Talk:2008 Lebanon conflict

War on Terrorism template

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)

Please, the template implies that the opposition are terrorist organizations. Half of Lebanon, most of the Arab world, Arab street and most Muslims view them as resistance organizations fighting against Israel or at least against Western influence (which is not a crime btw). Obviously that won't be said in the text because it contradicts what many Western governments and people believe, just as calling them terrorists contradicts what the Arabs, Muslims and others believe. The best solution is to remove the template. The terrorism template should be reserved against those who deliberately kill civilians (al-Qaeda, some (not all) Iraqi insurgent groups, Jund al-Sham, Fatah al-Islam, Jaish al-Islam, Jemaah Islamiyah). --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:19, 9 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. 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)

Please, the template implies that the opposition are terrorist organizations. Half of Lebanon, most of the Arab world, Arab street and most Muslims view them as resistance organizations fighting against Israel or at least against Western influence (which is not a crime btw). Obviously that won't be said in the text because it contradicts what many Western governments and people believe, just as calling them terrorists contradicts what the Arabs, Muslims and others believe. The best solution is to remove the template. The terrorism template should be reserved against those who deliberately kill civilians (al-Qaeda, some (not all) Iraqi insurgent groups, Jund al-Sham, Fatah al-Islam, Jaish al-Islam, Jemaah Islamiyah). --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:19, 9 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)

I understand what you're saying but the US nor the EU has declared this event a part of the War on Terror. As for the embassy bombings, Hezbollah has since ended such acts as well as suicide bombings altogether. Until this event is formally declared as a part of the War on Terror the template should be removed. You said the War on Terror could be against people who are not even terrorists. Well then the title itself is POV and misleading. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now tell that to Bush.(Top Gun)—Preceding undated comment added at 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why should this be tagged with the war on terrorism template when this conflict isn't related to the war on terrorism at all? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The embassy bombings happened before hezbollah's creation

Farbne (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Source list

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)

The FPM does not have 80% of Christians

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)

These parties are very popular in Lebanon, especially among the Greek Orthodox Christians, so it would be more than safe to say that combined they constitute more than 10% the Christian population. FiveRupees (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what Reuters said about Aoun's popularity declining because of winning by a small margin was understandable, considering the circumstances. His candidate who was unknown by almost everybody was running against the former Lebanese president who was reclaiming his slain son's seat...in his own home district. No polls since have indicated that Aoun's popularity has declined. FiveRupees (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:OR if the sources don't use this 80% figure. Even the 70% figure is a politician's personal claim and it pointed out as such in the ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:51, 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)

Sunnis supporting the government

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)

I know. Half the Sunnis I know support Hezbollah. But in Beirut in particular, the pro-government forces fighting Hezbollah were almost all Sunnis. The Lebanese Forces Christian fighters were involved as snipers but not officially and the Druze didn't fight in Beirut, but in the mountains. FiveRupees (talk) 08:02, 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)

Lebanese army

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)

The army is seen as the only neutral force in the country and because of this, it's the army's task to not choose sides. For example, if it starts attacking the Hezbollah fighters then people who are Shi'ite in the army will disagree and risk a fragmentation of the army along sectarian lines and thus creating a disaster in the country. - Fedayee (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the article on the Lebanese Civil War gives a good backgrounder here. Even though Hezbollah is portrayed in the West as some rag tag group of outlaw bandits, they are a large political party who dominate elections in South Lebanon, and who probably have a sizable number of voters who have supported them in the army itself. Even the U.S. Civil War was in some ways between Republicans and the Southern Democrats, so if you consider how recently Lebanon's last civil war ended, it's a fragile situation. Odd to say, but the Lebanese army may have learned a lesson out of those years of pointless fighting somehow. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So this sounds more like the lebanese army is not in control of its troops: IE. shi'ite's soldiers will revolt if given the order to attack hezbollah? They only do what they're told if the agree with the politics? Sounds more like a corrupt military than anything else Macutty (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "corrupt" is the right word (was Robert E. Lee corrupt because he chose to resign rather than serve under Lincoln?). FWIW, your opening statement is incorrect in that the U.S. military cannot attack domestic groups due to the Posse Comitatus Act, otherwise the President could simply line up Congress and have them all shot, which isn't too far from what your saying the Lebanese military is too corrupt to do -- go to war against the minority party in Lebanon's parliament. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

