![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Lebanon conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The template shouldn't be placed because it implies that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization on par with Al-Qaeda, which isn't the case because, ironically, al-Qaeda and Fatah al Islam have provided some militants to fight with the Future Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.112.176 ( talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Come again? It implies Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? They ARE a terrorist organization. At best you can say they are a paramilitary. The war on terrorism is not only against Al-Qaeda but all terrorists or insurgent organizations that fight against Western influence. And it has been clearly stated that the war in 2006 with Israel was part of the War on terrorism. So the target in that campaign was Hezbollah. This is a proxy war between the U.S. on the one hand and Iran and Syria on the other, just like the Iran-Iraq war during the Cold war. The war in 2006, the Hamas-Gaza takeover and the refugee camp siege in Lebanon last year have all been connected to the global war on terrorism. This is just one more front. You yourself said that this is a U.S.-backed war.( Top Gun)
Tell that to the civilians that were killed in the U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, and most of those were not even American but Lebanese. Listen you don't understand the war on terrorism. Actually it is not even a war against terrorism but against those who fight against Western (U.S.) interests. Even if the opposition are not terrorists they are the opposing side in the U.S. war. Hell, not even all of the countries that were fighting in the Cold war against U.S. allies were communists. For example Iran against Iraq (then U.S.-backed). But even if they were not communists those wars were put and the banners of Cold war proxy wars.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 00:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the civilians that were killed in the U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, and most of those were not even American but Lebanese. Listen you don't understand the war on terrorism. Actualy it is not even a war against terrorism but against those who fight against Western (U.S.) interests. Even if the opposition are not terrorists they are the opposing side in the U.S. war. Hell, not even all of the countries that were fighting in the Cold war against U.S. allies were communists. For example Iran against Iraq (then U.S.-backed). But even if they were not communists those wars were put and the banners of Cold war proxy wars.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, actually they are not a terrorist organization according to the overwhelming majority of the world population. If you holds some grudge against Islamists, I would be best for you to to infect these articles with it. Again, it would be not sound to call this part of the War on Terrorism when many of those who fought with the Future Movement are radical Salafi Jihadists from Northern Lebanon who previously fought with Fatah al-Islam. Until the Bush administration declares this conflict a part of the War on Terror, the template should not be included in the article. As to your comment about the bombing of the US embassy, keep in mind that the US kills more civilians in one day across the globe than Hezbollah did during its lifetime. 63.216.112.176 ( talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is off topic. Being tagged a part of the "War on Terrorism" does not require being labelled a terrorist organization. It would require US officials to come out and say that they view the Lebanese government's fight with Hezbollah to be a part of the "War on Terrorism", which, as of yet, they have not. It should not carry that template until such time as someone labels it that way. ← George [ talk 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Actualy I hold no grudge against Islamists at all. I am all for them. Actualy I am celebrating the fall of Beirut to Hezbollah. But what I am is a realist. And please don't talk to me about who kills more civilians. I know how many civilians the US has killed. They also killed more than 3,000 of my people when they bombed Serbia.( Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.83.39 ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Now tell that to Bush.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The embassy bombings happened before hezbollah's creation
Farbne ( talk) 23:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Always nice to have one of these in recent news, methinks: Actually, this entire section is a coat-hanger for this particular source: Hezbollah withdraws from Beirut (Reuters) but I'm unsure where to stick that in the article, heh. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Some one keeps editing it to say the FPM has over 80% of the Christians WITHOUT a source. I posted a source from February 2008 saying they had 35% and fixed it. They won 70% in Metn 3 years ago, and have slowly been losing support amongst Christians according to most recent polls. Just saying stop putting stuff up without sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The source you provided is not reliable. The BBC and Reuters and the results of the 2005 elections show that Aoun has the support of more than 70% of Lebanon's Christians. The 2007 bi-elections show that his popularity hasn't even remotely declined. The other 10% support the Marada Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Lebanese Communist Party. FiveRupees ( talk) 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no source posted to prove your claims. Until then, the source I posted will stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I know a LOT of FPMers who did not condone Amal and Hezbollah's attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
NowLebanon is not a reliable source. Reuters and the BBC are reliable sources. Are you slow? Should I explain it more clearly? FiveRupees ( talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not a reliable source. Still better than no source. Either way, your sources that prove your claims. BBC says Aoun likes to "boast he has 70%" of the Christian community. Reuters says that's according to the elections three years ago that's the case. Polls from recent months show that this is not the case for today and you have no source that another 10% support the parties you mentioned. I'll let it stay, for now. AngryChair5 ( talk) 02:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide quotes from the sources? I don't see anything about 80% in either one. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources say that Aoun has the support of 70% of Lebanon's Christians. The remaining 10% come from Aoun's allies, the Marada Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Lebanese Communist Party who voted against him in the 2005 parliamentary elections. FiveRupees ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The results of the 2005 elections is the most legitimate source. Please feel free to change the value during the following elections. Other than that, it's media against media. Ad vitam aeternam ( talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are some wrong statements in the article such as Sunnis supporting the government and Sunni forces in Beirut had surrendered their arms. Neither do all the Sunnis support the government nor do all of the supporters of the government are Sunnis. There are Sunnis who are pro-Syrian and anti government such as Umar Karami as well as Christians and Druze who are pro-government.