All Hezbollah related subjects in this thread

[SISCO]

Originally Posted by Motorcity

If it wasn't for you quoting one of your masters from a blue forum somewhere, i wouldn't care much!(note that they invaded wide areas of Lebanon, not only Beirut, though that was long before Saad declared it a red line).
It is no secret that Southerners of all backgrounds were fed up with PLO practices, but between throwing boiled oil & flowers, let me tell you something that you have missed: Bintjbiel itself was a ghost town during that invasion!

I think that the one who posted that southern peole welcomed israel with flowers don't know anything about the resistance of southern people. I remember that i saw some videos about women, children fighting israelis !! they were throwing oils from balconies, using kitchen knives , etc.

Southern peolple has always fought israelis !!!

[roch10452]

Originally Posted by J. Abizeid

What I’ve been suggesting is that the truth has been turned upside down by the powerful and expensive propaganda that is promoting an agenda that wants to resolve the Palestinian tragedy in Lebanon by creating a new tragedy to all Lebanese and thanks to HA power, the Lebanese tragedy didn’t happen. They divided us using our ignorance and bigotry and made many of us believe HA is our problem. In reality, HA is their problem!
I don’t want to be identified as Lebanese Christian but that’s the category I fall in.
Based on my category, had HA failed, my situation would be just like the Christian situation in Iraq and Palestine.
Unlike most Christian leaders in Lebanon who are begging to crawl. HA are taking care of their people. They don’t have to protect us as Christians especially with the negative attitude many of us have against them but they did, thanks to their loyalty and GMA’s vision and wisdom, the man who represents me.

Or the truth has been turned upside down by the equaly powerful and expensive Hezbo propaganda that is promoting eternal sacred wars and death to the traitors of the "Ouma"

Which always turns me back to the question:

Please define Ouma
its borders, its religions, its people, its goverment, its constitution...

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by roch10452

Or the truth has been turned upside down by the equaly powerful and expensive Hezbo propaganda that is promoting eternal sacred wars and death to the traitors of the "Ouma"

Which always turns me back to the question:

Please define Ouma
its borders, its religions, its people, its goverment, its constitution...

I don’t know where you get your information from. I get mine directly from the source and I have no idea what you’re talking about.
By the way, how old were you when you heard about the 10452 for the first time?

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by chafic

Why in disguise? It's very obvious how much of a blessing it is.

Not for the one with the 10452 blind folds on his eyes,
It’s dark out there.

[punkgirlie16]

Originally Posted by J. Abizeid

As far as Syria’s relationship with HA, we all know it’s real. But that does not mean HA is a puppet of Syria or Iran just like Israel is not a puppet of the U.S. either.

yes, but if syria comes back, then ha will be at least as much of a puppet of syria as evrey other party was before 2005. where will their supply lines run? syria always insisted that she got a hand on them.

as far as i can see, ha tried to maneuvre between to very influential friends all the time, iran and syria, and to maintain his independence as much as he could. but how much could he, faced with friends like those 2? ha gained the right to accasionally attack israel to estblish some kind of deterrence. it paid the price to coordinate its attacks with syrian needs. other resistance groups who failed to do that were resized (violenty) and forced under the ha umbrella.

this may be the view of an outsider, but this is how things lokk to me. i don't say ha lost his independence, on the contrary he seems to managed to establish it quite impressively, esp after 2000 in the south.

by the way abizeid, what do you need an identity for. i have for some time managed to live without, being neither western nor arab; identity is some of those things whose necesseity simply never came to me, save for the notion that it is something extremely repressive, in which i luckily have been spared to take part in.

[tae]

Originally Posted by Free_Patriot

Dear sir,

You have been going on and on about this argument loading threads with endless quantities of text to convince me that I should be thankful that HA decided not to throwing me to the sea? because honestly, I am not that comfortable with what you're saying.

Nobody asked you to thank HA, but if you insist on this "thanking" issue, you can than them for not dealing with you like how jumblat and geagea dealt with lebanese in the 80s.
You can thank them for being so patient and civilized by asking only for 33% of the 46% that they have the right to have.