well if congress started launching mortar attacks and burning state owned media buildings I think there would likely be an armed response from some branch of the military. Hezbollah didnt launch a peaceful march to incite political change, they chose instead to engage in armed combat with the government. I fully admit I do not understand all the details of the politics in Lebanon but none the less any group declaring war (or accusing the governement of declaring war on them to respond with a military take over of beirut) it would seem is not acting as simply a political party working within the laws and reglations of that country. Macutty (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The army stays neutral, if it doesn't, it will split down along sectarian lines. That's basic knowledge when it comes to Lebanon. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unrest or Coup?

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)

Agreed with FiveRupees. Most news headlines i've seen that call it a coup anyway are those quoting Siniora - Fedayee (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When I made the recent argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be running around calling every school shooting a "massacre", (an argument I finally gave up on), I was at one point going to suggest we can't likewise go calling any political protest or uprising a coup. I know the 24 news cycle likes to hype things, and the ruling party has an interest in labeling these events as a coup, but we really shouldn't call it a coup until it actually becomes one, per FiveRupees. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed to reflect this as conflict. This is not mere unrest. Hezbollah and its allies are fighting with factions that favor the government and seizing territory, even if they hand it over to the army. It's some sort of conflict between clearly defined sides. Calling it unrest makes it sound like random violence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Government Casualties

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)

They didn't give up their positions, they handed them to the Neutral Lebanese Army in order to avoid further battles. Hezbollah would see its end if it attacks the Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.121.251 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about you political views neither does it care about mine unless they are relevant. Please, unless you have something to say about the casualties, don't wast peoples time... Lucias21 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Any way something has to be done about the pro-government casualty number. Only four people are confirmed to be pro-government, the three in the attack on the Syrian party and the one whose funeral led to the shootin. Among the 38 people classified as civilian fatalities there is a posibility some of them, if not most, were actually pro-government supporters. Only eight of the 38 were most certainly confirmed to have been civilians, with 5 of them women, one child, a husband of one of the women and a man who was trying to get to his pregnant wife. So what about the remaining 32? So I propose that in the case if the news doesn't spill out a number in the next several days we evenly break up the number into two and add one half to the pro-government casualty figure as an estimate while the remaining are to be said to be an estimated number of civilians. For now the only definite numbers are those of pposition supporters.Top Gun—Preceding undated comment added at 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah those casualty figures are ridiculous. Hezbollah's been beatin' the snot out of everyone they come across and few consider any force in Lebanon, including the army, to an equal to Hezbollah. I actually find the Hezbollah figures unlikely, where are those numbers coming from? Are they from Hezbollah?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough some of these Hezbollah figures are nonsense. The claim of seven dead Hezbollah members in Aley appears to be bogus as it seems it was the Lebanese Democratic Party, a party allied with Hezbollah. Here's the CCTV report which mentions it. I was already questioning this figure considering Aljazeera wasn't giving any source for its claim when another source claimed it was four dead and that they were simply opposition backers. Here's one report indicating the Lebanese Democratic party, in each referred to as the "Druze Democratic Party", was actually the group fighting in Aley not Hezbollah. Another report from Xinhua says explicitly that the fighting was between the two Druze forces.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