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Umar Karami is mostly irrelevant you can say 90% of the Sunnis support the government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.183 ( talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sunnis who support Hezbollah don't necessarily like Karami. Many support only Hezbollah, other are secular people who support the FPM and the overwhelming majority of them just don't like that thieving pig Rafik Hariri so maybe 40% to 45% of Sunnis support the opposition. FiveRupees ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Many Sunnis support Hezbollah, and even more Sunnis support Hariri, mostly because they are part of the Future Social Program. But I can tell you that the great majority of Sunnis support neither. Barakeh ( talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a question for those who may have a better understanding of the politics on the ground in Lebanon: if Hezbollah has essentially declared war on the current government why is the army not mobilizing against them? Is the army somehow independent of the government? Are they not under the control of the government? Any info would be helpful. Macutty ( talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the army's job is not to protect the government or to fight for it, it is to protect the state's institutions. Also, the government doesn't represent the Lebanese people, because the Shiites who make up 35 to 40% of the population and the Christians, more that 80% of whom support the Free Patriotic Movement, the Marada Movement, the SSNP and the Communist Party and not represented in the government. So even for most of the army, the government is illegitimate. FiveRupees ( talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So essentially the army is independent of the government? If a group (even domestic groups) challenged the, say, Canadian government or US government the military would certainly respond. it would seem backwards for the army to just let any internal group who exerts enough force to take over the country and begin taking orders from them? Is there maybe some level of dissent within the army? is Siniora no longer in control of the military? I'm struggling to understand this. Macutty ( talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems many major news organizations are begging to refer to this as a coup along with Siniora. With this being the case should we rename the article? Or is this just sensationalistic publishing by media outlets? Macutty ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were a coup, Hezbollah wouldn't be giving control of everything it seized to the army, they would be invading the government building and the ministry of defense, which they could have easily done, and create a new government. FiveRupees ( talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh come'on, the pro-government supporter casualties must be higher than that, why else are they giving up their positions everywhere? Lucias21 ( talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is the legitimate government of Lebanon. It is supported by the UN, and is a UN member state. Why not call it a 'UN-backed' government? Because . . . this entire article is very slanted toward the Hezbollah point of view, and calling the government 'American-backed' is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize Hezbollah's actions, as if the Lebanese government is nothing more than a puppet state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.165.179 ( talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1- It's pretty beefed up on one side, and it's almost completely POV. The numbers of casualties for example, how come there are only 4 people dead from the Future Movement and the rest are listed as civilians? This is completely incorrect, most of those listed as civilians are actually Future Movement militants... unless you want to mean civilian = not in the official army, then let's put everyone under civilian.
2- No picture of a loyalist militant is shown, especially those holding the Al Qaeda flag such as this one: http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080512&t=2&i=4222041&w=&r=2008-05-12T143029Z_01_L12505038_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE5
3- No mention of the execution of SSNP members by Future Movement loyalists after the surrender of those SSNP member after a fight that happened in the North at Halba. No mention of torture as well, please review the following videos (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHADOV24BV8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eAjQYae5w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX2MRY9jg2g http://up.techachino.com/20080510004.mp4 http://www.ssnp.info/media/Halba024L.wmv
As well as a survivor of the massacre's notes on his personal blog: http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre/#comments and http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre-the-names/
The whole article needs proper rework. Ad vitam aeternam ( talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is it unbalanced to Hizbullah? How about the massacre done by Future Movement in the north, the videos are all over the internet and yet it didn't make it through the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.245.84 ( talk) 02:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Many Sunni Muslim religious figures have appeared on television, publicly denouncing the government's "unpatriotic alignment with the Bush administration, the neo-cons and Israel and its hostility to Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance".[46]
These many are actually few, and have always spoke against the government because they wanted the seat of the Prime Minister (Which is a Sunni Position) The Great Majority of Sunnis are with Fouad Siniora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.118.131 ( talk) 10:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed this problematic sentence altogether – the source is “Press TV” which is a news agency operated by the Iranian government and not a reliable source. The Iranian government has clear interest to portray the government as “unpatriotic” and “aligned with the Bush administration and Israel”. There may have been "Sunni Muslim religious figures have appeared on television" saying etc. but this is certeinly not a reliable source. Tkalisky ( talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hezbollah Casualties
Hezbollah is usually quick to claim (when it suits them)"martyrs" on its websites, TV and newspapers. Does anyone that follows their media have seen any announcement? It seems that they suffered some casualties fighting the Druze in the Chouf with some Hezbollah captured. Of course, not sure if they are part of the main Hezbollah army or part-timers, with low training that can be used against non-trained pro-government forces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmiami ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to 2008 Lebanon conflict or some similar title as it is not simple unrest. There are clearly military confrontations going on and real battles. Initially it was simple unrest, but it quickly escalated into full-on conflict. As such I think it should be named appropriately.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I see conflict isn't good as no sources call it that way and fighting is much better. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There's an image with the caption "Armed Hezbollah fighters near the Crowne Plaza in Beirut on May 9", but that is highly dubious, the fighters could be anyone (Amal, SSNP, Mustaqbal, so on), not necessarily Hizbollah members, so captions like that should simply say "fighters", if a reliable source doesn't state otherwise.
