24 murdered in another attack on Christians

There's obviously a crossed wire here - My post was a comment about the mindless rituals involved in religion and the similarly mindless activity where adherents knowingly risk their lives to attend them - although what any of that has to do with your claim that the thousands of youngsters at the Manchester outrage were 'groomed' escapes me. As to the last sentence if your post - I've been posting for about 6 years about the threat from radical Islam. I assure you that I'm even more 'aware we're in a war' than you are.

 

Some of the comments here are alternatively sick or stupid or both. So lets get some definitions straight since it is frankly ignorant to lump black and white together, so to speak, and choose to call both the same thing. You don't like Iran? Fine. You hate Hezbollah and support Israel? Your business. But what is done by Wahhabis and the groups they have spurred should not be lumped together with Iran's support for Hezbollah and the like under the same rubric and terminology. That is simply stupid. Wahhabis, in all their manifestations, brands, shapes and figures, are first and foremost an enemy of Iran and Persianate society, whether Sunni or Shia. That is, in fact, what Wahhabism is all about: a reaction to the Bedouin Arabs being marginalized under Islamic rulers and civilizations despite being the ones who first brought the religion to the regions they had conquered. From the Abbasid caliphate in the 9th century, until the rise of westernization in the 19th century, the center of the Islamic world was typically under the rule of empires (whether the Seljuks, the Ottomans, or their rivals in Iran under the Safavids et al) that were Persianate and had little interest or affinity to the traditions of the Bedouin Arabs.

In the meantime, I invite you to listen to Fareed Zakaria speak about the anomaly of Trump jumping into bed with the Wahhabis while pretending to denounce "radical Islamic terrorism" (should be called Wahhabi terrorism for clarity and to distinguish it with whatever label you like for Hezbollah and the like). There is a lot that Fareed Zakaria says that I don't agree with, but here he has largely hit the ball out of the proverbial ballpark.

 

Seriously. Ever hear of the pot and the kettle?

An iran regime apologist calling someone else ignorant? Oh the irony...

No one other than the cancerous, diseased regime does.

Riiiight, because when a religious shia fanatic shoots/bombs you, it feels so, so much better than when a sunni does, I got ya....

Yah, that makes sense....NOT.

I'd rather listen to people who know what they are talking about, like these:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/

State Department report finds Iran is top state sponsor of terror
"The report also said that Iran was continuing to provide arms and cash to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah (KH). Both groups are designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the report. Iran is one of three listed state sponsors of terrorism, the others being Syria and Sudan. Cuba was removed from the list last year. Siberell added that the department was "concerned about a wide range of Iranian activities to destabilize the region."

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-support-terrorist-groups

Iran’s Support for Terrorist Groups
"Relationships with terrorist and militant groups are integral to Iran’s foreign policy. The clerical regime in Tehran sponsors a range of organizations in the Middle East and maintains the capacity to conduct international terrorism outside the region. Iran’s terrorism and destabilization efforts are primarily a threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East: Tehran’s activities worsen civil wars and contribute to the destabilization of the region. Iran does not appear to be actively targeting the U.S. homeland with terrorism, but its capacity remains latent. Tehran uses its ability to strike U.S. assets outside war zones to deter the United States and as a contingency should the United States attack Iran.

Support for militant and terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere benefits Iran in several ways. It enables Tehran to shore up key allies like the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad. It also gives Iran leverage against regional rivals like Saudi Arabia. Ties to militant groups strengthen pro-Iran voices in the region, increasing Iran’s influence in some capitals and in the more remote hinterlands of several countries. Finally, the threat of Iranian terrorism against otherwise stable countries is a factor these countries must consider if they choose to confront Tehran.