Originally Posted by Free_Patriot

I like to think that what's stopping a guy with a gun from shooting me, is some kind of a law, a pact, an agreement, whatever, and not just his good intentions and high morals.

Let me correct the sentence you wrote here. It should start as follows,
"I like to think that what's stopping a guy who I shot at in order to help Israel and the USA terminate him ... "

[YOSS]

The thing is, if you tie up HA in more forms of pacts and agreements, even just locally, you would weaken them and priviledge the foreign international interests that does not favor the interests of Lebanon.

A level of trust must exist, as well as reasonable and careful implementation of activities. Those two decisions before Doha were cripling and left HA with little choice. The reasonable among the viewers will have to not take HA's action at face value.

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by punkgirlie16

yes, but if syria comes back, then ha will be at least as much of a puppet of syria as evrey other party was before 2005. where will their supply lines run? syria always insisted that she got a hand on them.

as far as i can see, ha tried to maneuvre between to very influential friends all the time, iran and syria, and to maintain his independence as much as he could. but how much could he, faced with friends like those 2? ha gained the right to accasionally attack israel to estblish some kind of deterrence. it paid the price to coordinate its attacks with syrian needs. other resistance groups who failed to do that were resized (violenty) and forced under the ha umbrella.

this may be the view of an outsider, but this is how things lokk to me. i don't say ha lost his independence, on the contrary he seems to managed to establish it quite impressively, esp after 2000 in the south.

I want to share with you a real story.
Few days ago, I found a snake in my backyard and killed it.
I thought I did something good killing a snake that could have bit and kill me or my neighbor.
Most of us with the same background would have thought the same way. All I’ve known since I was kid snakes are venomous and will kill you if I don’t kill them first. I even remember an old picture in my church; it showed Virgin Mary stepping on snakes, a symbol of defeating evil.

Shortly after, I became educated about the snakes issue and realized that the snake I killed is called California kingsnake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Kingsnake
http://www.desertusa.com/magfeb98/feb_pap/du_kingsnake.html
California Kingsnake is no venomous. It eats rodents and venomous rattlesnakes. Some have it as a pet. Wherever you see it, you know you won’t find rats, mice or rattlesnakes….
Because of my ignorance, I killed an innocent friend!

Back to Lebanon and HA. I’m not here to tell you who your friends are. If you chose to sell Lebanon to the Palestinians, HA is not your friend. However, if you know who your real friends are, (at least those who are not your enemies) you’ll make it a lot easier on yourself by changing your attitude towards them and finding ways to coexist and be very happy about it.
If there is a will there is a way.
It’s your choice.

[joseph_lubnan]

Nasrallah’s Speech: How Hezbollah Ruled, How the West is Fooled
Walid Phares June 16th 2008

Cutting Edge Contributor


In the coming days, a major battle in the “War of Ideas” will be unfolding worldwide, particularly through the international media—a massive campaign by Hezbollah's strategic communication machine to frame the outcome of the battle for Lebanon, significantly lost by the United States, the West, and the forces of Democracies in the region. The main issue at hand in the Iranian-funded war room is not about convincing the international community and the Arab and Muslim world that Hezbollah has defeated its opponents in that small but strategically located republic, but that an overwhelming majority of Lebanese are now firmly standing behind secretary general of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in his vision for the future of the Eastern Mediterranean and probably the Greater Middle East.

The propaganda machine, living off Khomeinist Petrodollars, enlists not only the traditional Hezbollah outlets such as al-Manar but also a network of friends in the multi-layered world of the foreign press and active pens in newsrooms around the world. The power of the Iranian Oil lobbies is almost as influential as the power of the Wahabi Petro pressure group.



In his more than significant speech in the first week of June, Nasrallah uncovered the bulk of his agenda for Lebanon, the region, and perhaps his international open alignment with Tehran's ambitions. This speech, delivered after the invasion of West Beirut and southern Mount Lebanon and collapse of the Siniora Government is indeed a declaration of victory. Usually, Hezbollah's commander produces these benchmark-speeches when a new era is already underway, indicating that the Tehran-backed militia in Lebanon has already scored its victory on the ground, in the institutions, and diplomatically.

