Talk:Hassan Nasrallah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Lebanon Portal This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hassan Nasrallah article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

Archives Archive 1

Contents 1 intro 2 Mention current war?? 3 Personal life, cleanup-date, July 30, 2006 4 Views section 5 The Sayyed (or Sayyid?) debate 6 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 7 Back to the basics: Why Hezbollah is still in existance. 8 Back to the basics: Why Hezbollah is still in existance. 9 Americans 10 Clean Up 11 External links: CAMERA article 12 Jurisprudence of the Guardians and Khomeini View of Ashura Ritual 13 anti-semitism and semitism run amok 14 National Compact with Michel Aoun 15 Syria Iran Hezbollah support

[edit] intro

Contracting "Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite organization and political party" (1) to "Lebanese political party Hezbollah" cuts it too short. "Islamist Shiite" is a qualifier for party too, arguably a meaningful one. "organization" and "political" is redundant - all parties are political organizations, besides "Islamist" covers that. Shiite Islamists are a Islamist variant, so:

Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah

is IMO correct. --tickle me 01:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention current war??

Hey-- even in the face of all the vandalism and POV-flinging this article needs some mention of the current war, which will definitely make or break Nasrallah as a leader. Anyone care to propose a sentence here? JDG 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an article on Nasrallah, the person, not about the war, for which an article already exists. Although Nasrallah makes morale boosting appearances on Al Manar, I don't think there is much public information about his role in the current war. I therefore do not see what can be said about the topic in a Hassan Nasrallah article other than "He led Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" -- not a very useful statement. --Asbl 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has obliged with your request, but as I wrote above, the sentence is essentially void of much useful information. --Asbl 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life, cleanup-date, July 30, 2006

Too much taken verbatim from aljazeera.com, too many {{fact}} tags. --tickle me 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views section

Are the only views Nasrallah have related to hating Israel? This section consists of a bunch of out of context quotations and some analysis, much of it from Neocon types. It strikes me as pretty blatantly POV. Obviously a discussion of Nasrallah's views should include a discussion of his views on Israel, but the current section is clearly designed to advance a partisan POV rather than to actually inform. john k 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are out of context and incorrectly translated from Arabic. Thus these quotes are simply wrong.

These may violate Wiki's NPOV due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. In any case I added some of his recent speeches in full such that the reader may decide what to concentrate in, "straight from the horse's mouth"... ApuNahasaminajustApu 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The views section (Nasrallah views on Israel) is laced with lies and out-of-context quotes. I urge the writer to supply us with primary documentation instead of propaganda sheets for the new-cons.

[edit] The Sayyed (or Sayyid?) debate

First off, the wiki page spells it Sayyid, so is that perhaps how it should be written if it is to be kept? Second, the Sayyid page states that a Western equivalent to the term would be "Sir" or "Lord". I looked up a few of the latter-day people granted knighthood by the UK (e.g. Ian McKellen, Elton John, and on their wiki pages they are listed as "Sir".

So, if that is to remain, then my opinion would be that Sayyid is equally acceptable. Opinions? Tarc 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's fine. Muslims don't even consider it a title that is similar to "Sir" or "Lord" but just take it to mean that he is a descendant of the Prophet. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid vs. Sayyed. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One might also suggest that an extremely uncivil anonymous (the above comment came from 84.94.3.9, which traces back to an Israeli ISP) person has little to contribute to the discussion. Tarc 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Israeli (no, not the one above) I am disgusted to see the "Lord" Nasrallah and would prefer a neutral name, with no prefixes. I am also in doubt that every Sayyid is a descendant of the Prophet; it seems to me that it is not a proven fact, but just a funny title that people use to honor this terrorist. But since it is used for the Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar and also some other Islamist leaders, maybe Nasrallah should regrettably be honored as well. --Gabi S. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The true terrorists in this war are the Zionists, but thats quite unrelated. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether we prefer or not. I believe "Sayyid" should be mentioned as it the way he's being called in Lebanon. You may add a note explaining why he's called so. -- Szvest 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi, terrorist or not got nothing to do w/ this section. I respect your patriotism but it is irrelevant here. -- Szvest 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi and Bhai: talk pages are not battlegrounds. Please discuss the article, not the subject of the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing the article. I said that the Sayyid prefix should be there, just like Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar. Wasn't it clear? Too bad BhaiSaab can't find a way to leave the terrorism section there. It's an important part of the article and it was unfortunately deleted. Maybe it's unrelated. --Gabi S. 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never deleted any terrorism section. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A little trivia, Sayyed or Husainites is reserved for descendant of the prophet thru the grandson Husain and Sharif or Hassanie Hashemite for descent thru his elder brother the grandsom Hassan. For Shia, they are respectively the 3rd and 2nds Imams. Best Wishes.Will314159 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sayyed is more accurate then Sayyid. by the way Sayyid means Mister, not lord/sir.