For the Trump administration to better counter Iranian influence in the Middle East, it should seize the opportunity to reset U.S. relations with key regional allies. Many Middle Eastern allies had lost faith in the Obama administration and several, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, are going to elaborate lengths to ignore the missteps and often contradictory behavior of the Trump administration in the hopes of closer cooperation. Additional pressure on entities like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would help send the right message to allies and to Iran. Washington should also highlight the costs of Iran’s adventurism to ordinary Iranians to raise domestic awareness of, and discontent with, the regime’s foreign policy. The United States should step up its efforts to build a credible and moderate Syrian opposition, putting additional pressure on Iran’s Syrian ally. In Yemen, Washington should support negotiations to end the war as the current Saudi approach is giving both Iran and the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen opportunities to expand their influence....Iran has long sought to “try hard to export our revolution to the world,” in the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, the clerical regime’s dominant revolutionary leader. This goal is embedded in Iran’s constitution and in the missions of organizations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a military and paramilitary organization that oversees Iran’s relationships with many substate groups.

Revolutionary ideology, however, has long taken a backseat to more strategic goals. In the decades since the 1979 revolution, Iran has used terrorism and support for militant groups to undermine and bleed rivals, intimidate the Gulf states and other neighbors, project power to make itself a player in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and other arenas, disrupt peace negotiations that might isolate Iran and benefit Israel, and deter enemies, including the United States, that might otherwise use force against it. Iran has also sponsored terrorist attacks to take vengeance on countries that have supported its enemies, hosted its dissidents, or killed its operatives."

 

Pot calling the kettle black is exactly what is at issue when the US accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism by supporting legitimate groups representing their communities, whether Hezbollah in Lebanon, or the Shia militia in Iraq, or Hamas at certain junctures, which are focused on fighting occupation, aggression and terrorism. By calling these groups terrorist organizations, and then estimating the support Iran gives them financially, the US then calls Iran the "biggest state sponsor of terrorism".

To be sure, you can choose whatever term you wish and ultimately it is no different than Iran calling the US the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and Israel a terrorist entity. These shouting and exchange of labels isn't what I care about. What I care about is making sure people don't fall for the truly annoying and disgusting attempts by some Israeli partisans to associate Iran with groups who are Iran's enemies and who Iranians despise more than any American ever would. Otherwise, Iran is rather open about the groups it supports and you can call them what you want as there isn't anything about them that Iran would need to apologize for. Certainly not in comparison to the groups/states they are fighting.

 

Just saw a billboard on the interstate; Christians love their enemies. I believe that is true. It is hard to be a Christian. These Christians are truly martyrs for The Way, The Truth and The Life.


In Ramadan Massacre, Egyptian Christians Killed for Refusing to Renounce Their Faith in Jesus


These Islamists anti-Christ are nothing if not Stone Cold Murderers. Obviously, just carrying on their tradition that was the inspiration and reason for the Christian Crusades centuries ago. Much success to the next self-defense Christian Crusade II against those who behead, shoot, stab, detonate all in the name of their Satanic father to murder, maim and injure innocent Children, Women and Men.


http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...or-refusing-to-renounce-their-faith-in-jesus/

 

In the meantime, one way to understand the difference between the kind of groups Iran supports, and the kind of groups the US, Israel, and Wahhabi Arabia support, in the region, is to simply look at how officials from Iran are greeted in the countries in question when they visit them and compare that to how the officials from these countries are greeted. Take Lebanon and Hezbollah, the group that is closest to Iran among the ones that cause the US to label Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. And look at the reaction of the Lebanese people when different Iranian presidents, one reformist (Khatami) and another principalist (Ahmadinejad) visited their country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/i...-arrives-in-lebanon-to-crowds-chants-and.html

http://www.voanews.com/a/thousands-of-lebanese-greet-ahmadinejad-in-beirut-104853979/172377.html

Of course, none of these western reports convey and accurate picture of the depth and magnitude of support and reception that Iran's presidents got. Here is a video about the reception of Ahmadinejad in Lebanon. If you truly want to understand Iran, and the source of its so-called meddling and influence, just watch this video. Watch the people of Lebanon, from all backgrounds, show up and greet Iran's president. From around minute 2 is the scenes and crowds that showed up.