What the political architects of the "axis" are working on is a push to present the situation in Lebanon as marching towards stability and reconciliation. This is not unusual in "coups" aftermaths. The winners always try to set the agenda of the debate, and later try to rewrite history. Strategic realities are that Hezbollah and its allies overran Beirut and crumbled the foundations of the democratically elected Government of Fouad Siniora; the Lebanese Army headed by the now President of Lebanon, General Michel Sleiman did not confront Hezbollah then nor after; the March 14 coalition backing the Government couldn't resist Hezbollah without the protection by the Lebanese Army or a Western intervention; both needed moves didn't happen; hence March 14 accepted to participate in conference in Doha to cut a deal with Hezbollah under the auspices of the Qatar regime, a friend of all, including more importantly of Tehran and Syria.



But what is the rest of the story?

In Qatar, it wasn't a national reconciliation that took place, but a crushing defeat to the March 14 coalition, which—rightly or wrongly—felt abandoned by Washington and by Arab moderates. The Qatari regime brokered a deal, saving the face of the anti-Syrian politicians and providing them with enough oxygen for a year or so. But the lion's share was granted to the Syro-Iranian forces in Lebanon. Hezbollah emerged as the main real power in Lebanon, with a veto power inside the Government, eleven ministers, the sanctity of its Iranian weapons, and enough legitimacy to shield it from being disarmed at any time under UN Security Council Resolution 1559--an astounding victory.

No wonder Hezbollah welcomed, and in fact hurried, the election of General Suleiman as the new President of the Republic. Clearly, Tehran would have shaken the Earth under Lebanon if the candidate was not who it wanted at this particular conjuncture. The rest is an amazing cooking of the story by the "axis kitchen." The version, available via the international news agencies and the networks it feeds, is a celestial tale: The Lebanese opposition (read Hezbollah) finally pressured the Government into making concessions; the Lebanese Army stood neutral between the "opposition" and the "loyalists;" a brotherly Arab initiative convinced "both parties" to come and solve the problems calmly in Doha; hence both sides decided to make concessions and come up with a national reconciliation document.



This version of the events would have needed an entire process of analysis but another rapid volley of events followed and shifted attention to the current stage of affairs. As analysts were still evaluating the Hezbollah offensive, the March 14 weakening, and the real attitudes of Washington and Paris leading to the Qatar meetings, world attention was suddenly hijacked to Beirut were a Presidential election took place under the eyes of many diplomatic representatives from the Arab world and the West. How did the international community shift from supporting the Cedars Revolution to backing a renewed influence by Iran and Syria in Lebanon in few days?

The "story" rapidly moved to the rosy painting that, now Lebanon has a President and we shouldn't be looking back at how Hezbollah began the operations on May 7 leading to the crumbling of the Siniora Government and the coming of General Sleiman. Now "peace" has come to Lebanon after assassinations and a summer war, therefore there is no need to look back at a very recent era where Lebanon was a battlefield with terrorism and its Iranian and Syrian backers.

The media coverage of these blitz-stories has moved even faster to re-baptize Hezbollah as a force of stability. Indeed, a respectable international English-broadcasting network, based out of Europe reported, "Hezbollah head urges co-existence." Coverage depicting the Doha declaration as one that "saved the Peace of Lebanon," and that "Hezbollah got all what it wanted, it won't ask for more, is a chilling reminder of the media coverage of Munich in the 1938. Ignoring the coverage look at the actual words of Hezbollah’s Nasrallah to confirm our fears that the world is being duped about Lebanon.


