And Mussolini did make the trains run on time.

It's amazing how the Times can heap such praise on a bunch of murdering terrorists, but can never seem to come up with a kind word for the President.

Gosh, what swell folks. Just so gosh-diddly-darn helpful, I wish they were my neat-aroo neighbors! I wonder how we can help them out? I know, they're men of God, let's sit down and share the words of Jesus with them!
--Ned Flanders

"Yeah,. daddy!"
Rod and Todd Flanders

You NYT haters are downright silly sometimes. Any clear reading of that shows it is a report of the facts. If those are the facts what would you have them do? (Oh but I forget, your standard of fair reporting is Fox). Where is the "praise" in the story? Where is the expression of admiration or approval?

So, essentially, Kim, what you're saying is that the press should not report on Lebanon or Hezbollah (or Hamas, or any other terrorist group) unless they are screaming "Terrorist!", and leave it at that, correct? If Hezbollah is instrumental in rebuilding what Israel destroyed, with Iran's help, we should not know about it? It is therefore the press' responsibility to avoid reporting on such topics, thus keeping their readers in the dark about the reality of what is going on?

Isn't it important to know what Hezbollah is doing, how they maintain the support they do from the Lebanese people, and how their relationship with Iran will further solidify support from Shia in the Middle East? Can't such knowledge help in understanding the threat of terrorist groups and how to deal with them? Shall we ignore such things, content to know such groups simply as "the enemy" that must be destroyed, without any interest in why they succeed in avoiding destruction?

You are an ostrich, Kim. Too bad you can still type with your head in the sand.

Leave it to to the New York Times to praise terrorists while supporting gun control i mean this rotten news paper is a birdcage linner,fish and trash wrapper its just not worth wasting your time reading this crappy rag ALL THE TERRORISTS SUPPORT THATS FIT TO PRNT the grey lady is becoming a bitch

Mantis, you are just being a putz. The NYT is a leftist anti-American rag, and this puff piece on the terrorist group just shows it. Most people wouldn't expect anything else from the grey socialist lady. Perhaps more Photoshopped pics from Pallywood...

I suspect you've never read the NYT Krazy, likely because it has no comics.

I assume the article is factual, and this is just another lame excuse to take potshots at the liberal media.

If you think the facts speak in Hezbollah's favor, that is your interpetation. I see zero "praise" in this article - but neoconservatives see "facts and reality" as "bias" so I know this is a waste of time.... You guys long for Fox News, where they hide the "inconvienent truth" to boost their ratings among you neocons.

It's the same reason you guys can't debate issues of the day. You are uninformed because you would not know from watching Fox News, for example, what Hezzbollah is doing in the way of rebuilding Lebanon.

But then Kim would see my statement "what Hezzbollah is doing in the way of rebuilding Lebanon" as praise also.

It's just facts - don't be afraid of the facts kiddies.... facts are your friends, even when it is another "inconvenient truth".

Mantis, you are just being a putz. The NYT is a leftist anti-American rag, and this puff piece on the terrorist group just shows it. Most people wouldn't expect anything else from the grey socialist lady.

Rejecting everything you read ad hominem is an interesting way to go through life, but you should try substance once in a while. Now is a good time, why don't you point out where the NYTimes got something wrong in this article? Was it the bulldozers, the surveying of damages, the Nasrallah quote, or the Iranian promise of money for reconstruction? Which one was incorrect?

Mants:

It's no use. Mention the NYT and thay act like rabid dogs. And we all know, rabid dogs have no sense. My guess is that 90% or more of them have never read a page of the paper.

One thing that NYT clearly points out is Hezb'allah's complete dependence on Iranian money---and Iranian weaponry. Something a lot of Sunnis aren't happy about.

P.S. Hugh, you always sound like a smug putz.

Thank you Smitty. I try not to but sometimes I can't help myself...read some of the early absurd posts.

You libs crack me up. Useful idiots. Assume all you want. The NYT has lost credibilty right along with readership and advertising revenue. You moonbats are all they have left. Facts or made up facts, they always are painted with a leftist paintbrush right along with AP and al-Reuters and you lap it up without question because you WANT to believe it.

A major reason — in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill...

"Hard-won reputation"? Hugh, baby, just look at that statement for a minute. Hezbollah didn't fight Israel to a standstill; Israel backed off to appease ever-capitulating Western diplomats. Hezbollah "won" squat. They were getting the snot kicked out of them.

While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage.

Sounds like a regular block cleanup party for Hezbollah! "Cleaning, organizing and surveying damage" they brought to Southern Lebanon with their aggression. Yet this is absent from the article until the last 3 paragraphs:

Support for Hezbollah was likely to become stronger, Professor Saad-Ghorayeb said, because of the weakness of the central government.