see example Timeline_of_the_2008_unrest_in_Lebanon#May_11.2C_2008: no pro-govt casualties ??? I'm sure TopGun will be able to fix the death tolls he's a competent user, but there's one concern: Is it possible to divide militant deaths from civilians. As I've seen it's very difficult, they are not uniformed. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the pro-government supporters but it's very clear that opposition forces in Beirut were wearing uniform, I don't know about Aley and Tripoli since it wasn't the same groups fighting there. Also, several Arabic newspapers confirmed that Hezbollah was not fighting in the north, it was SSNP & Druze opposition forces, no one else has been mentioned. Lucias21 (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucias, if that is targeted to me I'd like to tell you that I'm just saying the facts on the ground and nothing else, I'm in the area of the conflicts BTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.118.131 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is also based on facts... Lucias21 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK listen up, because obviously the pro-gov. forces are not reporting on their fatalities like the opposition I am adding to the pro-gov. toll 6 from the funeral and the 19 unknowns killed on Mount Lebanon. Not there should be a relativly balanced estimate of fatalities on all sides.Top Gun—Preceding undated comment added at 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about balance. Hezbollah has no equal within Lebanon, not even the Lebanese army. Their numbers here are obviously fallacious. According to this report the seven killed cited in the article and included in the casualty figure came from a pro-government paper. We shouldn't be taking anonymous or dubious sources and speculating on what's left. We can say fairly that two Hezbollah fighters are dead, as Hezbollah said this themselves.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• It would make sense that Hizballah and allies had more casualties, since they are on the offensive, and therefore have to take the risks, contrary to the defensive groups. Hizballah also has more to lose by actually killing people (moral support), so they might behave more disciplined as a result. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the fact they were on offensive means it makes even less sense. These casualty figures are simply unreasonable and most likely wrong. There's nothing in the way of a reliable source for this information. No official sources have talked of such large casualty figures for Hezbollah.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It does make a lot of sense, Hizballah is trying to prove a point (they are strong but disciplined, they could massacre the pro-government groups, but won't), and killing a lot of people would put them in a bad light. Anyway, the stuff about some civilians actually being government supporters has been removed, since it simply isn't stated in any sources. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, but this doesn't change the fact that these numbers are dubious. Seven of the casualties mentioned come from a pro-government source, another fourteen from an anonymous source. I actually can't find anything on the remaining three needed to reach the number 26 either. It's nonsense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to either ignore or be unaware of the dynamics in Lebanon, but yes, let's see if we can get some better sources. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Lebanese government 'American-backed'?

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)

Since the the US has a great deal to do with this conflict, it's relevant to mention that it's backed by the US. Keep in mind that Hezbollah's views matter also, people need to know what each sides motives are. Lucias21 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No one but Iran and Syria support Hezbollah in this - the rest of the world supports the legitimate government of Lebanon. Singling out the United States is nothing but an attempt to try and paint this whole affair as Hezbollah versus the U.S., which only Hezbollah propagandists believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.165.179 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the Lebanese govenment is highly disputed in the Arab world. Also, mentioning that it's U.S. backed is very important since there are controversies about the U.S. using the government to bring down Hezbollah. Lucias21 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article needs total rework

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)

This article is completely unbalanced and pro-Hezbollah. It does indeed need a complete reworking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.165.179 (talk) 23:12, 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)

• The incident in Halba is already being labeled as "the Halba massacre", might need to expand the part about it some time. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunni

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)

I agree with you that "Many" is an exaggeration but I don't think "Few" is the best word for it either, "Several" is more like it. Lucias21 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference for this statement is from Press TV, a news agency operated by the Iranian government -- hardly a reliable source. Also, Saudi Arabia's recent denouncement of Hizbulla and Iran is not mentioned. --Zvika (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

An actual number should be found or we should leave out vague innumerations per WP:WEASEL. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:10, 14 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)

Opposition Casualties

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)

Rename to conflict

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)

I agree, some of the incidents were too grizzly to just call it "unrest". Funkynusayri (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "2008 Lebanon Conflict" be a better name? Lucias21 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so, the current name seems odd for some reason. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'v gone ahead and changed it. Lucias21 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "The Siege of Beirut 2008"> Barakeh (talk) 10:15, 18 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)

Image captions

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)

Too much "credit" to Hezbollah

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)

Halba massacre

• These sites would not qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia, since they are blogs, but we can be sure that the content will spark huge controversy in Lebanon. Al-Manar has already shown footage of the bodies of SSNP members being desecrated.