As carried live by Hezbollah-owned al Manar TV, and posted on its website later, the speech by Sayyed Nasrallah says clearly:



We have won the war in Lebanon.
We have defeated the Democracy movement in this country and the Government it has produced.
The United States and its allies know that they cannot defeat us in Lebanon or in Iran by military means.
We showed Washington that it cannot move forward with its freedom strategy, particularly from Lebanon.
We have now seized power in this country (Lebanon) but we don't have to make it formal.
The Lebanese Army will never be used to disarm us. Its commander, our ally, is now the President of the Republic.
We will fight any international move to disarm us.
We will grow militarily in Lebanon with the backing of Iran, in parallel to the Lebanese Army.
We have offered a successful model of military confrontation, thus we won't accept diplomatic solutions.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad will continue their Terror operations against Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
We support the armed insurrection against the political process in Iraq.
We are proud of being under the Vilayet e-Faqih of Iran, in other words, Jihadi-Khomeinist.


Obviously, these assertions are not well reported by the international media. Nasrallah said in his speech that "his wars" are "insuring peace." Probably many ears wants to hear the second part of his statement and certainly the oil-funded media consulting of the axis wants the West to hear that portion as well. We've seen this before...in Munich 1938.



Now to the main points of the speech:



1. Hezbollah "offers its Strategy" to all Arabs

اكد الامين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله ان المقاومة في لبنان جاهزة للقتال كما قاتلت في حرب تموز الاسرائيلية الاخيرة على لبنان. ودعا سماحته في خطابه المطول الشعوب العربية والحكومات العربية لدراسة جدية لاستراتيجيتي التحرير والدفاع في ظل موازين القوى في لبنان، كاشفاً عن ان سمير القنطار ورفاقه الاسرى سيكونون قريباً جداً بيننا في لبنان.

Nasrallah said Hezbollah is as ready to fight in Lebanon, just as it was during the July 2006 war with Israel. He called on the "Arab Peoples and Governments to study the seriousness of the defense and liberation strategies of the organization and the new balance of power in Lebanon." In other words, the victory achieved in Lebanon against the democratically elected Government and the deterrence against the United Nations and the West is a strategic option to follow for all other radicals in the region. He predicted that because of these strategies, Hezbollah's prisoners in Israel will be returned soon.



2. Hezbollah's weapons are untouchable

وتسأل سماحته "لمن كان السلاح الآخر؟ ولمن كان يكدس ويعد ويدرب؟". كما استنكر السيد نصر الله محاولة البعض استخدام سلاح الدولة لتصفية الحساب مع فريق سياسي معارض، موضحاً انه لا يجوز استخدام ذاك السلاح لحساب مشاريع خارجية تضعف قوة ومنعة لبنان، متابعاً : "لا يجوز استخدامه لاستهداف المقاومة، وسلاح المقاومة يجب أن يبقى كل سلاح في خدمة الهدف الذي صنع من أجله ووضع من أجله".

He said: For what use were the other weapons in Lebanon? He meant the light weapons owned by Lebanese citizens not supporting Hezbollah. In other words Hezbollah cannot accept that any other citizen resistance to terror could form in Lebanon. The only "resistance" is Hezbollah and no other Lebanese group can arm itself against the Iranian-backed force. In addition, Nasrallah threatened that the Lebanese Government should not use its regular forces to settle scores with its opposition. In reality he meant that no Lebanese Government will be allowed to use the Army and the Security Forces to disarm Hezbollah. Explicitly he said: "The Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces cannot be used against Hezbollah."



3. Hezbollah's friends

الامين العام لحزب الله شكر الاخوة العرب واللجنة الوزارية العربية وامينها العام وبالاخص دولة قطر قيادة وشعبا وجميع الدول الشقيقة والصديقة وفي مقدمتها سوريا والجمهورية الاسلامية في ايران وجميع أصدقاء لبنان الذين ساعدوا على إنجاز الاتفاق في الدوحة.

Nasrallah particularly thanked the Qatar's regime for the diplomatic help it extended. In fact Doha's representatives at the Security Council have indeed blocked every single attempt to take the Lebanese crisis to the Security Council and implement the various resolutions under Chapter 7 of the Charter. Qatar was the fastest regime to oppose the internationalization of the crisis when Hezbollah invaded Beirut. It stated that the crisis is exclusively internal, that is, that Iran and Syria are not behind the offensive. So it was natural that Nasrallah would gratify Qatar, in addition to the warm thank you to the Iranian and Syrian regimes who "helped in producing Doha's agreement."