[edit] 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In the article, the section titled 2006 "Israel-Lebanon" conflict should get a new title..."Israel-Hizb'Allah" conflict. With very few exceptions, Israel's bombing campaign targeted Hizb'Allah targets--not "Lebanese" military targets. I know Hizb'Allah is part of the government, but it would still be more accurate to describe the conflict as one between Israel and Hizb'Allah (Lebanon as a whole was largely caught in the crossfire). (CSSELL)

That section makes it look as if his part in the conflict was just getting his home and office hit, as though he's an innocent spectator. Also, the quote again makes it appear as though he's just defending against Israeli aggression, which is, again, untrue. okedem 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You state your opinion as though it were fact. There are other points of view, and the article should not take sides. 69.214.180.253 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what I just said was fact - his role in this was not just getting his house hit, just as Olmert's role in this wasn't just sitting by his desk, watching the news.

Also, Hezbollah did initiate the current aggressions, as recognized by most of the world. okedem 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Israel itself violated Lebanese sovereignty on a continuous basis, then used an isolated border incursion as a pretext to destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon and to kill over 1000 Lebanese civilians. You do not have to agree with this, but a compelling case can be made, and both views should be reflected in the entry. I do agree that the section on the 2006 war is much too brief and should include the Israeli view, but I do not believe that this view should be presented alone or as fact.69.212.215.248 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First off - if you want to indent your comment, use colons (":"), like I do now.

If you can find a reliable source that makes that case, it can be presented here. However, one would also have to be clear on the fact that Israel withdrew to an internationally recognized border, and that Hezbollah attacked Israel afterwards, by kidnapping 3 Israeli soldiers in 2000, by firing at Israeli towns, and by this current attack. The case for Israel violating sovereignty would be that Israeli aircrafts flew over Lebanons airspace (since Israel did not enter lebanon on the ground).

BTW, the claims about Israel destoying the infrastructure of Lebanon are quite unbased. For example, Israel did attack Beirut's airport, but did the minimal possible damage - bombed a runway intersection, and the fuel tanks. It did not bomb the terminal, the hangars, the control tower. It did the minimal damage that would prevent the use of the airport. Also, if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, why did Lebanon continue to have electricity?

But I digress - the point is - the current section gives a completely false picture of events. okedem 07:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Hezbollah violated Lebanese sovereignity by attacking Israel and then hiding in Lebanon. Likewise Syria has certainly violated Lebanese sovereignity. No country can tolerate rockets being fired into its schools from nearby towns. Sept 1, 2006

You talk like if Hezbollah was a strange body in South Lebanon saying "They hide in Lebanon", wake up brother, Hezbollah is the people of the freed(2000) south Lebanon, they live there ,they grew there, this is their soilAhage4x4 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the basics: Why Hezbollah is still in existance.

you guys are arguing about Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as being a terrorist, however, think of what the word terrorist actually means... TO TERRORISE. and the only people being terrorised are the jews in Israel. the arabs, whether they are christians or muslims, are not at all afraid of him. So what does that have to do with the USA and Britain? Simple, they are pro-zionist and anti arab. Nasrallah said himself that Hezbollah will not be disarmed until every inch of the lebanese land is freed from israel, including the Chebaa Farms. So in short...If Israel gives Lebanon back the land, there wont be any more conflict between the two sides. however, Israel ofcoarse thought that it can disarm Hizbollah with declaring war on Lebanon. Nasrallah said that "Olmert's stupid government does not know what they are getting into." and in fact Nasrallah bombed Israel, and he's the second guy, other than saddam, that bombs israel. Olmert's government thought that this was going to be an easy war, like the one against egypt, syria and jordan 40 years ago where they won the war in 6 days. that was not the case and it took 33 days of bombing innocent civillians (i know cause i lived there during the war.) About 100 hizbollah fighters died and approximately 1000 civillians (1/3 of them children under the age of 12). Why? because the Hizbollah fighters are normal civillians that go on with there everyday lives. they went to fight for their country, and that is not called terrorism, the real terrorist is israel. They came to Palestine after world war 2, so imagine you have land, and out of nowhere thousands of people come to it overseas, and expects you to meet them with open arms, when that happens, they want to take control over it and make their own government, why? because they say that they where promised the land thousands of years ago, thats BS. so the war starts, and the palestinian muslims starts doing Jihad, thats fighting against the enemy, and if you die you are promised heaven for eternity. So we got people that are promised the land thousands of years ago and we got people wanting to die for their land that has been taken away from them because they have been promised heaven in the afterlife. My opinion is to take away the "Virus" that is called Israel from the middle east, and make a separate country for the jews in the US or canada where they can conquere as much land as they want(due to the vast amount of unoccupated land Canada has)and live peacfully together.

