Hizboll'ah Billboard in Windsor

[marcinmoka]

Surely, some of the "Immigrant Conspiracy/ Tin Foil" crew will be grinning with joy at this news and use it fan the flames of hatred towards everyone, but I am surprised no one has brought it up, nor inevitably (and sadly) defended the erection of this billboard featuring Nashrallah and split English/Arabic text, which according to most, features a striking discrepancy in tone.

Like it or not, I am quite sure this was in clear defiance of the law and should not be tolerated. They seem to agree with me too - http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

I am shocked at how thing one got past the gates, be it at the level of the state, the printers, or even the proprietor of the billboard (CBS). As the parliamentarians love to say, "Shame".

Sign splits Lebanese, riles Jews

This goes way too far. I am just curious what the Anarchists/Uber-Libertarians have to say?

Edited August 14, 2007 by marcinmoka

[cybercoma]

"Anyone who calls Hezbollah terrorist is a liar...."

wow. I'm ashamed to have been born and raised in Windsor.

[jbg]

As much as I don't like restrictions on free speech, I think having one text in Arabic, one in English is seriously misleading, and should be forbidden based on truth in advertising laws. I also think this billboard shows that certain groups are here to wreck us, not join us.

[Renegade]

The billlboard should be permitted as free speech. Nothing in the English text advocates violence or hate, or violates libel laws. The Arabic text is not shown, nor can I read it so I can't comment on whether it trangresses.

[Bonam]

Sick that this kind of sign would be put up in Canada. While free speech is very important, is there not a limit somewhere, when it comes to advertising for terrorist organizations and their leaders? This guy is primarily responsible for the death of thousands of people last summer. In my opinion, the only kind of sign his face should be on in Canada is a Wanted Dead or Alive sign.

[Renegade]

This guy is primarily responsible for the death of thousands of people last summer.

So is this guy. Is it legal to put up a billboard with his face?

In my opinion, the only kind of sign his face should be on in Canada is a Wanted Dead or Alive sign.

That would probably contrevene hate laws as it could be interpreted to be promoting violence against an identifable group or person.

[AndrewL]

Sick that this kind of sign would be put up in Canada. While free speech is very important, is there not a limit somewhere, when it comes to advertising for terrorist organizations and their leaders? This guy is primarily responsible for the death of thousands of people last summer. In my opinion, the only kind of sign his face should be on in Canada is a Wanted Dead or Alive sign.

Primarily responsible?

Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.

Andrew

[weaponeer]

Primarily responsible?

Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.

Andrew

Israel bears NO responsibility. Those scumbags came in Israel and killed then kidnapped their soldiers. Olmert should have invaded and destroyedf them and the Syrians.

Hezbolah are nothing but scumbags, lifes loosers, and have no business bringing their BS to Canada.

[Bonam]

So is this guy. Is it legal to put up a billboard with his face?

While we may disagree with Bush and his actions, neither the US government nor its military are listed as terrorist organizations by Canada. Hezbollah is. Just a small little difference there.

Primarily responsible?

Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.

I dunno about equally, since Hezbollah initiated the conflict through its cross border raid, which caused the deaths of several soldiers and the kidnapping of others. This was an act of war against Israel, to which Israel merely reacted. Whether its reaction was excessive, appropriate, or even insufficient, is debateable. But that's why I said Nasrallah was "primarily responsible", rather than "entirely responsible" or something along those lines.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

This was an act of war against Israel, to which Israel merely reacted. Whether its reaction was excessive, appropriate, or even insufficient, is debateable. .

It's also irrelevant. War isn't about giving your opponent an even break. It's about destroying their will via their bodies. If they the enemy wish to fire behind the backs of their grandmothers and children, and their children and grandmothers get killed that's their tough luck.

[AndrewL]

I dunno about equally, since Hezbollah initiated the conflict through its cross border raid, which caused the deaths of several soldiers and the kidnapping of others. This was an act of war against Israel, to which Israel merely reacted. Whether its reaction was excessive, appropriate, or even insufficient, is debateable. But that's why I said Nasrallah was "primarily responsible", rather than "entirely responsible" or something along those lines.

Israel had long before planned for an attempt at eliminating Hezbollah. According to many 'anonymous officials' as well as washington insiders like Seymour Hersh, Washington agreed with Israels plan to go after Hezbollah and in fact gave them a bit of a push. They needed to assess the outcome - particularly Iran's response if and when Washington decides to bomb them. The US and Israel needed to know what to expect from Iran, Hezbollah and maybe Hamas (although Hamas has now been isolated in Gaza). The kidnapping and killing of the Israeli soldiers was just the event they needed.

Besides, the majority of poeple that Olmert ended up killing had nothing at all to do with Hezbollah or the kidnapping. He made the choice to punish and terrorize them for political reasons. (its becoming less and less legitimate for the leaders of developed nations to behave this way, IMO).

So this was far more than just a defensive reaction to a minor incident. It was part of a larger regional strategy involving Iran and Washington, in which many innocent Lebanese were killed as mere pawns. They were used by all parties involved, icluding Hezbollah of course.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[Bonam]

What Israel was planning or hoping to do is largely irrelevant. It doesn't remove any responsibility from Hezbollah for its aggression. They attacked first, without provocation. They wanted to kick Israel "when it was down" and "show solidarity" with their Palestinian "brothers" who had just done a similar kidnapping. It was a blatant act of war and deserved a response in kind.

[M.Dancer]

Israel had long before planned for an attempt at eliminating Hezbollah.

And did this nefarious plan of Israel's involve controlling the minds of Hezbolah, willing them to launch missile attacks and cross border raids?

If it didn't then any contingency plans Israel may have had prior to Hebollahs actions are irrlevent. Sort of like blaming an office fire on me cause I have a fire escape and sprinklers........