 

Does anybody doubt that Iran garners a lot of legitimacy and support throughout the region on the basis of it's willingness to stand up to the US and Israel? It's the kind of legitimacy that costs the Saudis billions of dollars.

 

A significant part of the support Iran enjoys is based on what you allude to, but its more than that. The landscape in the Middle East is littered with groups which oppose the US and Israel. But unlike many of those, the kind of groups Iran supports are those which are representative of their people and have grass roots support in their communities. Additionally, these have been groups that have been successful, both on the electoral stage and on the military and geopolitical stage as well. And finally there is the example of Iran itself: a country that Iran's enemies intentionally want to misrepresent to detract from its potential appeal, but whose real picture (while containing many flaws) is ultimately more democratic, more self-reliant, more advanced, than the various sheikdoms and dictatorships the US supports. Iran, besides its oil and gas resources, is a technological and industrial giant despite sanctions and everything else in a region dominated mostly by midgets. Iran is once again the largest manufacturer of automobiles in the entire MENA region and one of top manufacturers in the world ahead of Italy. Iran is the 3rd or 4th largest producer of cement in the world. Iran is a major steel producer. In terms of scientific production, Iran also leads the region and is a leading center of research and development in the region in many technological fields as well. It is also a producer of all sorts of consumer goods, from television sets to refrigerators to the most basic goods, which help Iranian producers dominate not just the domestic market but also compete in markets that are open to them for competition in the few places which allow them to compete. And in terms of its military, Iran is largely self reliant here too, building everything from missiles, battle tanks, aircraft, submarines, warships, to everything else it needs. In short, Iran is the kind of example which the US along with Wahhabi Arabia and Israel in particular, doesn't want anyone to truly understand, visit, or know about. That is why the whole picture of Iran in the west is ultimately and fundamentally a lie. The articles that convey a more balanced picture of the country are reserved for print in pages no one except a small group read, and the few reports based on actual visits to the country are dwarfed by the kind of headlines and commentaries and slogans and labels that America's politicians and pundits repeat constantly and which are the only things the majority of America's public ever hear.

 

The Middle East really is full of contradictions and surprises. Who expected Hamas, of all people, to issue a condemnation of the attack against Christians in Egypt? Yet they did.

Nice.

The landscape in the Middle East is far more complex than just the two largest Islamic sects. The divide along ethnic and sectarian lines is further amplified by tribal and clan interests. US and Israel are mostly unwilling tools in this struggle for survival and regional hegemony.

Look for instance at the Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemy of the Iranian regime, which allowed Hamas, their offshoot in Gaza, to have close relationships with the hated regime (seems Hamas is drifting away from the MB lately). The stake is not, as one might suppose, the destruction of Israel, but the prestige and the position of power such a feat would bring. The goal of both sides being - ultimately - a global caliphate - sunni Hamas/MB led or shia Iran led - one can guess what would happen between the two allies should Israel be destroyed.

You're very careful to talk about Israel, not Jews, but we both know that the main reason driving attacks against Israel is the Muslim belief that the end of the world and the golden era of the global Islamic caliphate won't come until the Muslims kill all the Jews. From the horse's mouth:

Years ago I've come across an article written by a MB member in his blog. He recounted meeting and befriending a young Jewess somewhere in a Scandinavian country at an international event. One day she asked him why he was so sad. He answered that the thought that eventually Muslims will have to kill all the Jews saddened him. He added "this is what they teach us" (kill Jews).

This is but one example of Iranian and sunni interests temporarily colluding in this troubled region. Please explain to me how does this sort of ideology give any legitimacy to the Iranian regime and its allies. Please also explain to me why shouldn't Israel worry about the intentions of such a regime.

The Soviet bear supported organizations which have been successful both on the electoral stage and on the military and geopolitical stage as well. It didn't end well.