4. Sleiman in Hezbollah's eyes

السيد نصرالله اعتبر ان انتخاب العماد ميشال سليمان رئيسا للجمهورية يجدد الأمل لدى اللبنانيين بعهد جديد وبداية جديدة وقال خطاب القسم الذي سمعناه بالأمس يعبر عن الروح الوفاقية التي وعد فخامته أن يتصرف بموجبها وهذا ما يحتاجه لبنان.

Nasrallah said the election of General Sleiman as President "renews hopes among Lebanese for a new beginning. He added that Sleiman's inauguration speech "expresses the spirit of consensus." How to translate this Hezbollah admiration for the new President? It is simple: The General committed to protect the "resistance's" weapons, practically, the military power of Hezbollah. Better, the new President didn't even mention UNSCR 1559 which expressly calls for the disarming of militias, that is Hezbollah. Hence Nasrallah's satisfaction is understandable. Since September 2004, the Iranian funded militia lived in the uncertainty of a UN backed decommission of their arms. Now and for the next six years (Lebanon's Presidential term) the 30,000 missiles and rockets and the 300 millions Petrodollars (plus) will be under the protection of a new President and of perhaps a Hezbollah even more dominated cabinet as of 2009.



5. America's "dream" has been shattered

السيد نصر الله الذي امل بصيف هادئ للبنان اشار الى ان هناك حلمين حلم لبنان بصيف هانئ ووادع وحلم اميركي بصيف ساخن داعياً الجميع للتعاون لتحقيق احلامنا وليس احلام الاعداء والى القفز فوق الجراح وضم الايدي لاعمار لبنان.

The conqueror of West Beirut and of Mount Lebanon in 2008 and the champion of the 2006 regional war, said his dream is to provide Lebanon with a "peaceful and calm summer" [sic] but "America's dream is for a summer war." He called all to "cooperate against the dreams of the enemy," hence assimilating the United States to an "enemy."



6. "Reconstruction and Violence" at the same time

الامين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله دعى تيار ومحبي الرئيس رفيق الحريري الى الاستفادة من التجربة الكبيرة لهذا الرجل الكبير ومن آفاق تفكيره الاستراتيجي حول لبنان وهو الذي استطاع أن يوائم بين مشروع الاعمار والمقاومة بعقل كبير

Moving swiftly in an attempt to reconcile with the Hariri legacy, Nasrallah offered the supporters of the slain Prime Minister (mostly Sunnis who were attacked by Hezbollah few weeks ago), an opportunity to go back to the better era of the 1990s. "Rafiq Hariri," remarked the head of Hezbollah,” had a strategic thinking. His great mind was able to support the projects of "resistance" and "reconstruction." What Nasrallah is hoping for is a change of policy by the Future Movement of Hariri’s son Saad from opposing Syria and Iran to a new deal with the axis, whereby a Hariri Government would conduct business at will while the business of military force would be left exclusively to the pro-Iranian militia. For in the mind of Nasrallah, his forces would conduct wars, with all the subsequent destructions, and Beirut entrepreneurs would rebuild afterwards.



7. Hezbollah's sectarian clones

السيد نصرالله اشار الى المساهمة بجدية وصدق للاسراع في تشكيل الحكومة واعداً ان يحضر اطياف اخرى في المعارضة في الحكومة وان تتاح الفرصة للاخرين ولو من سهم حزب الله،

Uncovering the next stage of Hezbollah's agenda inside Lebanon, the master of the Party of Allah declared that not all 11 members of his bloc inside the next Lebanese Government will necessarily be from his organization or even Shiites. This statement is among the most important points made in the speech. To use his impressive quota in the forthcoming cabinet so that Hezbollah allies from the Sunni, Druze, and Christian communities emerge in Government is a Machiavellian move—non-Shia cabinet members promoting the Iranian group inside the country and worldwide.