“Hezbollah has two pillars of support,” she said, “the resistance and the social services. What this war has illustrated is that it is best at both.

Referring to Shiek Nasrallah, she said: “He tells the people, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to protect you. And we’re going to reconstruct. This has happened before. We will deliver.’ ”

The last f***ing paragraph is the most important one!

But this article is a typical "Look at war hath wrought!" kind of touchy-feely journalism that lacks context as to WHY Hezbollah is going into Southern Lebanon and cleaning up (going to mantis' point). They do it to win support of the people; a great strategy because they know damn well Western journalists will report on it but never put it into context. Reporters will never write:

"To maintain the support of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah began sending in its workers to help begin cleaning, organizing and surveying the damage started when they provoked a confrontation with Israel. Thousands of Lebanese were forced from their homes when Israel retaliated."

That's how this article should've started. Context first; touchy feely shit, second.

I think this article clearly points out the the United Nations handed yet another victory to the Islamofascist Terrorists.

It also appears to me that the lefty commenters on this thread are proud of that.

Could it be that a victory for the terrorists is a victory for the democrats?

Peter:

You might want to ask folks from the Middle East (the ones who really count) wheteher Hezbollah fought Israel to a stand still or not. They believe they did. In fact most probably believe Hezbollah won. Almost all reputable experts agree that Hezbollah came out of this horrible fight stronger. Their missles can be replaced...by the thousands. Those are facts, not cheers from me or the NYT.

Touchy, feely? Again, the article reports quotes and facts. You may hate them....I do...but to deny them is silly. That's what Mr Bush et al do all the time. Deny deny deny. It's always a different story when the first doesn't hold up.

Obviously anyone has the right to despise the NYT. I admit I despise Fox News. But to argue that a straight reporting piece is cheerleading for a terrorist organization is absurd.

P.S. Smitty....when someone posts a reasonable argument....a point of view....then I hope I'm not too smug for you.

Too bad the Times forgot to remind its readers that Hezbollah are the same thugs that started the whole problem in the first place. I have no doubt that with help from Iran & Syria, Hezbollah will help restock their ammunitions supply in Southern Lebanon and then graciously help the Lebanese build schools, hospitals, and houses on top of those replenished caches of weapons.

My only hope is that more courageous Hezbollah workers, especially those in Dearborn, MI. , will rush to the aid of their fellow Jihadis and not come back!

I believe the statement that Hezbollah “fought Israel to a standstill” is more propaganda than truth. Certainly Israel was continuing to take territory up to the last day, so where does this “standstill” statement come from? Israel failed to destroy all the enemy fighters within the 35 days of war. However, that was true in WW2 with some of the islands invaded by the U.S. Navy and the Japanese weren’t dressed as civilians.

It’s not what the NYT said it’s what they didn’t say. Here’s a part of their story where I have includes some of that missing information:

In his victory speech on Monday night, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, offered money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war”, which was initiated by Hezbollah’s attack on Israel.

If Hezbollah brought the destruction to the Lebanese, then they should be expected to pay for it.

I wonder when the NYT will run similar stories about all the wonderful work the U.S. is doing in Iraq? After all, we need all the facts to make informed decisions, right?

Hugh,

Shouldn't that be "Faux" news? "Faux" is the New York Times of the Left.

Is the NYT article a straight piece of reporting or a puff piece? Reads like a bit of both to me.

Hezb'allah reminds me of Al Capone, the gangster who bought the support of many Chicagoans in the early 30s by setting up soup kitchens and paying rental arrears. But good deeds can't cancel out bad actions, especially when bombs start falling.

Hezb'allah's charities and welfare works are dependent on Iran cash. What happens to southern Lebanon when Iran decides not to fund its welfare state?

I'm missing the part where the Times praises Hezbollah. I see them describing what Hezbollah is saying and what they are doing.

It seems to me to be useful information. Hezbollah, like Hamas, are dangerous terrorist groups which maintain strong local support by providing services. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority prove to be ineffective and lose control of the areas they supposedly govern.

Mussolini was a really bad guy who got praise for making the trains run on time. Seems to me that Hezbollah and Hamas are doing something similar. Let's think about that information, and figure out how we can be more effective against them.

Facts aren't useful to republicans, Publicus. They are afraid of facts for the same reason dogs bark and bay at the moon... they afraid because they don't understand, and if they don't understand it must be bad.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there were some facts reported in this pro-terrorist propaganda piece. Of course the Times choose to omit half the story and leave out many, many relevant facts, but that's typical and not at all surprising.

People who read the Times regularly only want to know have the story. They like "going of half-cocked" as the old saying goes.

It funny that lefties hate FOX News so much, simply because FOX reports the WHOLE story, not just the half of it that supports the secular-socialist worldview.