The image's description on Flickr makes it even more dubious that the guy who took it even knew for sure what group the fighters belonged to: "These pics were taken after half an hour they stopped shooting but I still could see some Hezbollah around. The pics were taken secretly from the Crowne Plaza. I did got warned by the hotel receptionist not to take photographs of them while they are carrying weapons so I put the camera away, if they saw me taking pictures of them I would get in big trouble. He said some Hezbollah are crazy and no educated, they are stupid and only following their leader so I have to be really be careful when I´m around them". Funkynusayri ( talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hezbollah is named specifically too many times in this article, though it was a joint operation by several anti-government groups. So statements like: "Hezbollah's gunmen seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods", "Hezbollah militants overran three pro-government offices.", "About 100 Shiite armed Hezbollah militants in camouflage uniforms marched down Hamra Street", "The main pro-government TV station was occupied by Hezbollah and burned down.", should be changed to "opposition members did this or that", unless it is stated specifically in the sources that it was done by Hizballah members.
As an example, the burning of the FM TV station was done by SSNP members, not Hizbollah members, which later lead to the attack on the SSNP headquarters in Halba. On top of that, the burning of the FM station was apparently conducted as a response to FM members burning SSNP offices several times during the last years. Funkynusayri ( talk) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Eye-witness account: http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre/
Footage: http://www.plus961.com/2008/05/13/footages-of-halba-massacre/ Funkynusayri ( talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not a massacre, the people who died on both sides died in combat. Barakeh ( talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am still surprised that the issue has not been put in the article, I mean, to be extremely objective, the accusations at least exist. And the fact that there are numerous accusations on the Halba matter, it is vital to be part of the article (in other words, we are not sherlock holmes to know the details of the incident on our own). This is a very important matter, because it deals directly with crimes against humanity as well as international warcrime. Matter must be addressed asap. 89.133.142.67 ( talk) 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this out of the lead and into the background section. It's not clear any proof of the existence of a secret U.S.-backed militia has emerged, so it seems WP:UNDUE, at this point, to go on about this in such detail in the WP:LEAD. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed material:
The United States and Israel are widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah, [1] [2] after failed attempts to disarm the group during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War and the 2007 Lebanon conflict, which journalist Seymour Hersh believed to be the work of the the U.S and Saudi Arabia, through Bandar bin Sultan. [3] [4] The former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash said in an interview on May 10 that Israel has given "Lebanese Forces men the best training and they will appear in any future confrontation. Lebanese Forces fighters will hold on much longer in Hezbollah's faces, but eventually they will be defeated." [5]
I removed the whole paragraph about “The United States and Israel planning the present conflict”. I did not find any mention of Israel in the sources cited, apart from an article by Al-Manar which is not a respectable source of information (a quick look at the talkbacks there was enough for me to realize that antisemitism is live and well in the fundamentalist Islamic world). To the best of my knowledge, as an Israeli myself, the Israelis are not so stupid to intervene knowing that whichever side they assist will immedietely lose its support within the arab public. Tkalisky ( talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Al-Manar website cites "Filkka-an Israeli new agency" on this matter. However in their website Filkka says they are a "ANTI ZIONST GROUP" based in Tel-Aviv. Most of the articles there are in Arabic. Not exactly an objective and reliable Israeli source. Tkalisky ( talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed again the quote by Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash because the only source I could find was the Al-Manar website who cites "Filkka-an Israeli new agency" on this matter. Again, Al-Manar belongs to the Hezbollah and has clear interest of portraying the Lebanese government as pro-Israeli (apart from blaming Israel again for interfering in Lebanon as a policy to justify their existence as an armed force aside from the Lebanese army). Also please see above what I wrote about Filkka who portray themselves as “ANTI ZIONIST” – not a reliable source either. Tkalisky ( talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Al Manar is a Hezbollah Propaganda, it is used "to strike fear in the heart of the enemy" (Thier words) I watch the channel regularly here in Lebanon. 63.216.114.8 ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT THE BLOODY HELL! The Speaker of Naserallah Na'em Qassem said that there is no winner or loser in this conflict. The Problem also why while I'm typing this, all of our leaders are in Doha, Qatar If anything, this should be No Conclusion, unless you want to say that the Government was victorious against Hezbollah's protests in 2006, since you know the government hasn't stepped down yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.116.132 ( talk) 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
By that definition there is no winner or loser in the 2006 lebanon-Israeli conflict. You would have to change the entire axis of winning and losing to facilitate your definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.233.153 ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone knows the source of Image:2008_Fighting_in_Lebanon.jpg ?
Is this defined as a battle or war?-- EZ1234 ( talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this title change is a bit ridiculous. One source does not define a name for an event. ← George [ talk 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
More fighting and dead people in Tripoli today, but I can't find sources. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a specific source for the statement "The United States is widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah," with exact quotes from the sources you're citing. ← George [ talk 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales
Third opinion - I'm offering a third opinion on this discussion as requested per WP:3O. I've no previous history with this topic, I've just read the discussion and looked at the edit history and the sources a bit. First thing: Please remember that in these discussions the aim is not to defend your position (as natural as that may be), but to find a neutral and verifiable presentation of the facts.
