Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Discussion about POV

"kidnap" versus "capture"

while israel considers this a "kidnapping", the neutral term is "capture", "hold captive", etc, because the latter are neutral as to the legality of the action, whereas kidnapping is not. since the legality of hezbollah's raid and whether the action constitue an act of war is under doubt, we shld use "capture", unless reporting israels' view or such. Doldrums 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as this goes, coming into another country unprovoked and taking reserve troops who were doing ordinary border patrol "captive", is strict "kidnapping". This has nothing to do with neutrality. Dave, Israel, 17:16, 14 July 2006.

In your opinion the attack was unprovoked. You should not confuse your opinion fact. Neither should you trash the article, then call me a vandal for protecting the consensus. Damburger 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By The way, if CNN is good enough to use the word "kidnap" in relation to this "incident", then I think this should be the word used here as well. And again, the provoked/unprovoked question is not a matter of opinion. Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon over 5 years ago and since then has done not a single military action in Lebanon. Hizbullah, in the meantime, has kept up its aggression in violation of international law and UN resolutions, including the Unprovoked attack on Israel and the Kidnapping of the soldiers. Would you also erase the words "terror" and "terrorist" in relation to the attacks in New York on 9/11 because in Al-Qaeda view it is a military operation???

Definition of Kidnap: To seize and detain a person unlawfully; sometimes for ransom. As you can see, this is exactly what was done here. The soldiers were seized and detained unlawfully, an d are held for ransom of thousands of terrorists held in Israeli prisons. Don't try protecting your views under the so-called "consensus" or "neutrality". What was done is pure kidnapping. And so, I'm editing it back to kidnap, and will continue doing so. Dave, Israel, 17:52, 14 July 2006.

If you continue to change the article against the consensus, you can be blocked under the three revert rule. I suggest you stop vandalising this article in favour of your political agenda. Damburger 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" seems to be your and the general ignorant majority's opinion. "vandalising" this article is nothing compared to the vandalism you're doing to the actual truth. And my political agenda is called "peace & truth" in contrast to your "anti-semitism & lies". I feel sorry for you.

While I acknowledge that the dictionary definition of "kidnap" is a general description of the incident, the problem is that "kidnap" is the word used in statutes (admittedly, I've only seen U.S. state instances) that set the legal penalties for such a "capture". It may be an accurate description of the incident in many people's opinions, but it has too many non-neutral connotations. I like "capture". UltraNurd 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like kidnap. To capture someone is something you do in war. They just popped into their borders, shot up a patrol, and KIDNAPPED two people. THEN the conflict started. Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Israel repeatidly called this "an act of war". No citation right now but that shouldn't be hard to find. 83.161.4.134 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kidnap implies to me that it was the primary objective. Perhaps the objective was to attack the patrol, the capture of the Israeli soldiers was incidental to the attack, not the goal. The fact remains that the use of "kidnap" does not convey any more information than "capture" other than to portray a non-neutral point of view. "Kidnap" implies an ambush of an unarmed civilian, not an attack on an armored military patrol (If there is absolutely no expectation of an attack, there is no need for a military patrol!) Also, this conflict has been ongoing for decades at varying levels, and thus cannot be considered to be completely unprovoked. Using "kidnap" would be equivalent to saying that the Israeli soldiers "murdered" Lebanese civilians rather than "killed" them later in the article. Senatorpjt 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Captured" should be used. It's just as accurate as "kidnapped", and it's neutral (which "kidnapped" definitely isn't), so why not? Badger Legion 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Capture" is not neutral - it denotes a collateral situation which did not exist at the time (e.g. - he captured my rook; in return I captured his bishop). And the argument that a border patrol expects attack suggests open season on any country running border patrols, which is just about every country in the world, except (famously) Lebanon itself. And it goes without saying that attacking humvees with anti-tank rockets is like nuking a fly - the epitome of overkill and cowardice. Kidnapping denotes a cowardly action - capture the opposite.--Craven Maven 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of "to capture" which applies here is: "To seize or take possession of by force, surprise, or stratagem; to overcome and hold; to secure by effort".

Another thing I found is from Legal dictionary. It's about ships, but it makes clear that a capture does not have to be legal to be a capture: "Capture is deemed lawful, when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned and according to the laws of war; and unlawful, when it is against the rules established by the law of nations."

That should hopefully clear up any concerns. Zocky | picture popups 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say that it sounds weird to me that a soldier on a mission could be "kidnapped". As Senatorpjt, to me "kidnap" has the connotation of the victim being helpless. Is there any examples of usage of the word "kidnapping" regarding soldiers, in for example a book of history? --213.65.178.172 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as just about all media outlets call it a kidnapping, shouldn't we call it a kidnapping? dposse 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not media outlets. We are an encyclopedia. Thats is a difference many people seem to miss. Media outlets do not adhere to strict, peer-reviewed, discussed NPOV rules like wikipedia. You don't like this about wikipedia, then go somewhere else. NPOV is one of the very few non-negotiable rules in Wikipedia.

As to the present discussion, ill try to to be clear:

"Capture" is NPOV, as it leaves the question of legality or illegality (which is POV unless a court of law evaluates this) open. Whereas "kidnapping" implies illegality.

I dont think in this disucussion views on the captured soldiers being soldiers etc are relevant. The question is one of legality of the action vs illegality of the action, and we must be neutral in this. "Capture" describes a fact without qualification, whereas "Kidnapping" qualifies the fact. NPOV would seem to support "capture" over "kidnapping" for these reasons.

--Cerejota 23:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think that anybody could honestly argue that "capture" in this context isn't a classic weasel word. --Craven Maven 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a wesel word because it looking to modify language to meet NPOV, not trying to sneak in a POV via use of neutral sounding words.--Cerejota 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Israel consider this an act of war, therefore it can't be an illegal kidnapping but a legal (under rules of war) capture of 2 enemy soldiers.Hypnosadist 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is beyond this discussion. I am looking for a NPOV description.--Cerejota 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Capture vs Abduct

I suggest using word "abducted". It does not imply helplessness or child’s qualities of a victim as “kidnapping” and has no military accent as "capture". I would like to point out that the target was any Israeli citizen and not a specific person, who was intended to be arrested. Michagal

Abducted seems to be a good compromise. I'll begin making changes soon if no one objects. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abducted is cool by me!Hypnosadist 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abducted is more weasel words. The only NPOV term is captured, as it describes the action without any judgement. Abduction has moral weight.

--Cerejota 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So far the consensus is abducted as an NPOV description. Please weigh in...

Captured or abducted. Both seem sufficiently neutral to me. Perhaps both could be used? (more rich vocabulary) Sijo Ripa 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Captured" seems to be the neutral way to describe it, as it can be both legal and illegal, right and wrong, good and bad. It does have military connotations, but it was a military attack that met with a military response, so that shouldn't be a real problem. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

abducted is more NPOV as captured implies that this was done during an ongoing active conflict, that it was done on disputed land or land under conflice (this was done during a cross-border incursion into another state), that it was done to forces active in a conflict (the soldiers abducted were on patrol in their own territory and not in active combat) and that it was done by a government's army (and Hisbullah is not a government but a private organization). This is either abduction or kidnapping but it was not anywhere near as neutral as capture.

---

Wow, and unsigned comment ignoring a whole lot of discussion. And POV to boot. I guess some dont get it.

First, NPOV requires we be neutral. The views expressing that Hezbollah is not a legitimate combatant engaged in legitimate combat are POV.

"Capture" does no such thing, because "capture" is not qualified in dictionaries.

In other words "capture" means "to take by force". Period. No reasons, no context, just dry fact.

"Kidnapping" and "Abduction", on the other hand, do imply illegality and give extra context, and support the POV that Hezbollah commited a crime. THis might be the case, I might even say that evidence seems to support this IS the case, but it is POV until a court of international law judges it. Since it is near impossible for this to happen in the near term, we must, in honor of NPOV, choose a word that doesnt imply that a crime was commited.

Is that so hard to understand, in good faith?

