holocaust in Germany. He proved that this Holocaust is a myth."-Nasrallah.

I have already stated (though yet again you seemed to have ignored it) that "I do not deny that there is anti-semitism... present within the psyche of many, but not all, Hizbullah supporters in the Middle East."

To add to this, neither am I surprised that some would be anti-semitic when it is taken into account that a lot ot the people of Lebanon will have only seen a Jew that was trying to kill them.

For people like me? Oh, you mean the people that disagree with you, and don't just believe all the bullshit propaganda that such groups like hezbollah dishes out? I mean it's called propaganda for a reason

Writes the person who linked a "CAMERA" article...

I have not dished out Hizbullah propaganda.

but going back to the matter, you didn't specifically lay out your point for my view, nor did I read the entire thread before listing my opinions of hezbollah

Maybe you shouldn't assume so much without reading all the posts.

Yea, I do, but your not understanding what I am saying, if you support them, you support them, there is no skipping around this, or dodging this, the fact is you support them, the capacity in which you have stated, is light, or "critical," support for in my opinion, a pseudo-argument, but still this doesn't attack way fact that you support and sympathize with the hezbollah group.

I don't have a problem with admitting that I supported Hizbullah's fight against Israeli aggression, as I do not see anything wrong in doing so.

Yea, hence the need to stop fence sitting, and get the information out there.

Why do you believe that Westerners have some kind of duty to tell the Lebanese people not to support Hizbullah at a time when Israel is destroying everything around them, simply because you do not agree with their religious beliefs?

Like I said before, religious debate goes out the window the moment your people are being attacked by a medieval type seige.

The article I linked before ("Unlikely Allies In Lebanon" (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=483495e7-f167-4a00-b446-4c544747ef3e&p=1)) interestingly comments:

This summer's war "was not a religious conflict - Jewish vs. Muslim. It was a political conflict," LCP vice-president Mazraani said. Israel turned "the conflict into a religious one because they are a Jewish entity. They try to show their enemy as a religious force, to unite Jews for Israel and get support from American Jews by showing the conflict as a clash of religions and not as a resistance to Israeli aggression."

Priorities change when you are being bombed.

Indeed, on the subject of Hizbullah's Islamic nature, Hassan Nasrallah declared that "Lebanon is a pluralistic country. It is not an Islamic country. It is not a Maronite country. It is not an Orthodox country. It is not a Shiite country. It is a country of consensus. You have nothing to fear from anybody from Hezbollah".

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090900438_2.html?nav=rss_email/components)

Hizbullah's main domestic concern is to represent the downtrodden Shiites of Lebanon.

It illustrates a point, and that point being, it's like being a nazi sympathizer, and "critical," supporter, a reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and far-right group, due to alleged "good deeds," be its minimum of one, or two, conducted by the group in question, which may or may not be the case, but you still support them and their effort, and fight, and oppose any opposition to said group.

There is a massive difference between the two situations.

Indeed, unlike what you argue, I never stated that I "oppose any opposition to said group".

That is simply a lie.

PROVE IT.

I think I have definitely proved it above.