You both seem to agree that there are parties who allege US involvement. The disagreement seems to be about if this is "widely believed" (vs. "some believe") and if the US specifically planned for the events on this article (vs. just a general incitation).
On widely vs. some - both of these are weasel words. Who believes it? Maybe it's widely believed among Hisbollah supporters, but not so in the US public - fact is that I don't know. The sources do neither - they talk about what they believe, and do not mention what others think. So these sources are useless in proving who believes something.
On the sources themselves: Some of the sources seem to be fringe/partisan, and (in my opinion) lend much credibility. The LA Times article does not support the current claims. It contains a statement that "for the record" refutes that theses claims were made. The Asia Times piece seems strongest to me, even though it's a bit of an opinion piece. All in all the evidence that the US planned this specific event seems a bit scarce, although I didn't read word by word.
I'd suggest that you try to find a compromise that describes reality without taking a stance. I'd suggest something along the lines of "Several news sources alleged that <quote several news sources> ..." or "Pepe Escobar of the Asian Times wrote ..." or "X and Y reported" - and that you stick with what is said in the sources. Averell ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Some pro-Hezbollah news outlets, unfortunately, misappropriated the article to score political points, alleging that The Times was reporting that the U.S. was funding the groups or that Lebanon's Internal Security Force was behind them. For the record, The Times reported no such thing."
Franklin Lamb says: According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the Bush administration initially green lighted the intended May 11 Israel 'demonstration of solidarity with the pro-Bush administration militias, some with which Israel has maintained ties since the days of Bashir Gemayal and Ariel Sharon.
He then says: The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.
As'ad AbuKhalil says: And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
He then says: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. and Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
So, the sources show, clearly, that it is "widely believed that the US funded the militias". You replacing the statement with smaller dispersed statements is an unfortunate attempt to discredit this claim as a minority view shared by a few journalists, when in reality, as I'm sure you know, the literate world is divided on this issue. GreenEcho ( talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Support for the militia usually implies funding and arming, not just pep talk. So when AbuKhalil says "this militia of Hariri's, as supported by the United States", he includes funding as well. In case you didn't notice, AbuKhalil also wrote: "The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee.". And, again, that the US is funding the Hariri militia is a view shared by millions, including half of Lebanon, and this is a known fact, even if the American media chooses not to make it explicitly clear. GreenEcho ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional Comment - My feeling is that the change introduced by George may have been a bit too much - we can't paraphrase the content of each news article on the topic. However, I still don't really see that the sources support the claim of widely believed are supported by the sources. I see what these people have said, but the fact that they said it doesn't automatically make it widely believed (again - in which context?). In addition, what I see in the article history is bordering on a revert war. I strongly suggest that you leave the article alone for now, and discuss the wording on the talk page; reach an agreement before editing again. You can also go to places like the WP:Mediation Cabal if you need more outside assistance. Averell ( talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've come here at a request. It appears that the differences here are over two issues, one, whether some groups are "anti-Syrian" or "formerly pro-Syrian", and whether or not the United States "is widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah, as well as to incite and exacerbate discord between Sunnis and Shi'as." Are there any reliable sources that explicitly support any of these claims? If so, please quote them. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping this issue would be resolved by now, but it doesn't appear it has. There is absolutely no basis for either the pro-government casualties or Hezbollah casualties. The sources used for Hezbollah are all referring to the same day and each give different casualty figures. The media reports seem to greatly inflate Hezbollah casualties by counting supporters and allies as Hezbollah members. The pro-government casualties seem to be entirely made-up.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate your dispute. I have been reading about your dispute here and at the talk page and to help see all views could I ask all involved parties to read the below summary of your dispute and endorse it (confirm it is true) by placing # ~~~~ in the spot provided. Thankyou. —Atyndall citation needed 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
User:GreenEcho and User:George have been going back and forth between two similar versions of this article, one that states the US is "widely thought" to have funded and armed a militia in Lebanon, and one which states that the US is "thought by some" to have funded and armed a militia in Lebanon. GreenEcho's stance is that the US is widely thought to have funded and armed the Lebanon militia, an assumption that is based on Lebanon consensus, Unofficial postings by journalists and Middle-east news sources. George's view is that no reliable (that is, not from the middle-east, blogs, forums or any other non-reliable place) sources can be found to support those claims.