If it is, then I suggest we use "Taken by force". It is an NPOV description of the fact with no context. "Hezbollah took by force two Israeli soldiers", "taking by force two Israeli soldiers" etc.

"Abduction" is in essence a complete synonym of "kidnapping" and I thought we had agreed, in good faith, that "kidnapping" was POV. That leaves us with "capture" or "taken by force". I would be happy to hear other suggestions that describe the incidents, but retain NPOV.

--Cerejota 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we able to source our feelings that "captured" has military connotations? No dictionary I've consulted seems to discuss it in this way. If I recall all of the discussion so far, most of the objection to "capture" was made by users who insisted on "kidnap." That said I like the above user's idea of variety: take/taken, sieze/seized, abduct/abducted, capture/captured. Of these, abduct carries the most moral weight and leads the user to negative judgement (IMO). Failing the wiki community's developing Stockholm-syndrome-by-proxy, "abductors" will always be "bad guys," but captors/capturers could be either "good" or "bad" depending on the reader and the nabbers and nabbies. If we use language that casts one side of a conflict as "bad guys," we have obviously failed at NPOV. "Abduct" is a marked improvement over "kidnap," but I think if falls short of NPOV.--Smallwhitelight 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe "capture" would be the most suitable word. Although there was no open conflict when the event took place, it was a military action. Besides, "abduct" - in my opinion - may relate to capturing someone without harming anyone, while in this event, two vehicles were attacked and 8 soldiers were killed (during the action and during the attempts to stop the Hezbollah soldiers from retreating to Lebanon). By the way, for the record - I am Israeli, but I stick to the NPOV policy. Tamuz 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Noam Chomsky refers to the soldiers as being abducted, whereas U.S. President Bush refers to them as being captured. Does this make it any clearer?--Craven Maven 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... No. Only more confusing. But anyway, I think the word "abducted" is also fine, as long as it is made clear the amount of soldiers who died during that action. Tamuz ^(Talk) 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, you're going just a little bit too far in trying to use NPOV to back up your points. It's more like you're using m:MPOV, actually .. Cyde↔Weys 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli war crimes?

Having that link there is pretty POV, no? Let history decide whether any war crimes were committed here. --Pifactorial 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, its POV. Rangeley 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

last time I cheked, killing children is labeled as war crime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK so is there a Hezbollah War Crimes article to balance the POV? Even if there was, the casualties section wouldn't be the appropriate place for a see also. This is a pretty clear case of petulant POV pushing. Brentt 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The intentional or avoidable (but not avoided) killing of civilians is a war crime. Virtually every modern war has had civilian casualities. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has a history of war crimes in Lebanon. In 1981-82 they dropped cluster bombs and thermobaryc (fuel-air vacuum) bombs on lebanese civilians, causing hundreds of badly maimed and burnt people. These bombs were made in America and USA sold them to Israel on the condition these very powerful weapons cannot be used unless TWO arab states invade israel concurrently. Instead Israel invaded lebanon and dropped the bombs. There was outrage in the congress, but Teller, himself a jew, intervened with Reagan and the incident was glossed over in the west. In the communist bloc the event was widely publicized, although at that time USSR no longer had any interest in materially helping arab and muslim people, opting to invade Afghanistan instead. 195.70.32.136 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is calling them war crimes, but both sides : [1]--Paraphelion 09:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In 1982, in similar circumstances to this Israel invaded the Lebanon. In the year leading up to the invasion 9 Israeli civilans had been killed in rocket attacks. In the ensuing invasion Israeli fire killed between 20,000 and 25,000 civilians. I think it is a great idea to have a Hezbollah war crimes page; but it will not be "balanced" because the drimes of Hezbollah against civilans is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Israeli army is up to. ariddles

Israel has a fifty year history of human rights violations and has had numerous UN Resolutions drafted against her for these violations. Both sides behave badly and the truth should be told.

• If a particular organization is calling them war crimes, list it in international reactions as with Amnesty International. We do not call them war crimes until they are proven in a court, in the same way an article would not read "_____ is an American murderer" until he/she is found guilty of murder in a court.

Jrltex 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC). We call them war crimes because on the preponderance of evidence justifies calling them so. Would you not call the 'rape of Nanking' (circa WWII) a war crime? I believe most rational people would, even though the people who committed the crimes were not found guilty until after the war. The same principle exists for calling Hezbollah American murderers. In the 80's they announced themselves to the world as the people who hijacked a civilian airliner, resulting in a murdered American marine. Now, I agree that acts of barbarians are not by definition 'war crimes'. However, in this context and taking into consideration that conflict has been going on in the region since 1948, the conflict could be classified as a long, protracted war.

Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Staxringold; the term "war crimes" has a fairly specific official usage, regardless of how it's thrown around by media outlets and partisans on any side of a conflict. The best way to avoid POV issues is to stick to this official usage, and so far it's too early to label such actions this way. Mentioning it as a reaction from organizations like AI, however, is certainly warranted. -- H·G (^words/_works) 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Staxringold's definition of "war crimes" there is no way the Israeli strikes can be classified as such. I mean, Israel has warned the civilian population of every planned attack, using both the media and fliers, even at the cost of losing the advantage of surprise. So we can definitely see that any attack on civilians was not intentional. I also don't think it could be considered avoidable, again because warning the civilians was the best Israel could have done. Hezbollah's missiles, however can be definitely considered 'war crimes' because (except for the attack on the INS Hanit) all of them were targeted at civilian population, ususally where there are few or no armed forces so the attack on civilians is intentional. 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Except of course a war crime is the targetting of civilans, which Israel has done. Also, warning civilians is not considered a good enough defence in international law: if the civilians do not or cannot flee that doens't mean you can then attack that place - as the attacking army you in fact have to desist from attacking that place. Another aspect is proportionality: you cannot as a country use oover kill - for example destroying a power station in another part of the country is not considered a proportionate attack under international law. Andrew Riddles 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah does not follow the Geneva convention, they are not a nation, Israel however is a nation and as such must follow international law, which it never has done. (owned) Erpals 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist or militant

Should Hezbollah fighters be catergorized as militants or terrorist? I belive that terrorist is too biast for this article as they were in operation against israli military unit's. Both sides have attacked civilian infastructure and killed civilian's so if one is a terrorist than they both are. Enlil Ninlil 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but you need to remember the main difference between Hezbollah and the IDF. The Hezbollah has been categorized as a terrorist organization (atleast by the US) - therefore its people are terrorists; and IDF is a national army.Máfiàg 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know but that definition is an American point of view, I know the IDF is the sole defence force in Israel and Hezbollah has no such backing in Lebanon. I just dont want to be biased either way. If they blow up a buss then there a terrorist. Enlil Ninlil 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's security wing is classified as a terrorist organization by the EU as well. I am assuming that it was the security wing who did these operations, as they do all operations, therefore according to the US and the EU (everyone that matters) these are terrorists. 167.24.104.150 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, neither the US or the EU can legislate as to how an encyclopedia refers to an organization. The question is whether Hezbollah meets the commomly accepted definition of "terrorist". I doubt whether there is consensus on this question, therefore the term should be avoided. --Danward 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So 88,3% of the worlds population doesn't matter? PerDaniel 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, calling Hezbollah "terrorist" is very biased. To preserve NPOV, use simply "Hezbollah" or "the Hezbollah group", and "militants" instead of "terrorists". CG 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, you can argue all day about the definition of terrorism - the use of 'Hezbollah' is more appropriate ahpook 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing "Lebanese terrorists" into the article. First of all, the majority of lebanese casualties were civilians who had nothing to do with any of this, and second, the Lebanese military does not support Hezbollah (well.. at least not officially) Jadelith 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One groups terrorist is another groups freedom fighters. Calling them a Militant force seems apropriat for an encyclopædia.Cameron Nedland 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I dislike "militant" as vague and actually an euphemism for "terrorist". It is probably a weasel word to argue being "neutral" while retaining bias.

From a true NPOV point of view, Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamicist group with an armed wing and a civilian wing.