      Back to the original topic...Give Lebanon the land back and Lebanon "promises" to give you peace.

[edit] Back to the basics: Why Hezbollah is still in existance.

you guys are arguing about Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as being a terrorist, however, think of what the word terrorist actually means... TO TERRORISE. and the only people being terrorised are the jews in Israel. the arabs, whether they are christians or muslims, are not at all afraid of him. So what does that have to do with the USA and Britain? Simple, they are pro-zionist and anti arab. Nasrallah said himself that Hezbollah will not be disarmed until every inch of the lebanese land is freed from israel, including the Chebaa Farms. So in short...If Israel gives Lebanon back the land, there wont be any more conflict between the two sides. however, Israel ofcoarse thought that it can disarm Hizbollah with declaring war on Lebanon. Nasrallah said that "Olmert's stupid government does not know what they are getting into." and in fact Nasrallah bombed Israel, and he's the second guy, other than saddam, that bombs israel. Olmert's government thought that this was going to be an easy war, like the one against egypt, syria and jordan 40 years ago where they won the war in 6 days. that was not the case and it took 33 days of bombing innocent civillians (i know cause i lived there during the war.) About 100 hizbollah fighters died and approximately 1000 civillians (1/3 of them children under the age of 12). Why? because the Hizbollah fighters are normal civillians that go on with there everyday lives. they went to fight for their country, and that is not called terrorism, the real terrorist is israel. They came to Palestine after world war 2, so imagine you have land, and out of nowhere thousands of people come to it overseas, and expects you to meet them with open arms, when that happens, they want to take control over it and make their own government, why? because they say that they where promised the land thousands of years ago, thats BS. so the war starts, and the palestinian muslims starts doing Jihad, thats fighting against the enemy, and if you die you are promised heaven for eternity. So we got people that are promised the land thousands of years ago and we got people wanting to die for their land that has been taken away from them because they have been promised heaven in the afterlife. My opinion is to take away the "Virus" that is called Israel from the middle east, and make a separate country for the jews in the US or canada where they can conquere as much land as they want(due to the vast amount of unoccupated land Canada has)and live peacfully together.

      Back to the original topic...Give Lebanon the land back and Lebanon "promises" to give you peace. 212.138.64.177 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

READER: I read ur passage and i found it remarkably true.... thanx 4 being honest... that gives a motivation after seeing all those idiots still discussing TERRORISM !!!!

[edit] Americans

People especially the ones living in the usa are all ignorant, and has been taught lies all their lives from their countries that they dont now what is happening in the world. I was in lebanon during the war, and i had an american friend that was on vacation with me in lebanon, and he saw everything that was happening there, and he couldnt beleive it! he thought that the jews where angels, however when he saw them bombing buildings with civillians, and cars with white flags on them getting attacked with appaches, also a pickups full of wounded people that where already hit, getting bombed again he got really mad. he called his mom in detroit, and she didnt even know what was happening in lebanon!! that was a really sad experience to see people as ignorant and stupid as the American people.

nice friend

I love this argument. Always with the innocent civilians. Everytime a Jew kills an Arab he was an innocent civilian. But every time an Arab kills a Jew he was doing the duty of Allah right? You are a liar and the truth is not in you. Stop supporting the spread of Fascist Islamism.

[edit] Clean Up

moved all the headers up to the top, and comments below. I shouldn't have lost any comments. Although a lot them seemed to be argumentative and not really wikipedia edit type comments. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links: CAMERA article

It seems that some quotes have been attributed to Nasrallah, quotes which are not by him at all. See Charles Glass in London Review of Books. Note the quote from the lebanese Daily Star (by Badih Chayban) in October 2002/10/23 ('If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide') ..it has been used extensively (especially by neo-cons)..but there is no proof that this is a "real" quote at all (It has also been denied by Hizbolla spokesmen). The CAMERA article: "Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words" (where it is quoted) is therefore at least partly based on what I would call false propaganda; (it is not his own word at all): I will therefore remove it.