Endorsements:
I'm not sure there are enough editors watching this article. I'm saying something because there are anonymous editors changing figures related to the event. There are no edit summaries and most of the time there are no new sources added. So the integrity of the article is being destroyed. This is true throughout Wikipedia also, but I wanted to say something here first. Dawnseeker2000 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI ( talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have done a complete overhaul of the article, removing, adding and editing sections, but most importantly adding significantly more reliable sources (books, scientific articles and renowned newspapers). Have a look and provide any comments or remarks in case you have them. Zuid2020 ( talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved as proposed, without opposition. BD2412 T 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
2008 conflict in Lebanon → 2008 Lebanon conflict – Consistency with 2007 Lebanon conflict and the “Conflict in ___” naming scheme is very unnecessary for this article Ridax2020 ( talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 conflict in Lebanon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Lebanon conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The template shouldn't be placed because it implies that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization on par with Al-Qaeda, which isn't the case because, ironically, al-Qaeda and Fatah al Islam have provided some militants to fight with the Future Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.112.176 ( talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Come again? It implies Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? They ARE a terrorist organization. At best you can say they are a paramilitary. The war on terrorism is not only against Al-Qaeda but all terrorists or insurgent organizations that fight against Western influence. And it has been clearly stated that the war in 2006 with Israel was part of the War on terrorism. So the target in that campaign was Hezbollah. This is a proxy war between the U.S. on the one hand and Iran and Syria on the other, just like the Iran-Iraq war during the Cold war. The war in 2006, the Hamas-Gaza takeover and the refugee camp siege in Lebanon last year have all been connected to the global war on terrorism. This is just one more front. You yourself said that this is a U.S.-backed war.( Top Gun)
Tell that to the civilians that were killed in the U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, and most of those were not even American but Lebanese. Listen you don't understand the war on terrorism. Actually it is not even a war against terrorism but against those who fight against Western (U.S.) interests. Even if the opposition are not terrorists they are the opposing side in the U.S. war. Hell, not even all of the countries that were fighting in the Cold war against U.S. allies were communists. For example Iran against Iraq (then U.S.-backed). But even if they were not communists those wars were put and the banners of Cold war proxy wars.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 00:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the civilians that were killed in the U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, and most of those were not even American but Lebanese. Listen you don't understand the war on terrorism. Actualy it is not even a war against terrorism but against those who fight against Western (U.S.) interests. Even if the opposition are not terrorists they are the opposing side in the U.S. war. Hell, not even all of the countries that were fighting in the Cold war against U.S. allies were communists. For example Iran against Iraq (then U.S.-backed). But even if they were not communists those wars were put and the banners of Cold war proxy wars.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, actually they are not a terrorist organization according to the overwhelming majority of the world population. If you holds some grudge against Islamists, I would be best for you to to infect these articles with it. Again, it would be not sound to call this part of the War on Terrorism when many of those who fought with the Future Movement are radical Salafi Jihadists from Northern Lebanon who previously fought with Fatah al-Islam. Until the Bush administration declares this conflict a part of the War on Terror, the template should not be included in the article. As to your comment about the bombing of the US embassy, keep in mind that the US kills more civilians in one day across the globe than Hezbollah did during its lifetime. 63.216.112.176 ( talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is off topic. Being tagged a part of the "War on Terrorism" does not require being labelled a terrorist organization. It would require US officials to come out and say that they view the Lebanese government's fight with Hezbollah to be a part of the "War on Terrorism", which, as of yet, they have not. It should not carry that template until such time as someone labels it that way. ← George [ talk 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Actualy I hold no grudge against Islamists at all. I am all for them. Actualy I am celebrating the fall of Beirut to Hezbollah. But what I am is a realist. And please don't talk to me about who kills more civilians. I know how many civilians the US has killed. They also killed more than 3,000 of my people when they bombed Serbia.( Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.83.39 ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Now tell that to Bush.( Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The embassy bombings happened before hezbollah's creation
Farbne ( talk) 23:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Always nice to have one of these in recent news, methinks: Actually, this entire section is a coat-hanger for this particular source: Hezbollah withdraws from Beirut (Reuters) but I'm unsure where to stick that in the article, heh. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Some one keeps editing it to say the FPM has over 80% of the Christians WITHOUT a source. I posted a source from February 2008 saying they had 35% and fixed it. They won 70% in Metn 3 years ago, and have slowly been losing support amongst Christians according to most recent polls. Just saying stop putting stuff up without sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The source you provided is not reliable. The BBC and Reuters and the results of the 2005 elections show that Aoun has the support of more than 70% of Lebanon's Christians. The 2007 bi-elections show that his popularity hasn't even remotely declined. The other 10% support the Marada Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Lebanese Communist Party. FiveRupees ( talk) 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no source posted to prove your claims. Until then, the source I posted will stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I know a LOT of FPMers who did not condone Amal and Hezbollah's attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryChair5 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
