http://www.reason.com/interviews/hizbollah.shtml

A gem of an interview with a Hizbollah member of Lebanon's parliament, reflecting generally held middle eastern views.

"...murdering Iraqis, aiming at government organizations, or killing civilians. That is not resistance, and it's not legitimate."

"The party is not against the United States"

"But that does not mean that if we disagree we will resort to imposing our views. For example, right now people see us as dominant in a particular region of the country. Did we impose our way of living on anybody? You see in the [majority Shi'ite] suburbs of Beirut those who are committed and those who are not. You find women with hijabs and others without, and we have no problem with that."

Worth a read at least.

No thank you.

Johnny buddy, there's still a bit of your head sticking out of the sand. Here, you can borrow my shovel... [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;)

Not worth reading.
What new will we see there?

Blah, blah, blah we are good.
Blah, blah, blah, israel is minor devil.
Blah, blah, blah, we are not terrorist group.


It is HizbAllah.

I do not mean to insult anyone (including skunk ;) ), but why is it "a gem of an interview?"
just a scoop not worthy of mentioning.

So I take it you read it then?

Interesting read. I thought he was contradicting himself in the middle there, but he clarified that opposing a country, even opposing its legitimacy, is not the same as fighting against the country.

Anyway, Black Baron you should consider -- erm, reconsider -- your stance. Either you take a group that is radical (or opposed to you) and work them into the system, you annihilate them, or you fight with them perpetually. Bringing them into the system is democracy's solution. The idea is that if they can be a part of the government, they will work within the system for change rather than against it as terrorists.

I often wonder whether we poorer colonial cousins would still be wishing the queen long life if England had given the colonies full representation in Parliament.

Probably not. The colonies didn't want full represenation in Parliament (there is no way they would have had enough votes to make a difference), they wanted to be left alone, which would have eventually caused a split.

Naturally i read it. Otherwise i am not in a position to judge it.

Since that the article did not say anything new that you cannot guess from the start, it is not a brilliant gem.
A zircon if that.