When describing attacks or military operations, NPOV calls for us to describe it as performed by "Hezbollah's armed wing" or some such.

Terrorist, militant, guerillas, freedom fighters, etc are all biased descriptions, because they are biased terms.

See the page for Hezbollah itself to look at an example of a NPOV description. Since there is already an seemingly accepted tone and description to use when refering to Hizbollah (after much discussion!) I see no reason why this page cannot adopt, in true encyclopedian style, the same wording used in the Hezbollah page.

NPOV is NOT about using a softer word to describe something, but to be as close as possible to a valid, objective observation. --Cerejota 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Agreed. If NPOV is the goal, then a term like "Hezbollah Irregulars" should be used. "terrorist" and "militant" are both dysphemisms. Mmason 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, irregulars. I can go with that. Thats cool with me. They arent standard soldiers, but they arent pacifists.Cameron Nedland 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

THey should be called millitants. Wikipedia does its best to avoid American POV. Terrorists is an overloaded non-specific term. 74.137.230.39 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One clarification. I'm not opposed to a different term. I was just commenting on the two options given in the section title. 74.137.230.39 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we go with the official Genevia Convention term, Illegal Combatants?--Nmourfield 05:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who your source for this is, but this is not so. Under the Third Geneva Convention on Prisioners of War, there is no mention of the term illegal combatants. This term is a legal invention of the USA's current administration, under a highly creative and controversial reading of the IIIGC. Yet, even if we were to accept the USA's reading of Geneva, Hezbollah is not considered by the UNSC (with the implicit legal recognition on the part of the USA) as an illegal organization. In fact, under rules of war they are considered a militia, in the sense that is a uniformed, private, non-state sanctioned military force, engaged in lawful war, and respecting the law of land warfare. The USA's current administration plays the middle ground by trying to define Hezbollah as a "terorrist" organization, while at the same time acknowleding in the ground that it is a legitimate combatant.

Now, you might disagree with the UN's view, but you cant use a document of which the UN is the depositor as justification for a term, and ignore that body's ruling on this specific matter. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Still, the UN's opinion of Hezbollah is POV.

--Cerejota 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not call it a militia? As that is what it was formed as (A citizens army to defend lebanon, or so the claim goes) and its fairly neutral? --Narson 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Hezbollah is officially considered a militia arm under the UN reference cited somewhere in this page. Therefore, they can be considered militants. It can also be used to justify civilian targets as militant targets. Very confusing. --Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

• To echo points made above, sticking to the UN's point of view could still be considered POV. Still, I'm not opposed to the use; WP defines the term as "any individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, normally for a cause." But the "terrorist" connotation is noted there as well, and to that extent, "irregular" might be safer. -- H·G (^words/_works) 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should refer to Hezbollah as I mentioned before, as two separate wings, and to the military actions of its armed wing as coming from "Hezbollah's militia" or from "Hezbollah's Military wing". The insistence in finding what amounts to a codeword for terrorist probably constitutes the single most egrerious example of weasel words in this discussion. This article will not be NPOV until Hezbollah is refered to in the same neutral tones as the IDF is.

Again "militant" is *not* neutral as it is used as a weasel word to appear neutral but actually in context, wink wink, make them the lesser actor. NPOV requires we treat all conflict actors equally.

--Cerejota 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying we should call the IDF "terrorists", or Hizbollah "soldiers?" Senatorpjt 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wa snot talking of the IDF, which are NPOV described as "soldiers" because they are members of a State controlled armed force. My concern is with describing Hizbollah combatants in the same NPOV light.--Cerejota 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hizbollah Militia or Hizbollah Militants is fitting. To call them soldiers would be slightly misrepresenting the relationship between Hizbollah and the Lebanese government (And if Lebanon does get involved we need to have that clear distinction). I am sure many people think nasty things when they see the word 'Arab', the same as when they see the word 'militant'. Are you saying that we shouldn't describe the Lebanese as Arab because some people consider that a negative thing? POV is tricky like that, if you then begin to assume what others will think. You have to simply be NPOV, use the correct wording and not worry what people who have a strong POV will think when they read it. Odds are the people you are worried about linking militant with terrorist have already got the word in their head when they read 'Hizbollah' and before they get to the militant bit, eh? --Narson 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of the word Terrorist (as quoted from dictionary.com) is this: "ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism" The definition of terrorism: "ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

From these definitions Hizbollah fighters can be described as terrorists and still be NPOV.Ahkman1999 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By these same standards Israelis are greater terrorists as they cause more terror among civilians (MPOV). The word 'Terrorist' is loaded, and should not be used. Call them members of ..... / fighters / resistance (that is after all what they call themselves, so why hide this crucial piece of information?).

Professional News Services use the word militant. Fox News, CNN, Routers all agree on using the word militant. This is a dumb argument because the consensus in US media seems to agree on using the term militant. To argue for terrorist is to place yourself in the class of people who want to call suicide-bombers homocide-bombers and pro-choice pro-abortion.--71.194.243.7 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"apparent contravention" of 1559

needs citation. the present cite simply links to the text of the resolution. who says lebanon is in "apparent contravention"? Doldrums 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are still armed militias acting in the area. Otherwise, who kidnapped the soldiers? I doubt you would say it was the lebanese army, since they aren't there. The military wing of Hezbollah is an armed militia. --darkskyz 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

the resolution "calls for" disarming militias. does "call for" impose a binding obligation? if this is "non-binding" language, then its not contravention.

the easiest thing to do is find a source which claims someone is in contravention, and add that claim to the article.

secondly, the resolution does not call upon the Lebanene government to disarm militias, it simply calls for the disarmament of militias. so i'll fix that statement accordingly. Doldrums 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you want, but i apreciate your attempt, prolli it's real hard to write a npov article on this subject, at least for me i found it pro-israel biased and expect it to stay so. What is actually happening (crippling neighbouring 21st century economy's structurally , purposedly, and possibly with bad intends.(like using them as markets , guest labourers, and denying them the development to stop them from understanding their rights to stand up against all this.)) isnt even mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

More egrerious POV

I am begining to think some editors here have no good faith.

This is an example of blatant POV:

"Hezbollah's political rhetoric has historically revolved around calls for the destruction of the state of Israel."

First of all, "rhetoric" is not a NPOV term. "Discourse", or "position" or some such is.

Second, the source provided is itself POV, as it states as fact something without providing any sources or quoting directly from documents or interviews.

Hezbollah's page here has pretty well documented sources as to what Hezbollah's stands for, and furthermore, by not mentioning what Israel stands for, we violate NPOV principles of balance.

Beyond this example, as a general principle it is not NPOV to state as fact something that is someone's POV even if this source is the BBC. --Cerejota 18:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you find a problem in the article just fix it. --JWSchmidt 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And we need air to breathe. I have done dozens of edits to this page. Most of them I have explained here, which people are not doing.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, please assume good faith. Everyone is coming into this with their own point-of-view. Writing a truly neutral article is very, very, very hard. Especially when dealing with such a controversial and emotional topic. Sure, there are people coming in with a malicious intent to slant the article one way or another, but most are really trying to present facts as they understand them. It's up to all of us to keep an eye out for bias and correct it when we see it. When you see something that you consider biased, change it. Make it better. Now I'll hop off my high horse.... --Elliskev 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and continue to assume good faith. It just that so much editing happens with out it being explained in the talk page, most of it on contravention to what we are talking about one gets frustated.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you had read the article on rhetoric which you linked, you would see that it is defined as persuasive discourse. As someone whose minor concentration in doctoral studies was Rhetoric, I can confidently assert its neutrality. As artists of persuasive speech, Aristotle and others can be non-pejoratively defined as rhetors. I can't attest to Hezbollah's skills in this regard, however. Fishhead64 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As we write not for experts but the general public, we must be aware of common usage too. "Rhetoric" is used in contemporary political speech This is the same as with "militant", which in classic, formal language has no negative connotations, but in the media and popular mind is codeword for terrorist. We cannot be disingenious.