Hugh:

You might want to ask folks from the Middle East (the ones who really count) wheteher Hezbollah fought Israel to a stand still or not.

No, actually, their Hezbollah/al Jazeera-fed propaganda "news" and their subsequent views of reality really holds no water or weight with any reasonable person. Think those people were told that there 200+ rockets a day were just randomly fired into Israel with no real target, military or otherwise, in mind? Think they were told those rockets had about 1-2% success rate of hitting anything? And that just scatches the surface of what they likely didn't hear from Hezbollah/al Jazeera.

As for "touchy-feely". Yes, touchy feely. The article was sap before context. Witness the opening paragraph:

As stunned Lebanese returned Tuesday over broken roads to shattered apartments in the south, it increasingly seemed that the beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah.

"Stunned". "Shattered". Emotional, manipulating words if ever there were. So "straight" reporting it ain't.

Where are the 5 W's, Hugh? Point those out in the first paragraph. Because the "WHY" is definitely missing until the very end.

should be "half" not "have" in paragraph 2 of my post above.

Smitty:

I was trying to avoide being "smug: so I just used Fox News. :)

I pretty much agree with all you said except I don't read it as a puff piece.

When you read absurd statements from folks like PBunyon: "Could it be that a victory for the terrorists is a victory for the democrats?"
you wonder what planet guys like him reside on.

Peter:

The propaganda you speak of from al Jezeera surely doesn't hold water in the West, but I am sure you can't say that about Lebanon, Irq, Iran , Pakistan et al. Many Arabs, including current and future terrorists, are certainly not about to accept or believe anything that comes from the West. So, the facts may be that Israel killed lots of terrorists and destroyed many of their weapons but that's not the issue. The weapons and the terroists can and probably will be replaced. You and I argued last week...and i brought up Iran. To me, Iran and Syria are the real issues and I see nothing being done about either.

I see the words as descriptive. You see them as touchy feely. Obviously, we see things differently through each of our eyes. We interpret them differently. i respect your point, I don't agree with it.

That was a question, Hugh, not a statement. I'm sorry you don't have the education and critical thinking skills to be able to tell the difference.

It sure seems to me that those of you on the left sure seem to be rooting for the other side in this war. The lefty somments here are just more examples of the thousands of lefty pro-terrorist comments that have be posted on this site.

I could be wrong. I am merely stating an opinion, not a fact. I know you lefties think all your opionions are facts, but I don't.

"in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill"

By their logic, isn't this just wrong? I mean Israel didn't flatten Egypt? Didn't Egypt fight them to a standstill? Syria? Israel didn't annex Syria. How about the Palestinians jihadists? Hell they made Israel 'retreat' from Gaza by this logic.

Someone mentioned it before, but I'll reiterate the point for those that can't seem to see past the 'straight factual reporting' of this story...there is no context. If you read only this piece with no other information you could draw only one conclusion (and I'll prove it), that Israel was the aggressor and responsible for the devastation:

"in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill" This paints Israel as the aggresor, as the aggressor you never want to fight someone to a standstill, but that is how they describe Hezbollah, as happy to have fought to a standstill, even though, in fact, they were the aggressor. You never describe the aggressor as happy and proud to have achieved a standoff.

"On Tuesday, Israel began to pull many of its reserve troops out of southern Lebanon, and its military chief of staff said all of the soldiers could be back across the border within 10 days." There is not a word said about why these troops were in Lebanon. Absent other information, you can only conclude Israel was the aggressor, since they invaded, who was 'fought to a standstill'.

"While the Israelis began their withdrawal" Same as last quote.

"In Taibe, a town of fighting so heavy that large chunks were missing from walls and buildings where they had been sprayed with bullets, the Audi family stood with two Hezbollah volunteers, looking woefully at their windowless, bullet- and shrapnel-torn house." Why was their house torn apart by bullets? We're never told, except that Israeli forces were in their country and were 'fought to a standstill'. Why was a private residence torn apart, by bullets, no less? Was someone attacking from their home or near this private residence? The only logical conclusion, absent other data, is that the Israelis attacked private residences before being 'fought to a standstill'.

"Hezbollah’s reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network — as opposed to the Lebanese government, regarded by many here as sleek men in suits doing well — was in evidence everywhere." But what role did Hezbollah have in the destruction? We are never told. All we know is that Israel was there and was 'fought to a standstill'.

"“Today is the day to keep up our promises,” he said. “All our brothers will be in your service starting tomorrow.”" Presumably this story was written after Hezbollah already said they would not abide by the terms of the cease-fire, in other words, would not 'keep up (their) promises', but is this ever mentioned?