Iran is a theocracy. There's nothing democratic about the Iranian regime. Not that I have love to spare on various sunni sheikdoms and dictatorships.

Of course Iran is more advanced. It's a very old and once great civilization. Don't worry though, the Ayatollahs are working overtime to undo that.

'
Do you have any proof to back your "big bad conspiring triumvirate" theory? If true, the countries mentioned are in fact doing the Iranian regime a huge favor, because truly understanding it would turn a lot of good people into your fierce enemies.

There are plenty of Iranian Jews in Israel. Many of them have fled the theocratic heaven on foot, risking their lives. If anyone truly understand, they do.

I know up close and personal how a dictatorship looks and feels like. Your carefully chosen words might be able to fool those who have no idea about it. Not me.

 

Iran does not aspire to any Islamic caliphate. Even its detractors accuse Iran of merely trying to reconstitute the various past Iranian empires, most specifically the Safavid shia empire. There is no part of Iranian ideology, hidden, covert or overt, not even among Iran's hardliners, that looks to "killing Jews" or believes any of this nonsense. Your understanding of Iran, and how its system works, is also flawed. If you truly want to understand Iran, from someone who lives here, and knows both Iran and the west quite well, and who: (a) not religious; (b) is not beholden to any political group; (c) comes from an Iranian family who left Iran in the wake of the revolution, as many Iranians did, leaving at the time when Iran was a bit closer to your image of it, and returned to find Iran very different than it is portrayed; and (d) who has absolutely no interest in promoting anti-semitism, not because I am careful but because that simply doesn't interest me -- let me know. Otherwise, I don't need to learn about Iran reading from someone who doesn't have a clue and who has never been here and doesn't have any of the requisite qualifications to tell me about it.

 

There is a fundamental gap here when "we" and "you" talk about "terror support",

You seem to think that killing civilians by intent is acceptable in some cases, its only a question of reason, a group a European children is wrong ,but a group of Israelis is fine because they democraticlly elected the Likud which is "criminal", naturally there are those that use the same applied logic on Israel to Europe as well, "they democraticlly elected a gov that bombs them".

Killing civilans in certain places in Syria and Iraq and is bad but in other places - it's good, and I refer to the fact many Muslim countries accept the Palestinian/other "Shahids" when the target is "right", you do not condem the prcatice itself.

That, to us, means you groomed this suicide terror attacks and eventually it blew in your faces, we dont care if you call them "Wahhabis" or Hizbullah or Hutties or whatever, if they pack TNT with bolts and nails and go to blow civilians anywhere on the planet - ITS BAD !! yea even if it's Jews or heaven forbid an ISRAELI.

You grew it and it went out of control, now you have a Shahid and his Sith lord cleric to every dispute around Muslims in the world.

 

No I don't think intentionally killing civilians is fine. I think both sides do it. Hezbollah does it less than Israel. I know you don't agree, but that is what I think. The same way an American will be able to "justify" nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of civilians (children, women, men, dogs, cats -- what have you), saying it saved "lives", people at war often do dastardly things.

 

Israel does not kill civilians in intent, brainwashing a man to do that with a bomb he carries and give it the same morality of using a convetional bomb during war - is what brought this menece on your heads, if a bomb is a bomb and a death is a death - expect a shahid for every blow you lay on your enemies, dont blame the weak for it, blame your own ppl that hang "Shahid" pictures on the wall, why would a man kill himself after all if not to be "worshipped" after death and maybe even reach Heaven ? so this terror was groomed, was orgenzed and is cellebrated, so its "your" baby and you should deal with it, dont blame the west for bribing Muslims to fight Muslims, it's your culture.

