..the Rupert Murdoch effect.

like your profit mohamed did to 9 year old Aiisha?

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=31098

on antisocial behavior with Moses and Joshua.

The Weekly Standard was one of the leaders of the disinformation effort to get us to invade Iraq. That alone should destroy its credibility.

By the way child marriages were not illegal in that period, that was than but look at your priests now .

Why are you even bringing up Mohammed, what does he have to do with anything? You're just desperately trying to attack the original poster, who has a name with muslim roots, but may not actually be muslim, like millions of others in the world. But you're too much of a bigoted racist to not know that. How you call Walt antisemetic is comical and just proves what a dumbass you are.

There is no excuse for terrorism or praise of terrorists.

Of COURSE Nasr would say anything to preserve her WELL-POSITIONED media job. now i'm beginning to wonder if she was in any way connected to terrorist networks!

Losing her gig over sympathy for another rocket rich rejectionist official enemy of GrEaT sAtAn. Hiz'B'Allah were the most proficient tormentors and serial killers of Americans through out Cold War time til 911.

and was considered a moderate. I'd expect a girl-power blogger such as yourself would be fully crunk on that.

I guess he didn't care if girls or boys killed themselves! What an equal opportunity murderer.

also, its sad how that shows what a moderate is considered in those circles. God job that he had one good thing about him, yet he justified terrorist acts.
Hitler ordered and saw the need for a car for every person, the Volkswagen, the peoples car, which has become a great innovation in the field of automachines. Yet still, nobody in their right mind would praise that. Same thing with this guy, just because he had one somewhat ok view doesnt mean he is justified, and certainly not a moderate.
also, she has been Middle East senior correspondant for 20 years! just imagine how skewed and sympathetic CNN must have been to terrorists and Hizbullah for the past 20 years. Nobody is mentioning that.

In his last known interview, Fadlallah says Al-Qaeda is "rejected on an Islamic and human" basis because it kills whoever disagrees with it. He also says he was never part of Hizbollah and disagrees with it and Iran:

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11E9F51C-E6E2-44A3-B1E4-ABFD798C45E8.htm

Don’t be fooled by all the tributes that are pouring out following the death in Beirut at the weekend of Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the so-called spiritual leader of the radical Shi’ite Muslim militia Hizbollah. The U.S. State Department’s classifaction of Fadlallah as a terrorist was spot on, and when you look back at his track record you can see he was right up there with other infamous terror masterminds, such as Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal.

One of Fadlallah’s last acts before he died was to issue a fatwa authorising the use of suicide bomb attacks. The mystery here is why he waited so long. For as a founder member of Hizbollah – he sat on the organisation’s ruling council – Fadlallah gave his personal approval to the massive suicide truck bomb attacks that levelled the American Embassy and Marine compound in Beirut in 1983, killing more than 300 people, including the then CIA station chief. Fadlallah gave his personal blessing to the suicide bombers before they left for their deadly mission.

Fadlallah also masterminded the hostage crisis in Lebanon in the mid-1980s. I remember interviewing him at his house in Beirut’s southern suburbs in 1985 at the height of Terry Waite’s mission to free the Americans then being held by Hizbollah on Iran’s orders (Fadlallah was a close friend of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution.)

Fadlallah himself was charm personified during the interview, offering me sweet tea and offering his apologies that he could do nothing to release the hostages, but their prospects might improve if only the pesky Americans would stop trying to involve themselves in Lebanon’s affairs. But when I left one of his “bodyguards” insisted on seeing my passport. Later I discovered from a Lebanese friend that they were Hizbollah terrorists checking to see if I was an American. Had I been, I would have been carted off to a dank cell. I was lucky. Six months later my friend John McCarthy paid a similar visit to Sheikh Fadlallah, and was kidnapped the following day.

The miracle of Sheikh Fadlallah’s life is that he lived to a ripe old age and died in his bed. I, for one, will not miss his malign influence on the Middle East.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100046096/sheikh-falallah-was-the-terrorist-mastermind-behind-the-lebanon-hostage-crisis/

Con Coughlin reported that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. That's more than enough evidence to show that just like you, he is a big blubbering vagina. Please stop spreading rubbish.
Kudos to johnboy for effectively disseminating your garbage article.

Fadlallah's connection with the Marine baracks bombing is WELL known. Let's not try to make reality fuzzy now.

Honestly, how dare you compare people who denounce terrorism to Jos. Goebbels? Methinks you need to go join Hezbollah. You'll feel right at home.

You compared someone to Joseph Goebbels for making a claim made by numerous intelligence agencies. Shame on you.

"Fadlallah's connection with the Marine baracks bombing is WELL known."

This statement has been printed thrice on this thread..

I can't but believe it...

You've mentioned the protocols thrice!
Thrice, dammit!

You're an Anti-semite.. And have compromised your credibility to be taken seriously on any issue about Israel and it's existentially threatening enemies.