NowLebanon is not a reliable source. Reuters and the BBC are reliable sources. Are you slow? Should I explain it more clearly? FiveRupees ( talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not a reliable source. Still better than no source. Either way, your sources that prove your claims. BBC says Aoun likes to "boast he has 70%" of the Christian community. Reuters says that's according to the elections three years ago that's the case. Polls from recent months show that this is not the case for today and you have no source that another 10% support the parties you mentioned. I'll let it stay, for now. AngryChair5 ( talk) 02:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide quotes from the sources? I don't see anything about 80% in either one. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources say that Aoun has the support of 70% of Lebanon's Christians. The remaining 10% come from Aoun's allies, the Marada Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Lebanese Communist Party who voted against him in the 2005 parliamentary elections. FiveRupees ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The results of the 2005 elections is the most legitimate source. Please feel free to change the value during the following elections. Other than that, it's media against media. Ad vitam aeternam ( talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are some wrong statements in the article such as Sunnis supporting the government and Sunni forces in Beirut had surrendered their arms. Neither do all the Sunnis support the government nor do all of the supporters of the government are Sunnis. There are Sunnis who are pro-Syrian and anti government such as Umar Karami as well as Christians and Druze who are pro-government.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Umar Karami is mostly irrelevant you can say 90% of the Sunnis support the government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.183 ( talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sunnis who support Hezbollah don't necessarily like Karami. Many support only Hezbollah, other are secular people who support the FPM and the overwhelming majority of them just don't like that thieving pig Rafik Hariri so maybe 40% to 45% of Sunnis support the opposition. FiveRupees ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Many Sunnis support Hezbollah, and even more Sunnis support Hariri, mostly because they are part of the Future Social Program. But I can tell you that the great majority of Sunnis support neither. Barakeh ( talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a question for those who may have a better understanding of the politics on the ground in Lebanon: if Hezbollah has essentially declared war on the current government why is the army not mobilizing against them? Is the army somehow independent of the government? Are they not under the control of the government? Any info would be helpful. Macutty ( talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the army's job is not to protect the government or to fight for it, it is to protect the state's institutions. Also, the government doesn't represent the Lebanese people, because the Shiites who make up 35 to 40% of the population and the Christians, more that 80% of whom support the Free Patriotic Movement, the Marada Movement, the SSNP and the Communist Party and not represented in the government. So even for most of the army, the government is illegitimate. FiveRupees ( talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So essentially the army is independent of the government? If a group (even domestic groups) challenged the, say, Canadian government or US government the military would certainly respond. it would seem backwards for the army to just let any internal group who exerts enough force to take over the country and begin taking orders from them? Is there maybe some level of dissent within the army? is Siniora no longer in control of the military? I'm struggling to understand this. Macutty ( talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems many major news organizations are begging to refer to this as a coup along with Siniora. With this being the case should we rename the article? Or is this just sensationalistic publishing by media outlets? Macutty ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were a coup, Hezbollah wouldn't be giving control of everything it seized to the army, they would be invading the government building and the ministry of defense, which they could have easily done, and create a new government. FiveRupees ( talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh come'on, the pro-government supporter casualties must be higher than that, why else are they giving up their positions everywhere? Lucias21 ( talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is the legitimate government of Lebanon. It is supported by the UN, and is a UN member state. Why not call it a 'UN-backed' government? Because . . . this entire article is very slanted toward the Hezbollah point of view, and calling the government 'American-backed' is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize Hezbollah's actions, as if the Lebanese government is nothing more than a puppet state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.165.179 ( talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1- It's pretty beefed up on one side, and it's almost completely POV. The numbers of casualties for example, how come there are only 4 people dead from the Future Movement and the rest are listed as civilians? This is completely incorrect, most of those listed as civilians are actually Future Movement militants... unless you want to mean civilian = not in the official army, then let's put everyone under civilian.
2- No picture of a loyalist militant is shown, especially those holding the Al Qaeda flag such as this one: http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080512&t=2&i=4222041&w=&r=2008-05-12T143029Z_01_L12505038_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE5
3- No mention of the execution of SSNP members by Future Movement loyalists after the surrender of those SSNP member after a fight that happened in the North at Halba. No mention of torture as well, please review the following videos (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHADOV24BV8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eAjQYae5w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX2MRY9jg2g http://up.techachino.com/20080510004.mp4 http://www.ssnp.info/media/Halba024L.wmv
As well as a survivor of the massacre's notes on his personal blog: http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre/#comments and http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre-the-names/
The whole article needs proper rework. Ad vitam aeternam ( talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is it unbalanced to Hizbullah? How about the massacre done by Future Movement in the north, the videos are all over the internet and yet it didn't make it through the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.245.84 ( talk) 02:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Many Sunni Muslim religious figures have appeared on television, publicly denouncing the government's "unpatriotic alignment with the Bush administration, the neo-cons and Israel and its hostility to Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance".[46]
These many are actually few, and have always spoke against the government because they wanted the seat of the Prime Minister (Which is a Sunni Position) The Great Majority of Sunnis are with Fouad Siniora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.118.131 ( talk) 10:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed this problematic sentence altogether – the source is “Press TV” which is a news agency operated by the Iranian government and not a reliable source. The Iranian government has clear interest to portray the government as “unpatriotic” and “aligned with the Bush administration and Israel”. There may have been "Sunni Muslim religious figures have appeared on television" saying etc. but this is certeinly not a reliable source. Tkalisky ( talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hezbollah Casualties
Hezbollah is usually quick to claim (when it suits them)"martyrs" on its websites, TV and newspapers. Does anyone that follows their media have seen any announcement? It seems that they suffered some casualties fighting the Druze in the Chouf with some Hezbollah captured. Of course, not sure if they are part of the main Hezbollah army or part-timers, with low training that can be used against non-trained pro-government forces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmiami ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to 2008 Lebanon conflict or some similar title as it is not simple unrest. There are clearly military confrontations going on and real battles. Initially it was simple unrest, but it quickly escalated into full-on conflict. As such I think it should be named appropriately.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I see conflict isn't good as no sources call it that way and fighting is much better. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There's an image with the caption "Armed Hezbollah fighters near the Crowne Plaza in Beirut on May 9", but that is highly dubious, the fighters could be anyone (Amal, SSNP, Mustaqbal, so on), not necessarily Hizbollah members, so captions like that should simply say "fighters", if a reliable source doesn't state otherwise.