 

Gilos, I see your comments now but don't think they merit a response. But one thing I want to also be clear about: in the 1990s, Iran reportedly supported a group that carried acts I would classify as terrorism, namely the Palestinian group called Islamic Jihad. Iran did so supposedly because it was opposed to Oslo, fearing Arab-Israeli rapprochement would leave it isolated. But that was 20+ years ago. From my perspective, neither Hezbollah nor any of the other groups Iran supports, employ such tactics anymore. Many of the groups the US and company support, or at least tolerate and give implicit aid and comfort, do follow such practices still. And Israel itself carries out assassinations of civilians, namely scientists, in Iran and elsewhere. The latter to me is clear terrorism and, what's more, the Iranian group that Israel and Wahhabi Arabia and the neocons are chummy with right now, namely the MEK, is actually a terrorist group and was classified as such until not too long ago even by the US. (The MEK is the group that Israel basically uses to carry out its assassinations and the like in Iran). This is a cult like terrorist group that has absolutely no grass roots support in Iran whatsover, which basically means that it is the kind of group that can never hope to amount to anything in Iran through any ballot box or anything of the sort. Such groups are worse simply because nothing in their tactical or strategic objectives can ever be about bringing democracy any form of representative government as they would lose from that process.

 

Im not talking just about Iran, Im talking about Shahid worship in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt so much that it became a "profession" to aspire to,
I wouldnt call Iranian nuclear scientists "civilians" because they know the risks but I accept you see it as terror (assuming Israel did it), its still not the same thing as blowing a bunch of ppl in a resturant, so why only the Palestinians get to reach Heaven when they kill an infidel ? why not Syrians and Iraqis as well ? Why just Jews why not Christians or "weak" Muslims too ? why bomb and not a severed head ?

 

Honestly, I am amazed that you guys are so much into branding, labeling and obfuscating. All cultures, faced with war, try to instill values of sacrifice by whatever name they give it to indoctrinate (often) young men to do things that they would not normally want to do. But I am not aware of Hezbollah sponsoring any suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in recent memory. And lets be clear: Israel doesn't rate Hezbollah and Iran its #1 enemy or threat because of suicide bombings, which neither has been involved with for quite some time. Israel hates Hezbollah for reasons you are know quite well, even if you don't want to admit it.

Anyway, killing civilians in a restaurant isn't different to me than killing them anywhere else. And, no, a scientist didn't take a risk by becoming a scientist, especially not when he is working on a civilian project as the ones who Israel has assassinated were working on. Otherwise, its like saying anyone who lives in Israel "assumes" the risk of getting killed and somehow deserves it. But unlike you, I really don't want to split such hairs and make distinctions that make no difference. I understand the nature of war and conflict, whether by proxy or directly, whether all out or restricted in scope. Its nature usually involves killing people by design. Sometimes, the focus is to kill combatants. Sometimes, the focus becomes killing civilians to further an objective. The civilians can sometimes be called "collateral damage", when the supposed intent is to take out something else but there are times, like when Israel bombed civilian targets in Lebanon to drive a wedge between the Lebanese people and Hezbollah and get Hezbollah blamed for their suffering, when these distinctions become even more tenuous. In fact, sometimes civilians are intentionally killed on a mass scale, such as was the case in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden.

Incidentally, the same way war and conflict give rise to various ethos to encourage sacrifice for a supposedly larger cause, they also encourage propaganda, lies, and attempts to demonize the other side and to find ways to paint them in as negative terms as possible. That is to be expected too I guess. I just refuse, as far as I can, to engage in either practice.

P.S.
Whether it is propaganda or not, Iran's official position is that even possessing nuclear weapons isn't moral and goes against Islamic precepts. I am not religious and don't share the reasoning necessarily, but if you truly don't think killing civilians intentionally should be part of any state's policy, you should also accept Iran's position. Most nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to inflict civilian deaths. Having them means you are disposed to commit such act and the only issue is when and under what circumstances you think the action would be "justified"?