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)

• Not according to the eyewitness account I just posted, did you read it? Anyhow, the bodies were mutilated afterwards, and them being possible combatants doesn't exactly justify that. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:42, 18 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)

Well, a problem is that it is kind of hard to find valid English sources about it, but I think Robert Fisk mentioned it in his latest article. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• From Robert Fisk: "But I brought up the tiny matter of the little massacre in northern Lebanon in which 10 or 12 militiamen were captured and then murdered before being handed over to the Lebanese army. Their bodies were – I fear this is correct – mutilated after death."[1] Funkynusayri (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hersh's allegations about clandestine operations

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)

Unbased allegations that the United States and Israel have planned the present conflict

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, 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. 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."

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)

Ooh. OK, you've convinced me here. Al-Manar is a weak source to begin with, but where they got their information second hand is even more suspect. As I don't believe the other sources mention Israel, I would be fine to leave her out of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:54, 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)

OPPOSITION VICTORY

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)

Image

Anyone knows the source of Image:2008_Fighting_in_Lebanon.jpg ?

• Click on it. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a war or battle?

Is this defined as a battle or war?--EZ1234 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

a 'mini civil war'[2] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"civil war"?

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)

Completely ridiculous! It was a week-long strife between political factions not a period of war between religious or ethnic groups. The article's previous name should be restored. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with George and Al Ameer son, this can hardly even be considered a war. It's more like a battle or a period of unrest. - Fedayee (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

civil wars don't need to last 150 years to be called that way--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't the length of time, but the lack of corroborating sources that would define a consensus. In the same way that a single news article titled "9/11 could be the start or World War III" wouldn't cause me to support renaming the September 11, 2001 attacks page to "World War III", a single news article calling this a "civil war" doesn't cause me to support renaming this article such either. ← George ^[talk] 17:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, Im OK with that, it was a reply to al ameer's poor argument--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree w/ George and AAs. Even the source's headline put the term in scare quotes, which is a bit of a give away that this may be an exaggeration. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More fighting

More fighting and dead people in Tripoli today, but I can't find sources. FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

US "widely thought" to have planned events

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)

Verifiability is the relevant policy for review:

"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."

To quote [[Jimmy Wales:

"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

← George ^[talk] 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are able to read the headline of the first source provided, along with the first three paragraphs. For a year, the main Lebanese political faction backed by the United States built a militia here under the guise of private security companies, Los Angeles Times said quoting Lebanese security experts and officials. Los Angeles Times said that the fighters, aligned with Saad Hariri's Future movement, were trained and armed to counter Lebanon resistance movement, Hezbollah. But in a single night late last week, the curious experiment in private-sector warfare crumbled, it said. [...] Los Angeles Times said quoting a high-ranking official with the Internal Security Forces that the militia has received $60 million in training and equipment from the US. GreenEcho (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. I'm going to try to cover each of these individually.