The image's description on Flickr makes it even more dubious that the guy who took it even knew for sure what group the fighters belonged to: "These pics were taken after half an hour they stopped shooting but I still could see some Hezbollah around. The pics were taken secretly from the Crowne Plaza. I did got warned by the hotel receptionist not to take photographs of them while they are carrying weapons so I put the camera away, if they saw me taking pictures of them I would get in big trouble. He said some Hezbollah are crazy and no educated, they are stupid and only following their leader so I have to be really be careful when I´m around them". Funkynusayri ( talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hezbollah is named specifically too many times in this article, though it was a joint operation by several anti-government groups. So statements like: "Hezbollah's gunmen seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods", "Hezbollah militants overran three pro-government offices.", "About 100 Shiite armed Hezbollah militants in camouflage uniforms marched down Hamra Street", "The main pro-government TV station was occupied by Hezbollah and burned down.", should be changed to "opposition members did this or that", unless it is stated specifically in the sources that it was done by Hizballah members.
As an example, the burning of the FM TV station was done by SSNP members, not Hizbollah members, which later lead to the attack on the SSNP headquarters in Halba. On top of that, the burning of the FM station was apparently conducted as a response to FM members burning SSNP offices several times during the last years. Funkynusayri ( talk) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Eye-witness account: http://darkoysm.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/is-it-lebanon-or-rwanda-details-of-the-halba-massacre/
Footage: http://www.plus961.com/2008/05/13/footages-of-halba-massacre/ Funkynusayri ( talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not a massacre, the people who died on both sides died in combat. Barakeh ( talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am still surprised that the issue has not been put in the article, I mean, to be extremely objective, the accusations at least exist. And the fact that there are numerous accusations on the Halba matter, it is vital to be part of the article (in other words, we are not sherlock holmes to know the details of the incident on our own). This is a very important matter, because it deals directly with crimes against humanity as well as international warcrime. Matter must be addressed asap. 89.133.142.67 ( talk) 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this out of the lead and into the background section. It's not clear any proof of the existence of a secret U.S.-backed militia has emerged, so it seems WP:UNDUE, at this point, to go on about this in such detail in the WP:LEAD. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed material:
The United States and Israel are widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah, [1] [2] after failed attempts to disarm the group during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War and the 2007 Lebanon conflict, which journalist Seymour Hersh believed to be the work of the the U.S and Saudi Arabia, through Bandar bin Sultan. [3] [4] The former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash said in an interview on May 10 that Israel has given "Lebanese Forces men the best training and they will appear in any future confrontation. Lebanese Forces fighters will hold on much longer in Hezbollah's faces, but eventually they will be defeated." [5]
I removed the whole paragraph about “The United States and Israel planning the present conflict”. I did not find any mention of Israel in the sources cited, apart from an article by Al-Manar which is not a respectable source of information (a quick look at the talkbacks there was enough for me to realize that antisemitism is live and well in the fundamentalist Islamic world). To the best of my knowledge, as an Israeli myself, the Israelis are not so stupid to intervene knowing that whichever side they assist will immedietely lose its support within the arab public. Tkalisky ( talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Al-Manar website cites "Filkka-an Israeli new agency" on this matter. However in their website Filkka says they are a "ANTI ZIONST GROUP" based in Tel-Aviv. Most of the articles there are in Arabic. Not exactly an objective and reliable Israeli source. Tkalisky ( talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed again the quote by Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash because the only source I could find was the Al-Manar website who cites "Filkka-an Israeli new agency" on this matter. Again, Al-Manar belongs to the Hezbollah and has clear interest of portraying the Lebanese government as pro-Israeli (apart from blaming Israel again for interfering in Lebanon as a policy to justify their existence as an armed force aside from the Lebanese army). Also please see above what I wrote about Filkka who portray themselves as “ANTI ZIONIST” – not a reliable source either. Tkalisky ( talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Al Manar is a Hezbollah Propaganda, it is used "to strike fear in the heart of the enemy" (Thier words) I watch the channel regularly here in Lebanon. 63.216.114.8 ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT THE BLOODY HELL! The Speaker of Naserallah Na'em Qassem said that there is no winner or loser in this conflict. The Problem also why while I'm typing this, all of our leaders are in Doha, Qatar If anything, this should be No Conclusion, unless you want to say that the Government was victorious against Hezbollah's protests in 2006, since you know the government hasn't stepped down yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.116.132 ( talk) 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
By that definition there is no winner or loser in the 2006 lebanon-Israeli conflict. You would have to change the entire axis of winning and losing to facilitate your definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.233.153 ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone knows the source of Image:2008_Fighting_in_Lebanon.jpg ?
Is this defined as a battle or war?-- EZ1234 ( talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this title change is a bit ridiculous. One source does not define a name for an event. ← George [ talk 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
More fighting and dead people in Tripoli today, but I can't find sources. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a specific source for the statement "The United States is widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah," with exact quotes from the sources you're citing. ← George [ talk 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales
Third opinion - I'm offering a third opinion on this discussion as requested per WP:3O. I've no previous history with this topic, I've just read the discussion and looked at the edit history and the sources a bit. First thing: Please remember that in these discussions the aim is not to defend your position (as natural as that may be), but to find a neutral and verifiable presentation of the facts.