(As to you appeal to authority, you studies of Rhetoric might tell you that this is a fallacy.)

Lastly, the page in wiki to which I link unequivocally states:

"Both the terms "rhetoric" and "sophistry" are also used today in a pejorative or dismissive sense, when someone wants to distinguish between "empty" words and action, or between true or accurate information and misinformation, propaganda, or "spin," or to denigrate specific forms of verbal reasoning as spurious."

Perhaps in you haste you missed it. Its this contemporary and widespread usage I refer to.

--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was not in haste - I did note that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning. As to my appeal to authority, insofar as the dictionary is an authority, I plead guilty. The fact is that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning in common usage, and I'm sure the average reader is able to figure it out. Public political discourse is almost entirely rhetorical in the classical sense of the word, so it seems fairly accurate. The point of comment was mainly to assert that we can sometimes be a little too apt to see POV gremlins behind every bush. Fishhead64 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the gremlins, yet one cannot be with out context here. This is a very controversial topic, it is about a war in which people are killing and dying, and in which most of the editors are firmly in either side of the conflict. If this article were less controversial I would let my guard down. It isn't, so it is up.

And please, don't be disingeneous. While we must assume good fait, we don't see, for example, Israel described as having an "anti-Hezbollah political rhetoric". If we are to use "rhetoric" in the classical sense, we must, in order to respect NPOV use it accross the board. You argument is both teleological and tautological in this sense.

Nevertheless, we cannot assume that readers of the entry will have the understanding of the word "rhetoric" that is positive, but rather the contrary. In particular considering the obvious at Hezbollah bias of the major western press outlets (a good example being the BBC's "What is Hezbollah?" article which basically says things as if they were true without sources or interviews, and which is the source of the formulation we are disucssing) there is an obvious enviroment in which any reasonable, logical person, attempting to understand things from a NPOV perspective might see "rhetoric" as used to refer to Hezbollah as being a negative usage. Might even reasonably assume that this was the editor's intention when quoting the BBC by citation instead of directly. Its context, stupid.

--Cerejota 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It would indeed be disingenuous were I arguing that the term be applied to one side and not the other — I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how what I have said can be construed as making such a claim. "Teleological"? "Tautological"? I fail to see in what way our difference of opinion over how the word might be read by the average reader can be interpreted as encompassing either of those concepts. I agree, it is the context, stupid, and the context of rhetoric in publicly advancing competing claims is one of persuasion, regardless of opaque allusions to this or that broadcaster. Beaten this dead horse enough? Fishhead64 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli response/NPOVing "who started first

Does anyone have a good (NPOV) formulation describing Israel's actions after the Hezbollah raid? I thought counter-raid just doesn't fit the actions, as it wasn't a raid, but rather many airstrikes and artilery bombardment. I'm putting in counter-attack for now, though I'm concerned it may also be both vague and POV. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Response? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli responded by [...], with the express intention of ["..." (direct quote from Israeli foreign minister or similarly high-ranking official)] Hezbollah." Something like that. --zenohockey 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The immediate cause of the events here are the Hezbollah raid. How you would like to phrase the Israeli actions after that is debateable; however the order of events must be preserved in the titles. "Counter-strikes" or some such phrase is legitimate. I only object to "counter-raid" because the Israeli actions were many things but a raid. Anything that describes the missle strikes and artillery while making clear the order is NPOV. If the order is unclear, then that ceases to maintain clarity (or neutrality). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Any conflict is about gradually escalating responses and counter-responses. If wikipedia is going to arbitrarily claim that one particular response to previous events is an "unprovoked" action or a "disproportionate" response, then we would be doing original research unless it's referenced and unless we try to find references for the claims regarding both sides.

To claim that Hezbollah "started this", but that Israel did not, is OR - original research.

Whether or not either Hezbollah was morally/legally/whatever justified in responding to continued Israeli detention of Palestinian prisoners, and whether or not Israel was morally/legally/whatever justified in responding to the Hezbollah attack, is something that can be added in as opinions from various commentators, appropriately referenced.

But let's not claim that one group "started it" and the other "responded" unless we document the fact that both sides are responding as part of a continuing ongoing conflict.

Here's just one reference for what Hezbollah was responding to - i think that if people search around a bit, you'll find other POVs as well: http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19978&Itemid=1

Boud 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Boud 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You could make that argument for any conflict, but wikipedia describes the events. Later in the article we discuss the Hezbollah motivations. To call it a "response" is not factual, and just mixes things up. We don't call the WTC 9/11 attack a response, and we don't call Pearl Harbour a response, but the understanding of the other side's motivation is discussed later. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Strategic Studies discipline the two concepts are separated as "immediate causes" (here: the capturing of the two soldiers) and "underlying causes" or "root causes" (the vicious cycle of violence/poverty/humiliation/etc. between the parties) Sijo Ripa 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The immediate cause is military actions in gaza, hezbollah (i would concern that less limited palestine individuals in lebanon in this case, took action. as a result of taht the ready and alert, (and paranoia) israeli warmachine set out to do to the lebanese what it did to the palestineans, restrict their development. I see no reason to condemn palestine resistance as worse then israeli terror. especially ot when it comes to causes of this affair. (i forget that ...: onix) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

It's not about condemning. What we see however is that the violence escalated after the Hezbollah actions. In other words: a conflict is triggered by an immediate cause and I doubt that you can deny that that trigger wasn't the capture of the two soldiers. Ask yourself: would Israel have taken the same actions on the same day without the capturing? Possibly they would have taken the same actions on a different moment, which "however" would mean that there was a different immediate cause (which can be almost anything, internal or external). Sijo Ripa 02:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously arbitrary, you say so yourself: "What we see however is that the violence escalated after the Hezbollah actions. " Now substitute hezbollah actions for : israeli actions in gaza.. see what happened? the israeli actions in gaza escalated violence. No reason to blame hezbollah for the israeli military doctrine and paranoia. I on a more serious note think the rocket attacks are the major reason for israeli overeaction. somehow strange since they perceive terrorising palestineans with jets and guided missiles as not that intimidating, or a cause for distraught.(onix)80.57.243.72 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you can just claim that the palestinians started this one by capturing the soldier in the Gaza Strip, which led to the israeli actions, and so on and so forth. This particular conflict arises immediately, on a very small time scale, from the capture of the two soldiers in Israel-Lebanon border. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the name of the article

Operation Just Promise

Was the name of Hezbollah's military operation not of Israel's. Robin Hood 1212 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it's Fulfilled Promise - the promise to help release Palestenian prisoners by abducting Israeli soldiers. But I don't feel like hunting for sources now.--Lior 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SOuces say True Promise, althought this could be a problem with translation...--Cerejota 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Change name to 'Operation Change of Direction' ?

I can't find any reference for that. (added by Nachmore) edit. Delete? --TheYmode 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Wikipedia calls it שינוי כיוון - Change of Direction. But it doesn't have a citation there. Máfiàg 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia* Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

{{he:שיחה:מבצע שינוי כיוון}}

--Flowers8 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename article

The war is between Israel and Hezbollah, not Lebanon. Lebanese government is not militarily involved. Suggest rename of article to "2006 Israel-Hezbollah crisis"??? Kyleberk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While this is how the crisis started, and while the government of Lebanon has called for a cease fire, Israel has made Lebanon a combatant by attacking general lebanese civilian and military Infrastructure. So it is indeed the Israel-Lebanon crisis --Cerejota 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is in Lebanon, whether Lebanon wants it or not. The Iraq war techincally isn't against Iraq, but is still refered to as such. Frinkahedr0n 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC

But the crisis is between Israel and Hezbollah. Might I point out that U.S. has also called for a cease fire. Does that mean that the U.S. is involved?

Secondly, Israel targeting lebanese civilians only makes Lebanon a victime of the Israel-Hezbollah attack.

Crisis vs. Conflict discussion

I know we had this discussion already but as the "crisis" enters its first week soon, I think we should reconsider the article name. This is no longer a crisis, but not really a war on the classic sense.

