What an evil bastard he was.

That applies to anyone who became president or prime minister in the illegal zionist entity.

Are you sure that he was the founder of Hezbollah?

The net (well, a BBC News article) seems to suggest that both he and hezbollah denied that.

I also note that he was critical of Hezbollahs friendship with Iran and did not accept Khomenei's concept of wilayat-e-faqih.

Joie wrote:

What an evil bastard he was.

Woah o.0

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Woah o.0

The obituaries say he was a feminist for letting women wear nail varnish at mosque. He spent much of his career recruiting and glorifying the blood shed by a losing battle, one of the great figureheads of the MB Pro-Khilafa mafiosa bombers.

I somehow doubt the MB and Hezbollah/shia figureheads spend much time with each other. I would suspect they pretty much hate each other.

You wrote:

I somehow doubt the MB and Hezbollah/shia figureheads spend much time with each other. I would suspect they pretty much hate each other.

They have a shared interest in the weakness of the Middle East and I don't believe that they do hate each other, especially in Lebanon. The Palestinian and Lebanese sections have always had to work together.

Joie wrote:

What an evil bastard he was.

So is the Israeli PM the IDF the Israeli foreign minister the list goes on and on and on bigger bastards in my opinion cowards hiding under the name of freedom and democracy

From Inayat's corner:

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un. To God we belong and to Him we return.

In the last few years I was often pleasantly surprised at how often Arab Sunnis would tell me of their admiration for Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah despite his Shi’i background. They regarded him as an exceptionally brave Imam and guide who established a number of educational institutes and orphanages and was also a strong advocate of Sunni/Shi’i cooperation. He also understood the importance of ridding the Middle East of its various corrupt US client regimes and establishing governments that were genuinely representative of their people.

It is important to recall that in 1985 Shaykh Fadlallah was the target of a CIA-organised/Saudi-funded assassination attempt which killed over 80 people in Beirut. Remember that the next time you hear some rep from the US government talk about human rights. If the US was sincere in its talk of human rights it should apologise to the people of Lebanon for that terrorist attack.

Joie wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Woah o.0

The obituaries say he was a feminist for letting women wear nail varnish at mosque. He spent much of his career recruiting and glorifying the blood shed by a losing battle, one of the great figureheads of the MB Pro-Khilafa mafiosa bombers.

I See...

Its one of those issues where pro Israel people will see no distinction between people against them.

Lebanon was an occupied territory, so any acts against the occupation are IMO allowed - if you don't want to get attacked, don't occupy is where I would stand on the whole issue.

People can get all "How dare they attack our soldiers!" but if the soldiers are an occupying force or a tool of agression or oppression, they are fair game.

You cannot expect him to have been in praise of the occupying force(s) and still have some sort of moral standing within people.

Disclaimer: Before this weekend I cannot remember if I had even heard of the guy before...

You wrote:

Its one of those issues where pro Israel people will see no distinction between people against them.

Lebanon was an occupied territory, so any acts against the occupation are IMO allowed - if you don't want to get attacked, don't occupy is where I would stand on the whole issue.

People can get all "How dare they attack our soldiers!" but if the soldiers are an occupying force or a tool of agression or oppression, they are fair game.

You cannot expect him to have been in praise of the occupying force(s) and still have some sort of moral standing within people.

Disclaimer: Before this weekend I cannot remember if I had even heard of the guy before...

I don't buy that because he also failed to distinguish, including among his own. I will acknowledge he wasn't MB by any means but he was always a murderous agitator, to suggest his ideology directly stemmed from and was justified by the Golan Heights is farily ludicrous.

Golan Heights?

I thought southern Lebanon was an occupied territory from 1982 til 2000, where the IDF was resisted by much of the population.

No, Shia expansionists plotted and campaigned in Lebanon for decades before that and Israel held the Golan Heights from 1967 bar for some returned to Syria in 1973. Israel and Syria fought over it for decades - it was Syria who originally captured it from Israel in 1948. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1980 it was in response to shelling from Lebanon, nothing to do with Fadlallah. Hezbollah have used that as a pretext to operate as an autonomous Shia militia in Lebanon.

1980 1982

Don't know much about this guy, but Hasan Nasrallah is very popular in (sunni) Syria. People tend to see Hizbollah as a legitimate political organisation (amongst many other elected Lebanese organisations) who are fighting against an illegitimate one.

Then again, all the photos you see of him up in shops etc (and this is a country where almost ALL politico-islamic groups are pretty much banned and mention of them will make you disappear) are of him looking very friendly, 'cuddly' even; holding babies etc.