First, there is a problem with this source in general. I don't know that Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's state-run news organization, can be considered a reliable source. Wikipedia requires that we use reliable sources. Second, the source appears to be paraphrasing or quoting a piece by the LA Times. It would be far better to find that source itself. Third, the source is obviously non-neutral, should be framed as such, and one "high-ranking officials" claim does not equate to "widely thought". Fourth, this source only says that one official is making the claim that the US financially supported the Future Movement's militia (which the Future Movement appears to contend is a security force). ← George ^[talk] 10:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic News Agency is a news agency. It is as reliable as CNN and every other news agency. American news agencies aren't exactly non-partisan. GreenEcho (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this issue open for now, while I do more research. ← George ^[talk] 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The second source says, along with other things: The US game in Lebanon is hardcore. It involves $60 million support for a Hezbollah witchhunt operated by the Internal Security Force at the Interior Ministry; and generous, active support to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni jihadis. Seeing that the government provoked Hezbollah and that the US is funding the pro-government militias, we can safely say that the US planned for these events to happen. GreenEcho (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the source specifically states the that $60 million is going to the "Internal Security Force at the Interior Ministry". This isn't a militia, it's a part of the army, and under government control. This conflicts with your first source. Secondly, that "the government provoked Hezbollah and that the US is funding the pro-government militias, we can safely say that the US planned for these events to happen" is purely a fabrication of original research on your part. You really need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy, which prohibits us from jumping to any such conclusions without sources that explicitly state such. ← George ^[talk] 10:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is far from being part of the army. It is part of the Hariri-led government's Interior Ministry and answers to the minister of Interior, a member of the Future Movement. As for calling what I said fabrication and original research, the sources speak for themselves, and maybe you should look up WP:CIVIL. GreenEcho (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Interior Ministry is considered a part of the Lebanese government, regardless of the party affiliation of the current Minister of the Interior. WP:CIVIL covers tone with regard to editors, not content - my fault was not with you, it was with the content you provided, which I view as original research. ← George ^[talk] 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A third source starts with: The failure of the Bush/Bandar/Olmert axis to ignite a prolonged shooting war between the Lebanese resistance forces and their hired guns Hariri and Jumblatt [...]. So, there you go. GreenEcho (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this source is a blog, which does not constitute a reliable source. Second, it doesn't mention funding in any regard.

It is an article written by Peter Chamberlin who is apparently "an op-ed writer for the Herald-Dispatch newspaper in Huntington, WV". As far as I'm concerned, an article written by a journalist is a reliable source. Also, it doesn't mention funding but the beginning sentence, if you didn't understand it, implies that the US planned the events. GreenEcho (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide your source for who Peter Chamberlin is, as he apparently isn't noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article. Regardless or your or my personal beliefs, blogs are only used as source on Wikipedia for stating individual opinions, not facts. They lack any editorial oversight, and thus do not constitute reliable sources. Furthermore, unwritten implications constitute original research, and likewise aren't included in Wikipedia articles. ← George ^[talk] 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In review of the original quotation, that "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," there is almost no support among your sources. The only statement that the sources you've listed so far would support would be something along the lines of "A high-ranking official with the Internal Security Forces stated that the Future Movement's militia had received $60 million in training and equipment from the US". It would also have to be framed with the conflicting second source, and a more reliable first source. ← George ^[talk] 10:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources show that the US is funding both the Internal Security Forces, which answers to the Hariri-controlled Interior Ministry and is practically a legal Sunni militia, and the Future Movement militias. All the sources are clear on this matter and anyone who is able to read can conclude that the US both planned for the events and funded the pro-government militias. I don't see any reason to discuss this further. GreenEcho (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The

I disagree with your analysis of the sources and what they state, as I feel you're viewing it from a heavily biased angle. The whole point of discussing the issue here is to promote the dispute resolution process to a conclusion. Regardless of whether or not you choose to join in any further discussions, this process will likely continue, so I would invite you to partake in order to have your views taken into account. ← George ^[talk] 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this to the more neutral wording, per WP:SILENCE. ← George ^[talk] 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are provided. What they say is clear, regardless of whether or not you agree. GreenEcho (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've taken the time to rejoin the dispute resolution process, even if it was just to revert without discussion. I've request a third opinion from an outside editor on the matter. ← George ^[talk] 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, I've found the original source] from the L.A. Times, the one IRNA cites as the source for its "article." Unfortunately, IRNA has taken the article completely out of context and mis-cited it. For instance, the original article is titled "Lebanon's Sunni bloc built militia, officials say," while IRNA chose (quite questionably, might I add) to retitle it as "US has built milita in Lebanon." The L.A. Times article says absolutely nothing about the US building or financing a militia, it only states that the US supported the Sunni block, which created the militia on its own. I'm ripping this garbage source out of the article, and replacing it with the unadulterated original. ← George ^[talk]

After removing the bad source, the statement doesn't even make sense. I've reworded it based on what the only other citation for the statement says, which is that the US wants to incite sectarian fighting between the Shi'a & Sunni in Lebanon. ← George ^[talk] 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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)

I do find it ironic that one of the sources GreenEcho added to support the claim that the US was "widely thought" to have funded the milita states:

"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."