"Although Hezbollah is a Shiite organization, Sheik Nasrallah’s message resounded even with a Sunni Muslim, Ghaleb Jazi, 40, who works at the oil storage plant at Jiyeh, 15 miles south of Beirut. It was bombed by the Israelis and spewed pollution northward into the Mediterranean." Why was it bombed by the Israelis? We are never told.

"“In tone and content, his remarks seemed more like those of a president or a prime minister should be making while addressing the nation after a terrible month of destruction and human suffering,” Mr. Khouri wrote. “His prominence is one of the important political repercussions of this war.”" What role did Nasrallah have in this beyond the one described here? Any? We are never told that it was on his orders that all this happened in the first place.

"“The army is not going to the south to strip the Hezbollah of its weapons and do the work that Israel did not,” he said, showing just how difficult reining in the militia will most likely be in the coming weeks and months. He added that “the resistance,” meaning Hezbollah, had been cooperating with the government and there was no need to confront it." Might this be a good time to mention the UN resolution that demands their disarmament? I guess not since it doesn't come up.

"Sheik Nasrallah sounded much like a governor responding to a disaster when he said, “So far, the initial count available to us on completely demolished houses exceeds 15,000 residential units." Again, all we are told is that Israel was there and was 'fought to a standstill'. Why do these homes need rebuilding? Is it because the people portrayed here as home builders were launching rockets into Israeli civil population centers from and near these homes? We certainly are never told. Absent that data we have to assume an aggressor Israel simply invaded and started blowing stuff up. We are certainly given no reason why civilian areas were targeted along with infrastructure, are we?

"Referring to Shiek Nasrallah, she said: “He tells the people, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to protect you. And we’re going to reconstruct. This has happened before. We will deliver.’ ”" Is there any mention of the fact that, far from protecting the people, he personally brought this destruction down on them by provoking the attack and then continuing it by attacking from amongst the civilians he swears to protect? There is not.

So, that's all the relevant parts that I could find. Again, absent outside knowledge, all you know is that Israel was there, Hezbollah 'fought them to a standstill' and is now promising to protect the people and help them rebuild.

Why do conservatives attack the New York Times? Because they 'tell the truth' and have articles that are 'all facts'? Context. That is the problem with this piece. Is it factual? Well, there are no untruths in it. But what is the value of this piece without context? Hitler did wonders restoring German national pride. You could write a perfectly factual story about his stirring speeches to this effect and never once mention the genocide he incited. But is it proper to do so?

Kim,
As much as the NYTs hates Bush and democracy in general, the paper is not going to go all anti-Semite on their large Jewish readership. The paper is in a quagmire of opposing Bush who supports Israel. So this article is simply illustrating that Islam is right there to fund reconstruction when and where it's necessary after any conflict with Israel. It reveals Syria and Iran as sponsors of this hatred to assuage the sensibilities the Jewish readership while illustrating Islam's galvanized opposition to Bush by way of Israeli conflict.

You libs defending the Times article as if this paper isn't biased. It's all biased but the Times is treasonous too. That's the difference.

What a peice of propoganda, a real puff peice of distortions and lies that come from the leftists facists scum bags. Sure doesn't surprise me any because all Liberals are liars.

Shill Hassan Nasrallah's claims about victory over Israel reminds me of similar claims by Baghdad Bob:

After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad's Airport: "We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!"

After U.S. Troops Penetrated Central Baghdad: "Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly.... Baghdad is secure, is safe."

While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace: "We have killed most of the infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon."

The NYT joins the ranks of Baghdad Bob when they say “in addition to its [Hezbollah’s] hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill”. If Arabs want to believe Nasrallah and the NYT, they do so at their peril if that belief leads them to open war with Israel.

Lee,
--Buff, Buff, Buff...Still shinny turd...

"Stunned". "Shattered". Emotional, manipulating words if ever there were. So "straight" reporting it ain't.

First of all, shattered is not an emotional word when describing a shattered building. Would destroyed be better, more or less emotional? As far as stunned, don't you think the people returning to their destroyed towns would be stunned? If someone described returning Katrina victims as stunned would they be manipulative propagandists? No they wouldn't, because the people are fucking stunned at their loss.

As far as this goes,

A major reason — in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill — is that it is already dominating the efforts to rebuild with a torrent of money from oil-rich Iran.

Let's talk about context. This immediately follows the sentence describing how Hezbollah will benefit from this. One of the reasons is that Lebanese and other Arabs see them as the only force to fight Israel to a standstill, thus their "reputation". Reputation does not equal fact. The fact that they did not exactly fight "Israel to a standstill" doesn't change the fact that many in the Middle East see it that way, and that Hezbollah benefits from this. The NYTimes reporting this does not equal propaganda, but reporting. If you don't like reality, stop reading real newspapers and stick to WorldNet Daily and the White House press office.