Only ever seen pics of him in the middle of a blood-curdling scream in British media.

Both views are distorted. But I don't see how calling a dead person an evil bastard is going to do anything, Joey. If anything it makes you look as one-sighted and brainwashed as the ppl u are politically opposed to.

Nobody's expecting you to rush to his defense or praise him, but imagine you were in Beirut in the early 80s, an aggressive neighbouring army with highly advanced weaponary is occupying your home and trying to take control of almost all the fresh water in your country (i.e. the south of Lebanon... now Hizbollah's 'heartland').

How would you react?

Joie wrote:

It was Syria who originally captured it from Israel in 1948. .

Nope. Original borders had the Golan heights as part of Syria. Its where the vast majority of the fresh water is in the south of the country.

Ya'qub wrote:

Joie wrote:

It was Syria who originally captured it from Israel in 1948. .

Nope. Original borders had the Golan heights as part of Syria. Its where the vast majority of the fresh water is in the south of the country.

Much of the Golan was paid for by Jews and settled in the early waves of Aliyah. Technically the British ceded much of that part of the mandate to the French Syria mandate but it continued to be home to numerous kibbutzim and maintained by the Jews until it was seized by Syria in 1947. I guess "originally" can mean a few things, since a short time after deeds were purchased the Jews were invariably kicked out.

Ya'qub wrote:

Both views are distorted. But I don't see how calling a dead person an evil bastard is going to do anything, Joey. If anything it makes you look as one-sighted and brainwashed as the ppl u are politically opposed to.

I don't think so, and if it does there's plenty of time, but he was an evil bastard and I said it so that someone was straight up among whatever else gets written here.

Ya'qub wrote:

imagine you were in Beirut in the early 80s, an aggressive neighbouring army with highly advanced weaponary is occupying your home and trying to take control of almost all the fresh water in your country (i.e. the south of Lebanon... now Hizbollah's 'heartland').

How would you react?

If I were part of the post-civil war Shia establishment I would probably try to unify the masses in jihad against Israel and claim that cause as my own, especially if forces loyal to me had spent several years wiping out Christian and Sunni opponents and I needed to maintain a victorious stance. Yes, I would launch a jihad, because I would be hellbent on evil. Incidentally I only know two Lebanese very well but both hate Syria.

why was my reply edited out, yet the zionist scum's slander of the deceased (May Allah endow the good which He did, and forgives the lesser deeds)

Because this website is a zionist plot to rule over the world.

(I still don't get the significance of the Golan heights in this discussion... Hezbolah came to prominence not after the 1967 war but after the invasion of southern Lebanon by the IDF, so the Golan seems like a separate issue to me.)

However much the media try to spin Israel's war as against Lebanon, it has always been against whoever was provoking her in the north, after the Syria-backed civil war in Lebanon, Iran and Syria invested in a Shia Lebanese army to fight Israel while Syrian troops occupied the rest of the country. But violent Shia activism in Lebanon long predates that, it was an established principle. Israel invaded southern Lebanon to battle militant bases including not just the Shia - in the midst of a campaign that ended in the wholesale assassination of the Lebanese government - and the PLO but also Abu Nidal's following, who were attacking Israel and had attempted the assassination of an Israeli ambassador. Hezbollah was very decidedly an outgrowth of civil war Shia militants and their original objective - to fight the Phalanges and US and French occupiers. Now Iran is using them as local muscle. They just explicitly take directives from Iran.

That's clear malik, and of course I won't try to answer the rhetorical question.

There seems to be a bit of a witch hunt going on over people who have said good things about this guy - something that even seems like an attempt to control or gag the media.

A CNN editor lost her job for saying she respected him and there is currently some words being said about the British Ambassador to Lebanon who had praised him.

You wrote:

A CNN editor lost her job for saying she respected him and there is currently some words being said about the British Ambassador to Lebanon who had praised him.

That's because it is pretty shocking, and people who see him as he presented himself will be surprised and perhaps disgusted that others are focusing on positives.

Joie wrote:

You wrote:

A CNN editor lost her job for saying she respected him and there is currently some words being said about the British Ambassador to Lebanon who had praised him.

That's because it is pretty shocking, and people who see him as he presented himself will be surprised and perhaps disgusted that others are focusing on positives.

Maybe, but all the criticism to me atleast seems to be coordinated, where someone has got the word out that no good views are to be tolerated.

I can understand why the Israelis will dislike him, especially when he was pretty anti Israel. But to others, he will be a hero.