 

The suicide terrorist doesnt need money or anything tangible to qualify as support from Muslim countries, he needs approval of his actions and to be worshipped and that is what "you" supply, that is why there are so many of them with diffrent goals because you approve the method - targets change from one terrorist to another but the method to reach heaven is the constant and trucks blowing off in Muslim countries are the issue, it's just obvious to me where it came from.
We dont have a blood debt with Hizbi to settle if that's your point, we dont "blame" them for getting out of Lebanon -we blame our gov for being there for so long, in theory we would be delighted to normelize with Lebanon and Iran tomorrow morning if it was possible, we are not motivated by hate but by threat level and both Hizbi and Iran do support attacks on Israelis including all those 14-16 y old Palestinians that stab Israelis knowing they will probebly wont make it alive. that's a twisted sick rational groomed by those countries for DECADES and recently blew in those countries faces because surprise surprise they have new targets and the method is already verified so why not ?

Nuclear scientists in middle of mega dispute over Nuclear research in Iran - who was already under sanctions - cannot possibly say they are there for the science of it or its for civilian purpose, that's playing naive, likewise a general in Israel must assume he is a target for many of our enemies, attempting to kill specific target that is connected to an enemy military is not the same as killing civilians in a resturant.

Perhaps you personaly dont see a diffrence between blood and I respect that but the bulk of the ppl do, at least enough to make shahid a popular profession in disputes and it didnt start in Iraq 10 years ago, that's my point, and it wont stop till Islam itself condems this practice entirly.

I cannot give a simple answer to when nuke is justified, I find it hard to justify nuking even in an event of nuking after being nuked yourself, but, since most Muslim countries already think we are mad, I think it serves a good deterence from relentless rocket fire from all their countries at once.

 

I didn't invent this.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...isor-Iran-will-head-global-Islamic-state.html

http://www.mei.edu/content/io/irgc-...d-helping-establish-global-islamic-government

Nasrallah has stated quite clearly that his organization's goal is to kill all the Jews. Guess who founded and supports Hezbollah.

I'm not talking about the Iranian people, or everyday life in Iran. I'm talking about the theocratic regime. I'm aware that ordinary people lead ordinary lives. I'm aware that Iranians are generally not anti-semitic, or racist. I'm aware that Iran it's an amazing country with amazing people. I already told you that I lived under a dictatorship. I know how things work. I don't believe for a second that all Iranians are bloodthirsty US and Israel haters. I don't believe for a second that they all walk in silence and fear every day of their lives. I don't believe for a second that they're all devout Muslims bent on ruling the world.

The Iranian regime, on the other hand...well, let's just say that right now it represents the greatest danger for the Iranian people.

I remember reading an interview with a leader of Copts in Egypt following the rise of the MB to power. He said that the MB wasn't really such a great danger to Christians as it was to Muslims themselves, as it would take away not only all their individual freedoms but also the little simple joys of life like going to the beach in a swimsuit. This is why I believe that the Iranian regime represents a danger for its own people.

 

If you search hard and long enough, you will probably find some quote from someone to satisfy yourself that you understand a country you absolutely don't and translate the comment into what you imagine it must be about. The only thing that you have right in all of this bizarre and twisted views you have acquired about Iran is that Iran is vehemently anti-Israel, does support Hezbollah, and parts of Iran's establishment aspires a role for Iran as a leader of resistance to US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. But Iran's government is neither focused on hating Jews nor interested in killing them because they are Jewish. And the idea of Iran aspiring to an "Islamic caliphate" is as sensible as saying that a protestant country is looking to spread the influence of the catholic church!

As for living in dictatorship, you might have lived in one, but I don't. Iran is not as free or democratic as I would like, but the idea that Iran is a dictatorship is preposterous. Who is supposed to be the dictator in Iran? Iran's Supreme Leader? The candidate he was known to support lost in a landslide in an election where many of the slogans and criticisms were directly aimed at the institutions he oversees!