So perhaps "conflict"?

Also it is becoming clear that this is not a conflict with just two sides, but three, and the title should reflect this.

So I think we should rename the article "2006 Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon Conflict" or something similar.

--Cerejota 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this call for a name change. I agree that is a conflict, not a crisis. While it is of course a hugely caotic, just calling it a crisis doesn't imply violence. I feel conflict is more accurate in that it allows for the violence that is occuring. It was the "Cuban Missle Crisis" but if Cuba had lauched a missle in to an American city, I don't think that is how we would refer to it today.Criptofcorbin 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crisis can mean violence, even war. See for instance Suez crisis Sijo Ripa 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well is there a way to put it to a vote?Criptofcorbin 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm perfectly fine with lebanon being involved in the infoboxes et al, Israel-Lebanon Conflict sounds like its Israel and Lebanon fighting it out. Israel-Lebanon Crisis is probably the best fudge for now. Lebanon is involved and is the 'host nation' for this years International Middle East Toys-Out-Of-Pram Fest but is certainly not in any real 'active' conflict (that is, to imply they are fighting back). Having said that...perfectly open minded about other possible ways of presenting the name if anyone has any? --Narson 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "crisis," or more accurately, war, is between Israel and Hezbollah--Lebanon happens to be the staging area for attacks by Hezbollah. Lebanon doesn't have the wherewithall to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is like a tumor to the Lebanese. Since Iran and Syria are pulling the strings here, perhaps we should consider adding them to the infoboxes. Proposed article rename: "2006 Israel-Hezbollah War." Kyleberk 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. Kyleberk 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". Wars/conflicts are generally named by the countries involved, not the parties involved. It's the U.S.-Iraq War, not the Republican-Insurgent War, for instance. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah holds two dozen seats in Lebanon's government and all of the fighting is taking place between forces in Israel and forces in Lebanon. If you want to distinguish that it's Hezbollah in particular and not just Lebanon, you might as well distinguish it as the ruling party in Israel rather than just Israel, as I'm sure not all Israelis are for this. --Cyde↔Weys 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Lebanese government has been begging for a cease fire since the beginning. They want nothing to do with this. Israel is a sovern nation using it's military. Hezbollah is a militaristic political party, and terrorist group in the eyes of many. Adding Lebanon's name to the article's title is unfair to a government that is doing everything it can to stop this conflict. As for the example of the insurgency in Iraq. I have heard it most often referred to as "the war in Iraq" or "the war for Iraq" not the "Iraq war." I think that term fell out of use after the mission complete-air craft carrier thing. I still vote "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualified Oppose: If it does not fit some proper definition of "[war]," then I vote for conflict; however, we should call it what it is. If one of our [International-Law] pedians can provide us with a reasonable definition of "war" that this incident matches, then we should us that word. We should NOT establish media usage as a criterion for our decision. Media call a great many things by names that are neither accurate nor appropriate.--128.186.13.112 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with naming it the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War -- for crying out loud, that is exactly what it is! Arkracer 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon

I disagree for several reasons: most victims are Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah moreover has buildings and networks in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere - Iran? Jordan?), but Israel does not wage war against these Hezbollahs. Therefore if we prefer "conflict", the conflict should be called "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Israel and Lebanon" or simply "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon" (as most action happens in Lebanon). Sijo Ripa 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon", as you can't simply ignore the part Lebanon has in this, whether they actually want it or not.Frinkahedr0n 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be changed to "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon". Israel is targeting Hezbollah and not Lebanon. If the Lebanesse army does end up getting involved in a capacity that has them fighting against Hezbollah the current title will not make sense. HMTKSteve 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the status of the article

Unknown

EDIT: someone LOCK this article, there are people messing with the casaulty figures and changing civialians killed to say Hezbollah killed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Unknown #2

The Article needs to be edited down to 120 words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Some Troll

Some troll destroyed all the links to the external websites!! - Little Spike 12:00pm EST, July 17th, 2006

Yes, the references were broken because someone used the {{cite news}} template incorrectly. I've fixed the problem though. sikander 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that might have been me; I couldn't get the goddamn reference to render correctly, even though it was formatted exactly like the previous ref. What was the problem? ==ILike2BeAnonymous

PROBLEM RESOLVED: I fixed this problem with broken cite links last night. The change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=64423395&oldid=64423291 there was a missing vertical split and closing REF tag. It was breaking all cites beyond #15 on the list (over 120 at the time). User:RoundSparrow 15:35 18 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by 83.70.199.1

User 83.70.199.1 has expanded his/her vandalism efforts, previously limited to uncited increase of Lebanese civ deaths, now removing paragraphs without any explanation.--Paraphelion 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about these internet trolls. One user even changed the death toll and increased it by 40 and I had to fix it! - Little Spike 1:25pm EST July 17th, 2006

The troll struck again! - Little Spike 1:50pm EST July 17th, 2006

Article is now being heavily vandalized by 83.70.199.1

I'm checking and then submitting IP ban request Hello32020 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect for an hour or so? Frinkahedr0n 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Hello32020 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

When you post pure propaganga on wikipedia you should expect it to get erased.

Possible vandalism

81.58.29.90 and 85.250.210.46 are breaking the info box...--Cerejota 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

Rethinking 'proportionate response'

Seems to me that a proportionate response would be one that is adequate, but not excessive, in achieving Israel's goals, namely, the return of her kidnapped soldiers and an end to Hizb'allah and Hamas rocket attacks. These goals have not yet been achieved, therefore Israel's response is not in any way disproportionate. If Israel were to achieve her goals and THEN nuke Lebanon, THAT might be disproportionate.

The one positive thing I note from the escalation of anti-terrorist activities in by the US and Israeli in the past few years is that is flushing out our enemies and letting the sane among us see what they really think. By "enemies" above, I mean the MSM, Dems, Commies, feminazis, moonbats, and Islam. I just hope we take advantage of the current situation and push this to unconditional surrender . . . no more half measures, appeasement, or funding Palestine for any purpose. An absolute separation from the UN would be nice too. Oh yeah, GO IDF! SoCalJustice 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rise of NON-Nation State "powers"

US Marine General Zini gave a talk to a bunch of Marine Officers including me in 1996 and he made several good points. International Relations remains largely predicated on the idea of Nation States as the only real threat to other nation States. Trouble is that with the demise of the bi-centric East vs. West Cold War Paradigm, new organizations have emerged with the finance, infrastructure, communications, command and control and organization that effectively rival those of traditional nation states. Zini jokingly noted that the USA was probably NOT going to be attacked by the Bahamas or Fiji or Iceland. I think Zini made a good point. Until the 911 attack, the US's foreign policy was oriented toward the nation state. Even Israel "likes" to think of working with/for/against nation states. Why not. Centuries of international relations and history were based on the concept.

What's Changed today and what's the point. Israel is in the same bind with a bunch of its own twists and much MORE complexity than the US faces. There's no such nation state as Hesbollah nor really even Hamas. In Lebanon, the NON-nation state entity, Hezboalla has MORE power than the nation state. Israel is lashing out like a drunken sailor and a lot of it is just plain STUPID, if you ask me. What's Lebanon supposed to do about Hezbollah? Eliminate them? They CAN't and NO amount of Israeli bombing is gonna give them the wherewithal. Only Syria and Iran can reign in Hezbollah. 70.103.164.235 06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, does this comment refer to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article? I'm not convinced that it does. Perhaps you would be interested in looking into International relations as a topic of your own personal enquiry. Remember, this is a page dedicated to developing the encyclopedic value of the article. MLA 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is right

Let's get it straight. Israel is a peacful democracy. They have never attacked without first being attacked. They have never targetted civilians. The Arabic terrorists have only attacked without provocation. They have solely targetted civilians.

Israel is right and I hope they destroy Hezbollah and Hamas 100%. Let all terrorists in Lebanon and the non-country of Palestine be killed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AvgJoe (talk • contribs).