You're a symbol of the New Anti-Semitism..

Oh yes, because Hizbollah and the Israeli Palestinin conflict are not the root of this problem. I'm sure Bibi called CNN and asked Rupert to plan the firing of Octavia by implanting a chip in her brain that caused her to tweet a message of sympathy for Fadlallah and you know the rest of the story!

Oh, wait they AREN'T . Maybe its Jewish mind control - telepathy. It must be.

Vilks didnt they teach you telepathy in Hasbara school? We were in the same class, remember? haha

also, once again Khan cannot make th distinction between Muslim and Israeli.

Also, it seems as if your loyalties seem to lie strictly with the Palestinians. What gives you the right to talk down to American Zionists, saying we should brand them (holocaust reference anyone?) and shame them.
You sir are doing the exact same thing for the other side. Hypocritical and typical.

i mean Jew and Israeli. my mistake.

(i admitted to a mistake, crazy huh?)

I think I'll pass on the third world learning. At least we should go for second world no? they have telephones and running water.

Before he came to CNN, he's known for working at AIPAC and making loaded statements like "to deny zionism is as racist an element as you can get." Wolf is not an opinion commentator on CNN, but has a more objective role. If CNN was applying the Octavia Nasr rule of thumb, they shouldn't have hired Wolf. I don't recall if his hiring generated any controversy.

Wolf knows how to remain objective. EVERY journalist has his own opinion. but truthfully, I find octavia's position a betrayal of America, not Israel. Last I checked Wolf was pretty patriotic.

Maybe apples and eggplant.

From the way you frame it, it sounds like he said this before he started working there.

1) Nasr said this while she was working there.

2) Wolf was hired by CNN 20 years ago. The cable news world, and indeed the entire world, was much different back then. No blogs, tweets, facebooks, and really, no internet at all as we know it.

Furthermore...

3) This goes beyond the scope a bit, but anti-Zionists have tried to redefine Zionism as they want to portray it. In reality, it is simply the realization of Jewish self-determination, a right accorded to all peoples by the UN. If someone want to deny Jews, and only Jews, this right, I don't think it is very controversial to call that racist. (If someone is against nationalism overall, and wants to deny Jews and everyone else this right, then that is another story.)

This from Steve is also worth a comment:

But CNN's spineless response to this incident strikes me as one more reason why mainstream journalism is increasingly seen as morally bankrupt and why the blogosphere is slowly taking over.

Morally bankrupt? Really?? A company makes a personnel decision in what it perceives as it's best interests, and Steve is making moral pronouncements about it? This decision is amoral, as one would expect from a corporation, which are amoral entities. These types of overwrought emotional outbursts are not what one would expect from a "Realist".

And speaking of bloggers, it is also noteworthy that these mountains out of molehills are mainly brought about by bloggers. This is just one of many things that would have slipped by under the radar otherwise.

a truly great post Norboose, I applaud your attitude and agree wholeheartedly.

If you had lived in germany, would you have murdered Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals? If you had lived in the projects, then would you have become a drug dealer? These decisions are personal choices, regardless of circumstances. After all, we don't see africans doing suicide bombings, and they are way more repressed and poor than any arab is. We also see people rising above their circumstances. In fact, the majority in the urban ghettos are NOT criminals. While they might not be prospering, they do not engage in criminal activity nor condone it.

This guy was a rich fat cat preacher. He would send other people's children out to do suicide bombings rather than his own. He knew right from wrong and chose wrong. Many people in Lebanon did choose to do the right thing. Many others simply tried to leave the country. This guy had a choice and made the wrong one. Let him burn in hell.

"He would send other people's children out to do suicide bombings rather than his own."

Oh you mean kind of like the neocon chickenhawks who send other people's kids out to die for the empire and never their own? You say these people should "rise above" resistance. Well, dear sir, maybe they actually genuinely believe they are justified in their actions. Your focus on this notion of "evil" has blinded you to reality. You sir are as much of a "true believer" as any Islamic fundamentalist.

If I were born in China or Russia/USSR, theres a pretty good chance I would be working for the Ministry of State Security/Peoples Armed Police or the Federal Security Service/Foreign Intelligence Service, due to the propaganda. Hopefully, I would see through the BS and defect or maybe just stick to a boring civilian life, but I am not too confident in that.

"Oh you mean kind of like the neocon chickenhawks who send other people's kids out to die for the empire and never their own?"

I am not a "neocon" nor do I care about them at this moment. You are just distracting from the main point of the article. Classic example of someone trying to do some silly moral relativism bit.

Especially since while I have not been to the USSR, I have been to China many times. I can tell you that the people there are by and large not brainwashed or strong adherents to Communism. A lot hate many aspects of the regime. The respect it, in so much as it can help them or in so much as they can use it as a patronage or nepotism based system.