8. Hezbollah will re-open the wounds later

إذا فلنؤجل فتح هذا الجرح الآن بانتظار أن تهدأ النفوس وتتاح الفرصة للعقل والمنطق واطلاق مرحلة جديدة في لبنان هي مرحلة ما بعد 25 أيار 2008 أي بعد العرس الوطني والعربي والدولي الذي شهدناه أمس في المجلس النيابي

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah paused long before he informed his audience that he will not open the wound now, arguing that reopening it now may inflame passions. By "wound" he meant the reasons he launched his attack on Beirut on May 7. He promised to address the matter in the era following the election of General Michel Sleiman "who obtained such national, Arab, and international support." An expert reading of Nasrallah's calibrated words explains that he doesn't want to further criticize his enemies (most Sunnis, Druze, and Christian leaders) at this particular time, but in fact he will come back to denounce them, and maybe more, later. Why? Hezbollah won a short military battle but was about top lose the long term one as events resumed. His battlefield surge was instantly transformed into a political victory in Doha by his friends in Qatar and his allies in Damascus and Tehran. He came back to Beirut to collect enormous dividends: 11 ministries in the Government, veto power, a friendly President and an insulted America. Hence, if Nasrallah reopens these "wounds" now, he will force his foes to re-engage in battle again, and this time Hezbollah may not keep all its credibility intact. Thus he will settle scores with his opponents at his discretion, later.



9. The real fear of Hezbollah: Lebanon's Army

ذهبنا إلى هناك لأننا نريد أن ننقذ لبنان مما هو أخطر من قتال الجيش والمقاومة من الفتنة الطائفية من الصيف الساخن الذي وعد به هامان فرعون ديفيد ولش وأسياده

In this speech, Nasrallah revealed the deepest secret of his organization, kept for years from public debate: The fear that a confrontation between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah could take place. Hezbollah intimidates Lebanon's politicians, Arab leaders, and has been successful in relatively defeating Israel psychologically. The suicide bombers of this organization have created a myth of invincibility since the massacre of the US Marines and French fusiliers in 1983. But ironically, every time the heavily armed and hugely-funded militia by Iran faces off with other Lebanese, they weren't exactly a superpower. During Hezbollah's war against Israel's occupation in southern Lebanon, the group was not as successful against the local SLA militia as against Israeli media. In the recent incidents, Hezbollah might was repelled by Druze peasants and Nasrallah hesitated before he gave the orders to assault the Christian areas. A long occupation of Sunni neighborhood may not be very healthy for the Khomeinist militia. Even if Hezbollah can influence about 25% of the personnel in the Lebanese Army to quit the institution if the Army is asked to contain the militia, it would be almost impossible for Tehran's militia in Lebanon to fight a core of the Lebanese Army in addition of a majority of the population, and win, despite the 30,000 rockets and their suicide bombers. It is not about the weapons it is about the emotions. Nasrallah knows it well, perhaps better than his enemies inside the country. Hence, his nightmare scenario isn't an Israel offensive or a US landing but simply a clash between the Lebanese Army and his forces. Thus this one single short sentence: "we want to save Lebanon (i.e. his own militia) from a fight between the Army and the Resistance (Hezbollah). In fact Nasrallah's real mega-victory was to neutralize the Lebanese Army by co-opting the election of its commander as the new President. Under this new equation, the Iranian militia in Lebanon won't fear a move by the Army.



10. Hezbollah, member in Iran's regime

أنا أفتخر أن أكون فرداً في حزب ولاية الفقيه،

Perhaps one of the most noticed statements made by Nasrallah was his unequivocal admittance that he—and thus his party—are proud members of Iran's regime. "I am proud of being a member in the Vilayet e Faqih Party," declared the Hezbollah Secretary General in front of the international media, shattering every bit of questioning about his affiliation with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Why would Nasrallah state in that he is part and parcel of the Iranian regime? The answer is simple: Because he believes he won the war irreversibly and that the Cedars Revolution was crushed and the United States humiliated. Thus this is a victory speech where he can tell the world where his real affiliation.