All the killed civilians in Lebanon are terrorists or they helped the terror

Israel and the IDF didn't kill inoccent people, The IDF kill them because of the terror they are helping to by supporting it! They shouln't be considered as innocent civilians, they are part of this war and they are related to the Hezbolla! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

And you know this exactly how? By any chance, are you an Israeli citizen? You certainly sound like one: brainwashed and programmed to say, in response to any criticism, "They're all terrorists! Terrorists!". ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

THE TRUTH !

I'd like to remind you that it doesn't really matter the way such group is written.  However, If you insist on using the right term, then use "HezbAllah". This word is a combination of two words which are "Hezb" and "Allah".  Hezb is translated as the "Force" or "Army" and "Allah" as we must all know means "God" in Arabic. 

Secondly, I'd like to remind people that this is Wikipedia, and not a Soap Opera Series. It's nice to see that people are providing us with their opinions which are needed, however, I'd like to see more facts rather than rumors. In addition, I would also like to emphasize that terrorism has its own meaning, and that many people lack to understand such meaning including our ignorant, uneducated, illogical and unreasonable President; George W. Bush. As explained by the dictionary, Terrorism is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". The only two countries calling "HezbAllah" terrorists are the United States and Israel. And so far we have not seen any act of terrorism by HezbAllah in the United States, or even in Israel. The leader of the "HezbAllah" organization explained fully, and articulated that the reason why they kidnapped two soldiers was not to cause a war, it was to trade these 2 kidnapped men with couple of the prisonners that israel has been holding for years. Unfortunatly, it is not my job to blame the citizens and people around the world, because the information that we are provided with by our Presiednt are full of lies; the truth has been provided and repeated by all the medias around the world except those held in the United States and by Israel. Such actions by "HezbAllah" were military strategies,to which unfortunatly, the media here in the United States, and in Israel lack to provide its citizens the truth that has happened throughout the past years. Israel has stepped many times over Lebanese borders, and killed civilians in their own homes, as well as kidnapped many and imprisonned them in Israel. Logically, this country of Israel should have been punished, however, they had the ability to hide their action and move on with the help of our American Government and our so loved president George W. Bush. It is said, and believed, and proven, that the United States of America is run by the Land of Israel. And again, my job here is not to explain my beliefs, however, to ask people to research, and be informed before speaking out their opinions and grief. I would also like to inform my felow friends, that Israel has attacked Lebanon first. After "HezbAllah" asked and explained that they will return the kidnapped men with an exchange, Israel decided to bomb bridges, the airport, ports, fuel storages in one night ! After such attacks, the leader of "HezbAllah" stood patient and said that if Israel wanted an open war, they were ready for it; and that is, when Israel felt comfortable bombing hospitals, schools, and civilian houses by reporting that such locations were targets of "HezbAllah"'s army. Such, was also another lie by Israel, because they have not found any weapons storages, or killed any members of the "HezbAllah" group in the above locations. The majority of dead in Lebanon hold a population of children and women, and not of the "HezbAllah" organization as our media here in the United States and Israel launched. It is time that someone speaks, and time that the truth be reveiled. In addition, I would also like to make another point. I find it ridicule when Israel, the United States and Tony Blair explain that the missiles launched by "HezbAllah" are made in Iran and in Syria. Where were they expecting these missiles to be from ? Honnolulu ?!? How come, the "HezbAllah" group doesn't complain that the missles and bombs and so on launched at them are made in USA ? That is an explaination of the hypocracy practiced by Israel. Last but not least will be the aim of "HezbAllah". The leader of this organization fears God. "HezbAllah" is not a terrorit organization rather, a faith organization. I am not saying that I support such group, however, I would like to make it clear that : IN THIS WORLD, THERE IS NO PRESIDENT, KING, LEADER, OR ANY OTHER RULER AS SMART, LOGICAL, FEARLESS, HONEST, FAITHFULL, REASONABLE, AND STRONG AS THE LEADER OF "HEZBALLAH". This leader has performed his promises, stood for his followers, walked his path with no fear except that of God, and is leading his people to their rights through incredible tactics and strategies. It is sad to see that our country, the United States of America lack such leadership. The only thing our president speaks is what he has been taught by Israel ministers and government. In addition, he has proven himself to not be fully informed, lack a needed education of the outside world, and unable to articulate. It is also an extra that I must inform you that our president of the United States has never travelled outside the United States before becoming a President. Our government's policies and rules relies on lies, ignorance, and abuse of power. They have brought the country into debts, has only been good bringing up gas prices, and cutting us from our rights of medical abilities, better schooling, and jobs. It is a disgrase to see that the United States use its money for unuseful issues in the outside, while ignoring Americans needs in the inside. There is much more to explain and talk about however, I lack the time to do so. I haven't provided any links because everything writen has been launched in the news and been proven and studied by many newspapers, journalists, and authorities. I beg, and ask people to get informed by the outside world. I beg people to look at the media of the outside world. I beg and ask people to stand for what they believe in and not for what our president and government has providing us and given us. I ask of people to research for the truth rather than standing with the majority. I beg people to disuse logical fallacies in their arguments such as Ad hominem and Ad populum arguments, Bandwagon appeals, circular reasoning that has no end, False analogy, hasty generalization, Non sequitur and all the others. The citizens of the United States are wise, proud, strong, and faithful. let's not let our president speak for us because he doesn't have the ability to represent us. Let's become more informed, and stand for the truth. --70.236.146.129 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Norma

Appeal to conflict mediation

The subsection below was considered POV. However, it is a perspective that I would like to be well visible here on behalf of the innocent man, women and children victims of this unqualified war and destruction, at least to my consciousness, in current times that we call of "global village" in an era that we call "enlightment-information-knowledge-reason"... but, where is our HEART?...

• May a peaceful and civilized solution, in the same way it was found and offered - like an "Ode to Joy" - to the long suffering people of East Timor, be also built soon to stop all this fear and terror in that sad region of Our World;
• May an United and Friendly international community act and react together as it did to ASSIST-AID-HELP the victims of the 2004 India Ocean earthquake or the victims of the Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
• May we all be able to grow and learn to live within ourselves the eternal IDEAL of Divine LOVE so kindly expressed by the great American writer Thomas Paine: The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. Thank you, Regards --Viriathus 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC), from Portugal:

File:The Winged Self.JPG

The Winged Self by Lebanese Kahlil Gibran

On 17 July an appeal was made by a Lebanese citizen to Rosicrucian students worldwide . In respect to the origin of the appeal and the ancient sensitive religious issues and wounds envolved, it becomes reasonable to assume that the international community, including the United States and the United Nations, may gather a consensual voice and will in order to request diplomatic mediation to be conducted in this fraternal and service organization's neutral and holy grounds of Mount Ecclesia .

P.S.: Having left Wikipedia editions sometime ago; in more than 3 years and hundreds of articles and talk pages that I have collaborated and edited around, never I had never seen before a comment in the discussion page to be erased as it was in the previous edition!
Yes, it has everything to do with the consciousness of each individual: it is a good sign as "Truth" kind of hurts when we, even unconsciously, sense and acknowledge that we have been 'bad children'...

Muslim Santa?

Hassan Nasrallah looks a little like he could be the Muslim version of Santa (based on the billboard drawing in the article). I haven't seen the videos (added to my netflix queue though) but I am guessing he looks substantially less Santa-like when talking about the rockets and whatnot. Has anyone considered that the prisoner exchange might be facilitated by a Secret Santa type arrangement? I realize now that this is original research but we should keep all possibilities open for the future.--Paraphelion 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very childish and immature to comment on people's appearance. Focus on his actions and rhetoric.--Patchouli 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel's Chutzpeh and the distractive purpose of Hezbollah's action

Several questions still puzzle me:

1) Israel's CHUTZPEH: did they start the "Operation Truthful Promise" (bombardment of Lebanon) without much coordination with Condi Rice or the Pentagon?