I'll see what I can do about the wording. ← George ^[talk] 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've read through each of these sources, and written a sentence for each source stating specifically what it says. Hopefully that will resolve this issue, or at least issolate the discussion. Thanks for you input Averell. ← George ^[talk] 00:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Okay, I've read what you've just written, and I've read the excerpts you chose to support it, but, unfortunately, the excerpts do not support your statement. The first makes zero mention of the US-funding anything. It says the US approved an Israeli plan to attack targets in Lebanon, if Hezbollah took over the government. It never happened, and the US isn't mentioned to have funded anything. The second of your own quotes specifically states: "this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last." It doesn't say the US funded them, it says Saudi Arabia funded them. It only says they supported them, which implies neither funding nor arming. You can't just make a statement you believe to be true, find some random sources that don't support it, tack them on the end of the sentence, and call it a day. ← George ^[talk] 05:01, 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)

While it may be true that this is "a view shared by millions, including half of Lebanon," you have failed to include sources that state such. You've provided one source from one professor. And no, "support for the militia usually implies funding and arming" is 100% pure original research on your part. ← George ^[talk] 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, George, you're just taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the internal politics of Lebanon by the majority of Wikipedians by asking for a source that states that it is a view shared by millions, including half of Lebanon. For that, forums and blogs can be used as sources, and I would be more than happy to provide them. GreenEcho (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Forums and blogs do not constitute reliable sources, by and large, and I'm not trying to take advantage of anything. You've made a claim that I do not know to be true, and which therefore requires citation of reliable sources. If it's as widespread and popular as you claim, then I'm sure finding reliable sources that state such should be no problem at all for you. ← George ^[talk] 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Forums and blogs are considered unreliable for most material, but can be used to show that it is a view held by millions, including half of Lebanon. Also, you quoted the LA Times as saying "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." Doesn't it mean that pro-Hezbollah people used the article to prove their point, which is that the US is funding the militias? GreenEcho (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that pro-Hezbollah people used the article to claim to prove their point, but that the L.A. Times is stating that they did so incorrectly. Hence the use of the term misappropriated (which means something like stealing something you shouldn't), and the closing statement that "the Times reported no such thing." To paraphrase the LA Times statement: "Pro-Hezbollah groups thought the we said the US was funding militias. We never said that." I suspect these pro-Hezbollah groups misinterpreted the wording in a manner similar to how you misinterpret that "support for the militia usually implies funding and arming." This is completely untrue, and it may just be an artifact of readers for whom English isn't a native language? The term support in English means nothing beyond favoring or cheering; it implies neither funding, arming, going to war for - nothing. I can support a baseball team without doing anything but watching their games and cheering for them. I can support abortion without ever getting an abortion or paying for other people to have abortions. (I'm not saying I do, this is just an example.) ← George ^[talk] 20:09, 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)

Thanks for the suggest. I'll escalate the issue with them. ← George ^[talk] 18:55, 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)

• Regarding the first issue, the March 14 Alliance, as listed on their page, is currently considered "anti-Syrian." I don't think that point is in dispute, but if GreenEcho disagrees I have no doubt that dozens of sources can be found that support that. Now, his change to label the group as "formerly pro-Syrian" is partially true - many, if not most, of the members of the March 14 Alliance were pro-Syrian prior to the Cedar Revolution. The problem with labeling them such, however, is threefold:

1. There's no evidence that all of the March 14 Alliance members, formed from various factions, were pro-Syrian before.
2. There's no evidence that those who were pro-Syrian, were not anti-Syrian before that. That is, politicians in Lebanon are especially known for switching alliances often, so they may have bounced back and forth several times.
3. The group is currently anti-Syrian, and I think the current label should be used. Details on their past allegiances belong in the March 14 Alliance article itself.