11. Hezbollah's road to power

كل المقاومات المنتصرة في التاريخ إما استلمت السلطة أو طالبت به

In his speech Nasrallah also explained his road map to power in Lebanon. He said, "all victorious resistance movements in history either seized power or claimed it." But in a magnanimous gesture, the head of Hezbollah added "we are not interested in power and we don't want it. Experienced experts reading this statement believe the opposite: that Hezbollah is extremely interested in power and definitely wants it. Not surrendering one inch of the power it already has to the Lebanese Government, not decreasing its weaponry system, and invading parts of Lebanon to expand, is definitely evidence that Nasrallah aims at supreme power in the country. But why is he not stating so? Because if they do prematurely, they will lose allies and unite their enemies. If anything, Nasrallah's statement about his disinterest in power indicates that the final victory was not achieved yet. This also indicates that there are enough forces inside Lebanon which still have the potential of countering and eventually reversing his group's grip on power.



12. Hezbollah losses

"قد قضى لنا 14 شهيدا نعتز بهم ونفتخر بهم ونرفع رؤوسنا بهم وشهيدان من السرايا اللبنانية لمقاومة الاحتلال وحركة أمل والحزب القومي والديمقراطي وكان شهداء المعارضة من الشيعة والسنة والدروز والمسيحيين ونعتز بهم، طبعا نأسف ونحزن ونتألم لكل الضحايا في الفريق الآخر وما يجب أن يسلي عوائل جميع من فقدوا أعزاء أن دماء

Nasrallah minimized the losses of his militia during the fights against fellow Lebanese, particularly in Mount Lebanon against the Druzes. He said his organization lost 14 "martyrs" and his allies from the Amal Movement, the Syrian National-Social Party, and others also lost fighters. Yet, according to Druze and Sunni sources and other observers, more than 70 armed elements from that militia were killed as they stormed the opponents positions. More than 14 were lost by Hezbollah on the unfamous "888 Hill," as sources said weeks ago. In a three-day period Hezbollah lost more fighters in battles against lightly-armed citizens than against the mighty Israeli forces.



13. Hezbollah doesn't need consensus on its weapons

السيد نصرالله اكد ان المقاومة لا تنتظر إجماعا وطنيا وشعبيا إنما يجب أن تحمل السلاح وتمضي لانجاز واجب التحرير بالسلاح والدم.

Not only did Nasrallah assert that he is part of Iran's regime (Wilayat al Faqih) but he also dismissed any Lebanese consensus on his organizations weapons. "The Resistance, i.e. Hezbollah, doesn't wait for national and political consensus but it carries weapons and marchs to implement the goals of liberation with arms and blood." This powerful statement is very clear: Hezbollah will not accept in any form or shape surrendering its weapons to any Lebanese Government until it becomes the Government; no democratic majority, no national consensus will remove Hezbollah weapons.



14. No to US intervention, yes to Iran's

: "أوافق على إجراء تعديلات دستورية تمنع أي أحد من أن يتدخل في شأن لبنان، والحري بهم أن يتحدثوا عن التدخل الاميركي والغربي في لبنان، أما أصدقاؤنا فالعالم كله يعرف أنهم لا يملون علينا قراراً،

Going on the defensive, Nasrallah denied that his allies Iran and Syria are "imposing any decisions" on the organization. Then leaping on the offensive, he criticized his critics for not addressing the American and Western interference in the country. Such an assertion shows that Hezbollah wasn't comfortable being attacked as stooge of the Mullahs. The Party felt a growing discontent by a majority of Lebanese because of the collaboration with Tehran and Damascus regimes. Under the previous Syrian occupation of Lebanon 1976-2005 this "privileged" relationship with the axis was part of the de facto situation in the country. But Hezbollah abhorred the accusation, which since the departure of the "brotherly forces" was leveled against his leadership. In other words Nasrallah is attempting to bring the country back to a status quo ante. In his book, collaboration with the Syrian-Iranian axis is part of a needed strategy. But the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and their initiators, Washington and Paris, are to be considered as foes and unacceptable.