2) How far and how long is Israel willing to go: aren't they affraid of another Beirut 1982? The eventual Israeli conquest of the Damascus Baathist regime, with the aid of US and British warships (not unlike the tri-partite cooperation during the Suez crisis against Gamal Abdul Nasser)

3) Or was the Israeli action actually a brave act from a loyal friend (of the US) to take the blunt for the US just when it needs it. Therefore there is implication that the US has been "nudging" Israel into doing this all along.

4) The big honchos in St. Petersburg: what have they been exchanging under the table of excessive courtesy?

5) The Hezbollah action: who initiated this chain-reaction in the "Muslim Street" first? The election of the Hamas government and the subsequent internecine strifes between secular statist Fatah and international-Islamist Hamas? The Irano-Pyongyang duet in The Nuke Show (prompting Hezbollah to create skirmishes to distranct world community)? Or the unwise decision of the Shiite Hezbollah to "take the heat", or show solidarity for Sunni militants in Palestine and Iraq, eventually leading to their own unfavorable position.

• To the above anonymous anon: Your conspiritorial questions lack credibility if they are not signed by you using the four tildes ~~~~ please do so. IZAK 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think the Israeli war will go all the way to Damascus?

it's very obvious that the world governments refuse to point out the emperor's new clothes (those fat cats in St. Pete's Burg)

while the press appear to be sympathetic to the Lebanese people (as they probably have no reason not to), the government

Pictures

Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon

what about the Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon? I think it should be added.

File:Kruz lebanon.jpg

placard explanation: To the Lebanese nation! know! from the front - friend, back - a snake! (the meaning is to hezzbollah and nasrala) (my english is not very good so you are invited to fix my mistakes)

Eli5050 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Sijo Ripa 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i think that that poster should be added to the articke, this is what IDF distributed in Lebanon before it started to bomb targets.

I wrote the explanation of the words that written in Arabic. look at the hebrew article about the crisis, scroll down, and you will understand what I meant. Eli5050 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak or read Hebrew. But if I understand you correctly, the IDF distributed these to tell the Lebanese people that Israeli's are their friends (the front - friend) and Hezbollah is their enemy (by causing this crisis - the back)? Sijo Ripa 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that Nasralla if presenting himself (the face) as a friend of the lebanese but he is not(realy a snake). --TheYmode 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the leaflet propaganda dropped by Israel is worth including in the article unless we have a section regarding propaganda that is balanced. --MarsRover 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a propoganda, just a part of the war describe, and I think it should be included in the article. Eli5050 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is not propaganda, then I don't know on what planet you live. Goes to show the quality and NPOV adherence of the hebrew article if it is displayed... I agree fully it should only be included if we create a section or sub-page on propaganda from all sides. Come on people stop being disingeneous!--Cerejota 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is propaganda, but it extremely relevant propaganda. Definitely include. --Jobrahms 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so extremely relevant? I dont find it particulary newsworthy that propaganda is being made, I mean, it is part of war since war was invented... again, I think we could make a page or section on Israeli propaganda, and IF propaganda for all sides, maybe a small section. Since this is a total POV image, with no real news value, it would seemingly compromise NPOV.--Cerejota 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no question that it is propaganda, even if you are an extreme Israel supporter, you'd have to not know the definition of propaganda to say that this isn't propaganda. That being said, I think it might make sense to link this image in the article (if we can get source information), but on the whole, it's not important enough to really get an inline image display. --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that confuses me. If in this instance we are allowed to make the obvious conclusion that this leaflet is propaganda in the absence of a "reliable" and "previously published" source for the claim, then I fail to understand why a completely similar process is impermissible when characterizing the events of the last several days as a "war". mdf 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please go open up a dictionary and look up the definition of propaganda (or just read the Wikipedia article). A flyer distributed to the civilians of a country you are about to invade is practically the definition of propaganda. This isn't original research, it's a simple definition. If we're not allowed to use word definitions we wouldn't be able to write a single sentence on Wikipedia. You seem to be using some sort of a negative connotation of propaganda, e.g. only the "bad guys" use propaganda, when in reality, propaganda is anything distributed by the government to get people more sympathetic to its point of view. --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the characterization of the imaged leaflet as "propaganda". Indeed, I stand with you when I say that it is so idiotically obvious it is propaganda that to seek out another "reliable source" that documents the propagandaness of the document is a waste of an editors time, if not a direct insult to the intelligence of the reader. But you see, so is it with the definition of "war" and its use in the name of this article (see above discussion). That there are agencies beyond Wikipedia -- sub-state and state actors and their media sycophants -- that insist on treating people like infants by using their favourite weasel words to descibe the events doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. That is, and to wit: if simple common sense and intellectual courtesy can prevail at Wikipedia re: "propaganda" in the instant case, then I assert it can also prevail re: "war". (Ironically -- as noted by others -- the failure to use the W-word in the face of the huge pile of reputably-sourced and previously published evidence can itself be said to be deeply propagandistic.) mdf 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you my own simple personal reason why I don't think this qualifies as a war quite yet: casualty count. It's just not big enough. Look at the famous wars of the recent past: World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, each with thousands of military casualties on both sides. This conflict simply doesn't measure up; you've got maybe a thousand casualties total on both sides, and most of those are civilian. When I think war I think of two large armies battling each other; this is more like one nation bombing the crap out of a group of people in another nation (with collateral damage, of course). Hezbollah doesn't really have a chance; they don't have anything to fight Israel's Air Force with. All they can do is launch rockets at Israel and pray for the occasional civilian casualty. The Israeli Air Force, on the other hand, is taking out all sorts of military and possibly military targets (with significant collateral damage). It's kind of like pornography ... maybe you can't define it, you just know it when you see it, and to me, this just doesn't feel like war yet. --Cyde↔Weys 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MDF is right until a notable source says its propaganda its not(dispite the fact that it patently is)! We could have a section on the propaganda war going on as Al-Manar is part of Hezbollahs propaganda war and has been for years.Hypnosadist 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a section, or subpage (!) of propaganda could be made, as long as its NPOV... which is hard considering its by definition POV... see the issue?--Cerejota 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? We write NPOV articles on POV subjects all the time. Hell, Wikipedia wouldn't even be possible if we couldn't do this, as most of the interesting topics one would write about are controversial in some regards. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I didnt say it wasnt possible, just that it was hard.--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If NPOV is the issue, simply say This leaflet was distributed. We don't need to call it propaganda in the article (whether it is or not). I think saying The israelis dropped this leaflet, which is translated as ___ should be more than sufficient, and readers can judge whether it is propaganda. Nimur 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

you are mistaking objections on balance affecting NPOV with objections on NPOV presentation. The display of progranda is always POV, but as Cyde says, can be presented as NPOV. What is of concern is how to presente this in the article, or if this is newsworthy at all. I fear this is a slippery slope, when in the honor of balance the page becomes an archive of pictures of propaganda from both sides. Is bad enought that we have to use the IDF as a source for pictures, if on top of that we start to publish open proganda, there goes having a balanced page. Get the point?--Cerejota 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo of the Sa'ar 5-class Missile Corvette

FOR GOD-SAKE DO REMOVE THE PHOTO OF THE SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV). THAT AIN'T BATTLE DAMAGE, BUT RATHER SMOKE RESIDUES AND STAINS FROM ONE OF IT'S EXHAUST. ALL SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV)HAVE THIS SO CALLED "PARTICULAR FEATURE" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

What's your point? The picture is, as descibred, the INS Hanit near Ashdod. And stop writing in all caps. Admiral Rupert 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The true victims are erased Spinoza1111 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to appeal the deletion of the picture of the Ter Hafra victim.

This is what happened. The posting of the innocuous picture of Israeli naval reservists is NPOV since it participates in the ongoing Israeli public relations campaign to present Israel as the "good", uniformed side, versus the "terrorists".

This is an opinion, a global opinion which creates a global bias.

The massacre happened and is documented thoroughly by Western reporters outside the US.

Your image is an AP Photo, which is not free and does not qualify for fair use. That is the likely reason that someone removed it. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Yes, it is an unpublished AP photo. I think in this case the rights of the Associated Press to its unpublished intellectual property, while important, are less important than getting the truth out of Lebanon.