When media covers the March 14 Alliance, they almost invariable list them as an "anti-Syrian" group, and almost never list them as "formerly pro-Syrian." Again, if that's in dispute, I can provide plenty of sources to support it. ← George ^[talk] 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the second issue, I'll let GreenEcho take a shot at citing his sources before commenting on the issue. ← George ^[talk] 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That the March 14 alliance is anti-Syrian is not in dispute. But it should be clear that almost all of the parties were pro-Syrian. It belongs to both this article and the March 14 Alliance. GreenEcho (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So it appears that everyone agrees that the March 14 alliance is "anti-Syrian", but not that they were "formerly pro-Syrian". Do you have any reliable sources supporting this claim? Also, please provide the sources for the other claim, listed above. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Mentioning that some of the March 14 groups are formerly pro-Syrian here is kind of irrelevant, though true, but it should also be kept in mind that some of the March 8 people were formerly anti-Syrian (most notably Michel Aoun), so as George pointed out, it doesn't really matter to point out the past alliances of Lebanese politicians, since they are notorious for switching sides. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K., so we have agreement on the phrase "anti-Syrian". Is there any support for the other claims, as outlined above? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my basic understanding:

• Many sources state that Saad Hariri, a billionaire and leader of the Future Movement, started a security company named Security Plus. I don't think that this is in dispute.
• Some sources say that this security firm was a pseudo-milita, funded by Saudi Arabia (which is predominantly Sunni - the same religion as Hariri), as a way to counter the power of the Shi'a Hezbollah. This needs to be carefully sourced, but I don't think that this is in dispute.
• Many sources say the U.S. backs the pro-government March 14 Alliance, which includes Hariri's Future Movement. This isn't reported as a financial backing, but just political support. This may be in dispute, as some may think the support is financial.

The source reports As'ad AbuKhalil as saying: "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.". GreenEcho (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to cover this source in the last paragraph below. As'ad AbuKhalil goes on to say that "this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last." ← George ^[talk] 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some sources discuss the U.S. funding and arming the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) - the official army run by the government - as a counter to Hezbollah's growing strength. I don't think that this is in dispute.

Actually, the sources discuss the U.S funding and arming the Internal Security forces, not the Lebanese Army. The Internal Security Forces was transformed into a pro-Hariri force when he was Prime Minister in the 90's, is made up of mostly Sunnis, and has responded, until recently, to the Minister of the Interior appointed by Hariri. GreenEcho (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the US has funded both the LAF and ISF. However, I have no knowledge of any sources that claim that the ISF, govered by the Minister of the Interior (a government position), is either "pro-Hariri" or "mostly Sunnis" (though the latter seems mostly irrelevant without proof of the former). Do you have any sources that support this statement? ← George ^[talk] 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I think that some editors here, and some news organizations – well, Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), at least – are getting their wires crossed on these issues, converting the U.S. funding Lebanon's army, and politically supporting the Future Movement, into the U.S. funding the Future Movement's pseudo-militia. I don't know if this is intentional or just a misunderstanding. For instance, the L.A. Times printed an article titled "Lebanon’s Sunni bloc built militia, officials say," which states that "the [Future Movement] political faction backed by the United States built a Sunni Muslim militia here under the guise of private security companies, Lebanese security experts and officials said." It later says that "the Internal Security Forces... has received $60 million in training and equipment from the U.S." The Internal Security Forces is under the control of the Lebanese government, not either religious/political group, and more or less attempts to maintain the peace between the two groups. Now, IRNA covered this article, retitling it "US has built militia in Lebanon: Los Angeles Times," but their version states that "a high-ranking official with the Internal Security Forces that the militia has received $60 million in training and equipment from the US." Again, they've confused and misquoted the original article, either intentionally or on accident, which was talking about the U.S. funding the government forces with that $60 million, not funding the pseudo-militia.