15. After Hezbollah, Gaza

"بعد حرب تموز استراتيجية الدفاع لدى المقاومة نشاهدها في قطاع غزة،

After he asserted the victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon against both his adversaries and Iran's opponents, Nasrallah underlined that his "strategy" in Lebanon has also been working in Gaza. In addition to fighting with Israel, it is in fact the crumbling of sitting authorities that constitutes the "defense strategy" of Iran's allies. As in Gaza will be in Lebanon, meaning a coup, and as in Lebanon will be in Gaza, meaning future wars. More than ever the long range apparatus of Iran's regime on the Eastern Mediterranean seems to be centered on Hezbollah and Hamas, and the basis for Tehran's forthcoming expansion is the rest of Lebanon and the West Bank.



16. Hezbollah's Iraq strategy

والى العراقيين توجه سماحته قائلاً : "باسم أحرار العالمين العربي والاسلامي أناشد الشعب العراقي وجميع قياداته أن يتخذوا الموقف التاريخي العراق مدعو لاعتماد استراتيجية التحرير وهي السبيل الوحيد لاعادة العراق الجريح الى شعبه وأمته". نحن في حزب الله من الطبيعي أن ننحاز إلى تيار المقاومة في العراق ".

After Palestine, Nasrallah moved to Iraq to reveal clearly that Hezbollah is part of the insurgency against the Iraqi Government and the Coalition forces. In an unprecedented manner, the man who dealt a blow to the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon declared his unmitigated support to Jihadi Terror in Mesopotamia. "In the name of the Arab and Muslim world I am calling on the Iraqi people to support the resistance and adopt the "strategy of liberation." He added, "We in Hezbollah naturally side with the Resistance in Iraq." In other words Nasrallah is backing the terror insurgency in Iraq, both against the Iraqi Government and the US-led Coalition. This by itself is as clear as one would investigate the real regional role of Hezbollah: Seizing power in Lebanon, crumbling the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis and fueling terror against the political process in Iraq. If you couple this statement with intelligence reports accusing Hezbollah of training insurgents in Iraq, Nasrallah's Iraq strategy cannot be clearer: strike in Iraq in the same way you strike in Lebanon and Gaza, and bring down the Iraqi Government in the same manner the (first) Seniora Government and the Mahmoud Abbas Authority were brought down in Beirut and Gaza.



17. Bush and the "axis"

ولذلك نجد أن فرعون الزمان الراحل إن شاء الله بوش صب جام غضبه على حركات المقاومة في لبنان وفلسطين والعراق وعلى الدول المساندة والداعمة للمقاومة

One day after pro-Syrian speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri blasted the United States and predicted that its dream of spreading Democracy from Lebanon is now shattered, Nasrallah escalated the attack. "The Contemporary Pharaoh George Bush, who is departing by God’s will, poured his anger against the 'resistance movements' in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq, and against the countries (regimes) that support and supply the 'resistance.' In this, Hezbollah shows that it is indeed part of a regional axis aimed at defeating the United States efforts against terrorism, and more importantly, American support for democracy. Tehran's (and Damascus' as well) most urgent goals are to break the US-led efforts to support democracy forces in the region. Hezbollah was tasked to do its part mainly in Lebanon, but also in the region.



18. Terror is our choice

وقد اكد السيد نصرالله ان التجارب أثبتت أننا كعرب وأمة ومسلمين مخرجنا الوحيد هو المقاومة نهجها ثقافتها ارادتها وفعلها.

"We as Arabs, Umma and Muslims," said Nasrallah, we have one choice, that is resistance (terrorism), its methodology, its culture, its will, and its action." With this conclusion, now the international community, democracies, the Arab and Muslim world, and most Lebanese realize who they are up against and what they are facing in Lebanon: a powerful, determined, and highly-armed force which has seized the control of the country's destiny and which has the full support of the neighboring Syrian regime and the oil power, Iran, who seeking to rapidly become a nuclear one.



Far from the erroneous reporting by prominent international media calling this speech "a step towards coexistence," what we hear, see, and read is nothing less than a full fledge declaration of terror, mollified to Western ears by a powerful and sophisticated propaganda machine.



Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

[chafic]

Interesting article joseph_lubnan. Despite some points where he exaggerates in his descriptions, Fares made many valid points in his article.