Since you lived in a dictatorship, let me know if these kind of scenes were allowed in the dictatorship you lived in before whatever elections they held and whether those shouting such slogans were allowed to gather, organize, and then resoundingly win an election?
P.S.
The video starts with rallies in Mashhad, a religious city and site of Iran's holiest shrines! And a place which was seen as a conservative stronghold.


P.S.
The video I post is from an obvious opponent of the regime, and tries to highlight incidents which occur in any place where you have large gathering and disturbances. But unwittingly, the real picture of Iran - from rallies across the different regions and cities in Iran depicted in the video- will emerge anyway.

 

As usual, this poster has nothing to offer but propaganda and nonsense. For the facts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/world/middleeast/18lebanon.html

Hezbollah Ignites a Sectarian Fuse in Lebanon

"MENIEH, Lebanon — For two and a half days, Hussein al-Haj Obaid lay on the floor of a darkened warehouse in west Beirut, blindfolded and terrified. Militiamen loyal to Hezbollah had kidnapped him at a checkpoint after killing his nephew right in front of him. Throughout those awful days, as his kidnappers kicked and punched him, applied electrical shocks to his genitals and insulted him with sectarian taunts, he could hear the chatter of gunfire and the crash of rocket-propelled grenades outside, where Hezbollah and its allies were taking control of the capital. He returned to this northern village only after family members won his release just over a week ago by threatening the kidnappers with retaliation. By that time Mr. Obaid, a Sunni Muslim, had gained a whole new way of seeing his Shiite countrymen and his native land.“We cannot go back to how we lived with them before,” he said as he sat with relatives and friends at home here. “The blood is boiling here. Every boy here, his blood is boiling. They push us, they push us, they push us.”

Those feelings are being echoed throughout Lebanon. After almost a week of street battles that left scores dead and threatened to push the country into open war, long-simmering Sunni-Shiite tensions here have sharply worsened, in an ominous echo of the civil conflict in Iraq.

Hezbollah’s brief takeover of Beirut led to brutal counterattacks in northern Lebanon, where Sunni Muslims deeply resented the Shiite militant group’s display of power. The violence energized radical Sunni factions, including some affiliated with Al Qaeda, and extremist Sunni Web sites across the Arab world have been buzzing with calls for a jihad to avenge the wounded pride of Lebanese Sunnis."

==============================================

Yeah, a "resistance" group...as in resistance to modernity and rational, legal and civil behavior. No apologist for iran and its terrorism will EVER have the slightest shred of credibility.

 

Blah blah blah BS lie nonsense.

iran the cancerous terror state builds its imperialism by finding small shia communities, arming and training them to conduct terrorism, and sending the non-terrorist group members of said community money. Period.

Its like France sending in arms and money to french americans to take control over the US, it is fundamentally illegal and terrorism - which is the purest description of the cancerous terror state of iran.

 

Which is especially hilarious, since it is hamas who has ethnically cleansed almost all of the christians out of gaza.

hamas has lost ALL credibility in the mideast once it accepted more support from iran after assad/iran bombed the pals at Latakia, and has slaughtered 500K sunnis and DID NOTHING about it.

I think there are people here who are paid apologists of iran, of russia, and other such dictatorships. They are under the laughable impression that because someone might be questioning of the news media in the West, that they are stupid enough to buy the BS they are peddling like the snake oil salesmen they are.

 

Anyone else fed up with the lies coming from this poster? Its like listening to a parrot, it just keeps repeating the same crap over and over.

 

Re: Hezbollah and the report from 2008. The report is from a period when Lebanese Sunni parties were being funneled hundreds of millions of dollars by Wahhabi Arabia in cahoots with the US under a plan that is no secret to destabilize and weaken Hezbollah and which tried to plunge that country into civil war, but fortunately failed.

As for Iran's support for the Shia in Lebanon or Iraq, and the pretense they are some "small group", the facts are clear: they are the largest group in each of those countries. And outright majority in Iraq and the largest sect in Lebanon.