A second source being used is also flawed. Seymour Hersh, reporting for CNN, stated that the U.S. was attempting to fund Sunni militias in Lebanon to counter Hezbollah. However, this was a year before this conflict, and the militia he was talking was not this Security Plus, it was Fatah al-Islam, a group that the Lebanese army defeated in 2007 in Nahr al-Barad. However, I don't know of any sources that verify his claim on the issue.

Now, there is one source I know of that comes close to making this claim without being so obviously flawed, but it also has issues. That source is an interview with As'ad AbuKhalil, who states "Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places... There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon." Now, he isn't directly saying that U.S. is funding this militia, and he's speaking in pretty broad terms. Furthermore, he's misquoting the L.A. Times article in the same mistaken manner... maybe that article was just too confusingly written? I'm not sure. However, he does go on to say "this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last." He's clarified a bit here, saying that it wasn't the U.S. that funded this militia - it was Saudi Arabia, while the U.S. supported it. The claim that the U.S. supported the militia is very hard to verify, but the U.S. supporting the political party that started the pseudo-militia is much easier to verify. Furthermore, this is an interview... the guy is answering questions on the spot, with no editorial oversight, or even being able to double check what he's just said, so I'm not sure how much I trust this source. Those are the best sources I'm aware of... if GreenEcho has other sources, I'll leave it to him to cite them. There are also some sources that talk about the U.S. and Israel planning a possible attack against Hezbollah if Hezbollah were to attempt to seize power from the Lebanese government, but I don't know why those have been used as sources in this discussion, as I don't think they apply. ← George ^[talk] 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, George, that's quite thorough. I'll give GreenEcho one more chance to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an article about Salafists in Lebanon and their relations, not sure if it's relevant: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=94296 FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualty figures

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)

Mediation from the Mediation Cabal.

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:

1. ← George ^[talk] 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GreenEcho has been indefinitely banned as being a sock puppet. I doubt that this mediation can continue. ← George ^[talk] 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, with one of the main participants gone, that clears up the problem. Mediation closed.

Changes

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)

Possible copyright problem

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)

File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Nominated for Deletion

	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 What should I do?
	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)

File:Hezbollah flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104034103/http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080514/wl_time/hizballahstoughestfoeinlebanon;_ylt=AsddSgiJhYKEuX94P5C38RPagGIB to http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080514/wl_time/hizballahstoughestfoeinlebanon;_ylt=AsddSgiJhYKEuX94P5C38RPagGIB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520122706/http://www.france24.com/en/20080521-lebanon-hezbollah-doha-election-presidential&navi=MONDE to http://www.france24.com/en/20080521-lebanon-hezbollah-doha-election-presidential&navi=MONDE

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.france24.com/en/20080521-lebanon-hezbollah-doha-election-presidential%26navi%3DMONDE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510155231/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2BB82CA0-4895-4454-8E29-7072B103E06C.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2BB82CA0-4895-4454-8E29-7072B103E06C.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3541431%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.france24.com/en/20080510-lebanese-army-overturns-government-decisions-against-hezbollah-lebanon%26navi%3DMONDE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512131108/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9696FDD9-BE2C-4610-B5BB-D7FE88C2B003.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9696FDD9-BE2C-4610-B5BB-D7FE88C2B003.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C24329378-2703%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C24331560-15084%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912062529/http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/09/hariri_tells_al.php to http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/09/hariri_tells_al.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Complete overhaul of article

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)

Requested move 24 January 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. A glance at entries under Category:21st-century conflicts by year confirms that the majority of entries use the proposed form "YEAR PlaceName conflict", rather than the form "YEAR conflict in PlaceName". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 14th march.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)