Whether you are a neocon chickenhawk personally is irrelevant. I'm talking about guys like Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney (draft dodger) etc who promote all these wars yet they or their kids never do the fighting. How are they any different than this Hizballah guy in that respect? And since you so clearly disdain nuance, you would no doubt condemn the atomic bombings of Japan wouldn't you? The deliberate mass killing of civilians is evil isn't it? Of course it was a war and you have to do brutal things in war but that's just nuance isn't it?

First of all most "neocons" like bill kristol and krauthammer are not military commanders or heads of a militia in any sense. Fadalllah was commander and leader of an armed military group. Anyone here on this message board advocating war has just about the same significance as those "neocons." They are simply people spouting their opinion rather than actual military actors sending people off to war.

As for politicians in the government - We have civilian military commanders as part of a democratic process, expressing the will of the people and putting a check on power. Many of these civilian commanders (dick cheney, barak obama, etc.) have never served in the army nor do they have children serving. However, they are part of the democratic system and the fact that they are civilians is important to guarantee our liberty. Hizbollah is part of a totalitarian system, expressing the dominance of a sectarian group (Shiite muslims) over all others.

Finally, suicide bombings are different than politicians (inlcuding neo-cons) sending men to war. Politicians try to limit casualties as best as possible. Despite wars that might be foolish, our troops go in with the best training, body armor, MRAPs, top of the line planes, and as much air and artillery cover as possible. We try to save our men and women's lives and heal them as best we can when they are injured.

With suicide bombing, Fadlallah was intentionally sending men to their known and determined death. Both their lives and the lives of the enemy meant nothing to him.

Hence, the difference is, THE US SENDS MEN TO WAR WITH THE INTENTION OF HAVING AS MANY SURVIVE AS POSSIBLE. FADLALLAH SENDS MEN TO WAR WITH THE INTENTION AND GOAL THAT THEY DIE.

but they don't really have the luxuries that we do when it comes to protecting the troops. As Rummy said, you go to war with what you have, not what you want. Hizballah has little besides suicide bombers, who mostly go of their own accord I reckon. I don't like Hizballah. I think they are ignorant and fanatical. But I don't think they are necessarily evil, because frankly, I don't think there is such thing as evil, only toxic ideologies and flawed human beings. We are all susceptible.

And politicians (who are influenced by think tank types) are the ones who decide to go to war, not the military commanders. Ultimately the responsibility lays with them.

with what you have vs. sending men to their certain death.

In 1948 the Israelis did not have a qualitative military advantage against the Arab armies. They lacked tanks, artillery, planes, and just about all types of modern military equipment. However, they fought and did not send men to intentionally kill themselves. They sent their sons to battle...Every family had sons, daughters, fathers, brothers fighting in that war, due to the numerical disadvantage the Israelis had against the neighboring arab states. However, they sent them to fight, not to die. They understood the risk of death, but did not send them with the intent that they seek their own death.

Fadlallah and hizbollah send men out to war with the intent that they kill themselves. They have never sent their own sons or relatives out for such missions. the same is true for hamas and islamic jihad. They send other children out not for fighting missions, but for suicide bombing missions.

Moreover, I think you underestimate hizbollah. you said "hizballah has little besides suicide bombers, who mostly go of their own accord I reckon." Hizbollah has body armor, including kevlar type helmets. They have advanced rockets, missiles, anti-aircraft weapons, and anti-tank weapons. They have silkworm missiles anti-ship missiles, and anti-tank weapons that can disable Abrams and Merkava tanks. This is not some rag tag militia. They are a well trained fighting group, stronger than the Lebanese army. They receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year and billions of dollars worth of armaments from their illegal activities in south america and africa and from their syrian and iranian backers.

Here is a picture of Hizbollah troops with rockets. Notice them donning body armor and helmets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/36769000/jpg/_36769787_guerillas.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/i/4rh3.jpg/

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w36/img.342643_t.jpg

ha ha, King Solomon wanted to cut the baby in half but the two sides of the argument didn't let him do it. In the world of War and survival I don't think the type of moral flexibility you advocate works. you MUST take sides.

As for the Chickenhawks, last I checked every single person in the U.S. army volunteered for it. Do you see any difference between arming children and indoctrinating them and endangering them in combat starting at age 8 or 9 and a man who has volunteered for the armed service of a sovereign nation? i didn't think so. And how about David Petraeius? Or McChrystal? Are they Chickenhawks too? I'll tell you who the real chickens are. The asses who explode women and children in pizzerias and subway stations. Last I checked they were Islamist terrorist groups you so admire.

Katyusha rockets which were widely available in Lebanon. They also had mortars and a few artillery. Even the PLO had these weapons too in Lebanon. The country was awash in arms as it was going through a civil war.

And no, the US never sent someone on a certain death mission. Risky missions, yes, but it never indoctrinated men to SEEK death as an ends. And yes, hizbollah knows the difference between trying to fight with your men surviving vs seeking to kill them. Notice their use of body armor and helmets.