(This whole thing remindes me very much of the Ouze Merham "quotes" of Ariel Sharon ...perhaps there also should be an article about false quotes attributed to Nasrallah? ..with listing them where they first appear, and where they were refuted?) Regards, Huldra 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurisprudence of the Guardians and Khomeini View of Ashura Ritual

I listened to a streaming video lecture by Professor juan Cole who explained the above topic. Nasralah subscribes to Khomeinis views and is his disciple. Amal suscribes to Fadallah who is close to Ayatollah Sistani of Irak. In the Khomeini view the clerics have the last word. Sistani and Fadallah's view is minimum interference. Even though Nasrallah is prominent politicaly in Lebanon, theologically he is much junior to Ayotollah Fadallah. On Ashura (Arabic for 10 which follows 10 days after first of year 1 Muharram similar to Yom Kippur about 10 days after Rosh Shannah) some Shiites self flagellate in memory of the martrydom of the 3rd Imam Husain at Karbala. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the practice. If I am right, then Amal would do the bloody ritual on Ashura while Hezbollah members would not. I have to get a source for this before i incorporate this in article. If any lebanese Shia are reading this- would appreciate any insight. Best Wishes Will314159 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitism and semitism run amok

the flip side of anti-semitism is semitism run amok. Anti-semitism is strongly condemmed wherever it appears. At the same time semitism run amok is the flip side. WP is an encyclopedia for everybody and all these negative comments about Nasrallah are bull. The PLO was delcared a terrorist organization. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. gets called on the carpet for meeting with the PLO. Sharon starts a war to expel the PLO from Lebanon. Then guess what? Israel invites the PLO to the West Bank, and Yasser Arafat is a frequent guest at the White House. But then he won't roll over and then he's a terrorist again and becomes a prisoner at Ramallah. The Israelis can get any opponents of theirs declared "terrorists" by the U.S. Congress and then undeclared as it suits their purposes. This is a biography article of living person and there are guidelines. There is no call or excuse for calling the subject a "little shxt" as one so called "Editor" did above. It is just disgusting. But it is like this in every article having to do with the Mid-East in WP. There are very few Arab English speaking editors and are grossly outnumbered and out-articulated. The editors that are proponents of the other side are overwhelming in their numbers, with notable exceptions and those people are heroes, are not exercising balance and fair play. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't blow themselves up with hundreds of people around them the US Congress wouldn't declare them to be terrorist's. It's not rocket science man.

Then, shall we give the IDF credit for 'terrorising' a whole country killing a thousand of their people? The US can put anyone on their terrorists list, who cares Nasrallah is seen as a Freedom fighter for millions of Arabs, he is certainly much more respected statistically then the "strongest" man on earth, Mr Bush Ahage4x4 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave the term "Terrorist" out of the debate? Terrorism has become a highly subjective and stigmatized word since 9/11/2001. Where one person sees a "terrorist", another sees a "freedom fighter". US Congress and their declarations have no place in WP, and neither do the opinions of those at the other end of the political debate. Lets just stick to the facts, folks, and leave the subjectivity out of it ok? Nageeb 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sure. let's use the "objective" opinions of these people about the word "terrorist".. webster discussions

Wow, you know what would have been nice? If they actually cited a source of that definition (the definition kept expanding as the interview went on, incidentally). Simply claiming that Webster's Dictionary says something without actually showing it or citing an edition is useless. (Side note: There is no one "Webster's Dictionary", there are indeed many editions and versions, each having a different use and purpose.) What kind of garbage talkshow was that? Also, the Egyptian guy in the horrible shirt was a wanker. Nageeb 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

webster reality check: [1]

btw, what negative comment about nasrallah is bull exactly? Jaakobou 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Compact with Michel Aoun

Many observors write this has kept lebanon from civil war. From the Xtian side it calls for the the 1)disarmament of HA upon return of the three remaining Leb prisoners in Israeli jails (yes back then it was 3 prisoners!!) 2) return of Shebaa Farms and 3) the repatriation of SLA refugees (South Lebanon Army) from Israel with pardons. From the HA side it calls for reform of the Taif electoral law perhaps with one man one vote. The speculation is tha the Sunni would then pad the vote by extending the franchise to Palestinian refugee descentants and the Xtians would try to gain numbers by extending the vote to overseas Lebanese. The compact is a signicant achievment for Nasrallah and Aoun because it has kept the country stable and unified even under the total war waged recently on the civilian infrastructure. When I get the citations lined up I" try to incorporate some of this in the article as well as the jurisprudence of the guardians material. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syria Iran Hezbollah support

He actually used the words "everybody knows it"? I'm sorry, but that is the single most hilarious thing that I have ever heard. VolatileChemical 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)