Spinoza1111 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Tell you what. I will make a realistic hand-drawn copy of the photo and post this instead. Please give me your opinion on this.

Spinoza1111 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)It appears to me that the very idea that unpublished Associated Press photos as intellectual property are more important than the physical truth of what is happening to the people of Gaza and of South Lebanon is part of the problem: Israel and the United States are arrogant and out of control states and societies run by the thug owners and stealers of intellectual property.

Spinoza1111 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)However, I am willing to abide by community standards, because Wikipedia may be the last hope for avoiding a coverup as happened after the invasion of South Lebanon in the 1980s. I didn't realize that unpublished AP photos would count as intellectual property and as such can't be posted to Wikipedia without permission.

Huh?! Companies would actually have a much stronger case on intellectual property of unpublished photos because they were not yet released for general consumption. Once an image has been aired in the media and on the organization's website you can make a decent fair use claim, but if it is unpublished, you really cannot use it at all. --Cyde↔Weys 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)But how about I sit down and make a realistic rendering in pen and ink of the photo without interpretation? Would this count as a violation? How about a tracing?

Spinoza1111 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Or does someone have to enter South Lebanon as an unpaid stringer for Wikipedia to create this content?

A Wikipedian going to Lebanon to report would violate WP:OR anyways UltraNurd 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the "Original Images" section of that article, which states that original pictures are welcome because "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy."

Spinoza1111 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Two issues here. One is "no original research". Thanks for the tip. Sounds like the rule applied to juries in American courtrooms. Sounds like a hand drawn copy of the photo would be acceptable. I will get on it.

Discussion about the Combatants

Strength?

The infobox lists the IDF strength as 6,000. What does that number refer to? Where did it come from? Unless there is some citeation of a source with that number, I belive the strength field should be removed, as neither Hizbulla nor the IDF publish their strength. --darkskyz 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the most accurate description would probably be "variable". — ceejayoz ^talk 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be removed if it doesn't have verified source. --TheYmode 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current estimation of IDF's strength as 400000-500000 is unverifiable, and besides, it is greatly exaggerated. It might refer to the strength of IDF including all of its reserves should a total draft be declared - which is not the case.

Is there any source for that? We can't just list our estimated strength of the combatants' strength without proper citation. reverting the strength section to "unknown" until someone brings up real numbers with proper citations. And please sign your comments. --darkskyz 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The strenght section in the infobox is misleading. It implies that the 68000-75000 soldiers of the Lebanese army are all deployed and fighting against Israel, same as for Hezbollah and Israeli numbers. Could you fix it or mark as Unknown. CG 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran?

It has been stated that Hezbollah is trying to transport them to Iran. [2] Or should we wait till it is confirmed that Iran is harboring them?

Harbouring fighters does not indicate combatant status for a nation. That's at most a support role until the combat involves that nation's armed forces or their territory. MLA 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont ad them yet. Like MLA said harbo(u)ring soldiers duz not mean yur on ther side.Cameron Nedland 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add Iran as an combantant? Based on their involvement in the Haifa missile launch. [3] Hello32020 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not definitive yet. As I mentioned above, it's still possible the missile came from Hezbollah. --Pifactorial 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, only Fox News has reported this and even they aren't really sure I think (they say: Israelian radio says so - but what radio was it? a reliable one?). Most news services say it is likely that Iran or Syria provided the missile type to Hezbolah. That however is not enough to be listed as combattant, as for instance the USA and USSR together supplied many conflicts in the world with arms. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its way to early, israel uses british tanks but britain is not a combatant and we have no solid evidence yet. Also it is in effect an accusation of warmongering by Iran and i would want Very notable people saying that before we put it in.Hypnosadist 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read online that CNN also reported it. However, its too early to say this. Its not held up by any news agency as truth, its just a "report" at this phase which isnt validated. Israel is not claiming Iran fired the missile at this time. Rangeley 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a combatant. Neither was Lebanon proper until the attack on Beirut. Even then it is still not clear the relationship between Lebanese forces and Hizbollah forces in this conflcit. Yet another POV point: we accept ISRAELS view on the conflict, while the Lebanese government has condemned Hizbollah.

Now we itchy to add Iran into the fray. Following this logic, Saddam Hussein is behind it all. :D --Cerejota 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It would be equally valid to add the USA as the major supporter/supplier of Israeli Military. USA provides Israel will helicopters and weapons—Dananimal 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reported it during their morning TV segment today, as well as online, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, I agree that it's early to add them. While it may be valid that Iran supplied the missiles, it's too early to know if they were supplied specifically for Hezbullah's actions this week. Meanwhile, given the fact that there are Iranian revolutionary guards in Lebanon, if any of them come under attack, that might quickly change things. Acarvin 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there Iranian revolutionary guards stationed in Lebanon today, beside those guarding the Iranian Embassy? Who says? Thomas Blomberg 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not yet. Ahmadinejad has just been posturing so far. UltraNurd 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added Iran - I have no doubt. Here's the source [4] Hello32020 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I readd? Someone just qualified my source and article (from New York Post) as a "fake article." Hello32020 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is making things seem bigger then they are. The only source it has about Irani involvement is a statement made by Israeli military, with no external confirmation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).

New York Post can hardly be considered a reliable source, see for example [5].--213.65.178.172 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There's critisism with other news organizations see 1 and 2, that does not make them unreliable. Hello32020 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN and Fox News which you refer to is indeed criticized, and quite unreliable, though not as unreliable as "New York Post". It think would be best if Fox News and CNN were avoided as sources for Wikipedia though. --Battra 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't just not believe any source that has any controversy 3 4 5. I mean if we did that we wouldn't have an article. Also that is just an opinion and others could have completly different views. Hello32020 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I believe your argument is void per WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth Hello32020 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should readd if we get more sources confirming though. Hello32020 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are we confirming? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That Iran is a combatant. And I'm thinking I should readd them as one (someone removed regarding NY Post ariticle as "fake) per Wikipedia policyWP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. [6] Hello32020 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, many sources are saying that Israeli intelligence says 100 iranian troops are in Lebanon, and that they have helped fire missiles. I think its reasonable to add the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a combattant as these are the specific Iranian troops involved, rather than just saying Iran. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i can't find in the article any real source that iran is taken an active role in this conflict. --Japan01 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IRGC removal. i removed it because it is not a active/ directly involved the the war.if you want to add IRGC then CIA's flag should equal it on opposite side.Yousaf465 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Iran should be mentioned as a proxy combatent Red1530 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definately mention that Iran and Syria as supporters of both the political and armed portions of Hezbollah. By doing so, you would be indirectly naming the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China as indirect suppliers. The Russia and the PRC are the main military suppliers to Iran and Syria. An examination of the Iranian military equipment reveals that it has had three main supporters in the 20th and 21st centuries: the Soviet Union, Russia, and the United States.

saying that, you cannont in any good reason list Iran as a combatant. Was the Third Reich considered a combatant in the Spanish Civil War? Prussia and the United Kingdom both had observers with the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War. Were those nations combatants? The United States actively supported freedom fighters in Afghanistan and the government of Greece in their struggles against the Soviet-backed communist forces, or in the case of Afghanistan, the Red Army. The United States supported Hussein in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Were we combatants in these conflicts? If we want a real look at history, we need to put ourselves in the position of the real combatants: the freely recognized and UN-backed democratic state of Israel, and the Hezbollah military factions, internationally listed as a terrorist organization. There is no question, no debate. There is an accurate telling of history and there isn't. Like or not, it's our history, and its happening right now.

oh, and by the way, to answer someone else's question. there are approximately 350 soldiers from Iran's Revolutionary Guards. These soldiers are fulfilling the same role that the United States has filled in Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Phillipines, Columbia. This is the same role the Soviet Union filled in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba (after the mrbm's were removed), Grenada. ---- JRK

Which source of intel you have for IRGC helping hezb.Yousaf465