You both seem to agree that there are parties who allege US involvement. The disagreement seems to be about if this is "widely believed" (vs. "some believe") and if the US specifically planned for the events on this article (vs. just a general incitation).
On widely vs. some - both of these are weasel words. Who believes it? Maybe it's widely believed among Hisbollah supporters, but not so in the US public - fact is that I don't know. The sources do neither - they talk about what they believe, and do not mention what others think. So these sources are useless in proving who believes something.
On the sources themselves: Some of the sources seem to be fringe/partisan, and (in my opinion) lend much credibility. The LA Times article does not support the current claims. It contains a statement that "for the record" refutes that theses claims were made. The Asia Times piece seems strongest to me, even though it's a bit of an opinion piece. All in all the evidence that the US planned this specific event seems a bit scarce, although I didn't read word by word.
I'd suggest that you try to find a compromise that describes reality without taking a stance. I'd suggest something along the lines of "Several news sources alleged that <quote several news sources> ..." or "Pepe Escobar of the Asian Times wrote ..." or "X and Y reported" - and that you stick with what is said in the sources. Averell ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Some pro-Hezbollah news outlets, unfortunately, misappropriated the article to score political points, alleging that The Times was reporting that the U.S. was funding the groups or that Lebanon's Internal Security Force was behind them. For the record, The Times reported no such thing."
Franklin Lamb says: According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the Bush administration initially green lighted the intended May 11 Israel 'demonstration of solidarity with the pro-Bush administration militias, some with which Israel has maintained ties since the days of Bashir Gemayal and Ariel Sharon.
He then says: The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.
As'ad AbuKhalil says: And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
He then says: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. and Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
So, the sources show, clearly, that it is "widely believed that the US funded the militias". You replacing the statement with smaller dispersed statements is an unfortunate attempt to discredit this claim as a minority view shared by a few journalists, when in reality, as I'm sure you know, the literate world is divided on this issue. GreenEcho ( talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Support for the militia usually implies funding and arming, not just pep talk. So when AbuKhalil says "this militia of Hariri's, as supported by the United States", he includes funding as well. In case you didn't notice, AbuKhalil also wrote: "The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee.". And, again, that the US is funding the Hariri militia is a view shared by millions, including half of Lebanon, and this is a known fact, even if the American media chooses not to make it explicitly clear. GreenEcho ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional Comment - My feeling is that the change introduced by George may have been a bit too much - we can't paraphrase the content of each news article on the topic. However, I still don't really see that the sources support the claim of widely believed are supported by the sources. I see what these people have said, but the fact that they said it doesn't automatically make it widely believed (again - in which context?). In addition, what I see in the article history is bordering on a revert war. I strongly suggest that you leave the article alone for now, and discuss the wording on the talk page; reach an agreement before editing again. You can also go to places like the WP:Mediation Cabal if you need more outside assistance. Averell ( talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've come here at a request. It appears that the differences here are over two issues, one, whether some groups are "anti-Syrian" or "formerly pro-Syrian", and whether or not the United States "is widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah, as well as to incite and exacerbate discord between Sunnis and Shi'as." Are there any reliable sources that explicitly support any of these claims? If so, please quote them. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping this issue would be resolved by now, but it doesn't appear it has. There is absolutely no basis for either the pro-government casualties or Hezbollah casualties. The sources used for Hezbollah are all referring to the same day and each give different casualty figures. The media reports seem to greatly inflate Hezbollah casualties by counting supporters and allies as Hezbollah members. The pro-government casualties seem to be entirely made-up.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate your dispute. I have been reading about your dispute here and at the talk page and to help see all views could I ask all involved parties to read the below summary of your dispute and endorse it (confirm it is true) by placing # ~~~~ in the spot provided. Thankyou. —Atyndall citation needed 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
User:GreenEcho and User:George have been going back and forth between two similar versions of this article, one that states the US is "widely thought" to have funded and armed a militia in Lebanon, and one which states that the US is "thought by some" to have funded and armed a militia in Lebanon. GreenEcho's stance is that the US is widely thought to have funded and armed the Lebanon militia, an assumption that is based on Lebanon consensus, Unofficial postings by journalists and Middle-east news sources. George's view is that no reliable (that is, not from the middle-east, blogs, forums or any other non-reliable place) sources can be found to support those claims.
Endorsements:
I'm not sure there are enough editors watching this article. I'm saying something because there are anonymous editors changing figures related to the event. There are no edit summaries and most of the time there are no new sources added. So the integrity of the article is being destroyed. This is true throughout Wikipedia also, but I wanted to say something here first. Dawnseeker2000 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI ( talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have done a complete overhaul of the article, removing, adding and editing sections, but most importantly adding significantly more reliable sources (books, scientific articles and renowned newspapers). Have a look and provide any comments or remarks in case you have them. Zuid2020 ( talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved as proposed, without opposition. BD2412 T 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
2008 conflict in Lebanon → 2008 Lebanon conflict – Consistency with 2007 Lebanon conflict and the “Conflict in ___” naming scheme is very unnecessary for this article Ridax2020 ( talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 conflict in Lebanon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)