[jbg]

Primarily responsible?

Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.

Andrew

Let's see. Olmert was supposed to allow the random rocketing of Northern Israel?

[jbg]

While we may disagree with Bush and his actions, neither the US government nor its military are listed as terrorist organizations by Canada. Hezbollah is. Just a small little difference there.

Didn't the US at one time have an embassy in Ottawa?

[B. Max]

As much as I don't like restrictions on free speech, I think having one text in Arabic, one in English is seriously misleading, and should be forbidden based on truth in advertising laws. I also think this billboard shows that certain groups are here to wreck us, not join us.

I agree it should stay up, and we should be able to put one up beside it that says Arabs out.

[August1991]

I saw this in a paper in Toronto. Curious, and my thoughts.

1. CBS accepted the placard for two days only. Did the organization have no more money? Was CBS relieved when it was replaced? (Yes.)

2. Free speech. Let whoever say whatever.

3. Such placards are common in Lebanon. They usually identify territory (like urban graffiti). Nasrallah posters in Lebanon indicate Shia areas.

4.

Israel bears NO responsibility. Those scumbags came in Israel and killed then kidnapped their soldiers. Olmert should have invaded and destroyedf them and the Syrians.

Hezbolah are nothing but scumbags, lifes loosers, and have no business bringing their BS to Canada.

We in the West must come to a better definition of "free speech" or "free thought" or "freedom of religion". Let Buddhists believe in self-denial or Hindus burn their young wives or Afghans refuse education to their daughters. They may be superstitious and foolish, but they're not a danger to us.

It was fanatical Muslims who flew planes into our big buildings, and slaughtered young children in southern Russia.

IOW, I fear that we in the West will argue about whether an organization should have the right to place a public poster of Adolf Hitler while forgetting a more fundamental question. In this western-style, 18th century debate, we will forget that the organization wants to destroy the right to place pubic posters.

Let me invoke Trudeau. Without order, there is no civility.

Edited August 15, 2007 by August1991

[AndrewL]

What Israel was planning or hoping to do is largely irrelevant. It doesn't remove any responsibility from Hezbollah for its aggression.

I never said it did remove responsibility from Hezbollah. I was arguing with the notion that Israel should not be held responsible as well. And Israels military strategy for this region is never irrelevant.

They attacked first, without provocation. They wanted to kick Israel "when it was down" and "show solidarity" with their Palestinian "brothers" who had just done a similar kidnapping. It was a blatant act of war and deserved a response in kind.

Without provocation? That is debatable. Israel kidnaps and assassinates people all the time. The response to Hezbollah did not match the crime. Its easy to say this was an act of war and deserved such a response, but it is also easy to see how utterly cruel, counter-productive, and stupid that response was.

Andrew

Edited August 15, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

Let's see. Olmert was supposed to allow the random rocketing of Northern Israel?

Olmert could not stop it even when he tried. According to Gwynne Dyer in "The Mess We Made: The Middle East After Iraq" Israeli border guards exchanged sattelite photos of Hezbollah positions for massive quantities of narcotics. So Hezbollah knew ahead of time where Israel would strike and and they simply moved their positions. Olmert became impotent, and Israeli guards sold their own people out.

Andrew

Edited August 15, 2007 by AndrewL

[White Doors]

Olmert could not stop it even when he tried. According to Gwynne Dyer in "The Mess We Made: The Middle East After Iraq" Israeli border guards exchanged sattelite photos of Hezbollah positions for massive quantities of narcotics. So Hezbollah knew ahead of time where Israel would strike and and they simply moved their positions. Olmert became impotent, and Israeli guards sold their own people out.

Andrew

Odd.. I haven't seen any reports of rockets coming from Lebanon.. So he did try and eureka, it worked!

funny how that works I guess.

[AndrewL]

Odd.. I haven't seen any reports of rockets coming from Lebanon.. So he did try and eureka, it worked!

funny how that works I guess.

Odd that you no longer see israeli rockets landing in lebanon. Nasrallah was just as successful as Olmert by your reckoning. Funny how that works eh?

Andrew

[White Doors]

Odd that you no longer see israeli rockets landing in lebanon. Nasrallah was just as successful as Olmert by your reckoning. Funny how that works eh?

Andrew

Yes, you are quite correct.. Israel started the war by bombing lebanon and only through the selfless heroics of Hezbollah launching rockets at Israeli elementary schools were they able to get the Zionist pigs to stop their naked agression towards the hospital and school building administrators of Hezbollah.

That about right?

You have heard of the term - 'cause and effect' before right?

Time does run in a linear fashion in Andrew World?

[AndrewL]

Yes, you are quite correct.. Israel started the war by bombing lebanon and only through the selfless heroics of Hezbollah launching rockets at Israeli elementary schools were they able to get the Zionist pigs to stop their naked agression towards the hospital and school building administrators of Hezbollah.

That about right?

You have heard of the term - 'cause and effect' before right?

Time does run in a linear fashion in Andrew World?

Nice pointless rant.

Are you suggesting that Israel was fully justified and deserves no blame for killing hundreds of innocent lebanese civilians and destroying their infrastructure because a couple soldiers got killed and kidnapped? And where are these soldiers now? Is Hezbollah weaker or stronger? Do they still have rockets to launch? Did the actions taken by Israel accomplish anything at all worthwhile or improve their security? These are fair questions. When a nation resorts to terrorism to achieve their goals (however legitimate) is it too much to ask for results or competency?

Cause and effect? So are you suggesting that everytime Israel kidnaps or assassinates poeple it is fully justified for the victims to respond with the same level of violence that Israel relies on?

Or do you want to bring cause and effect all the way back to the 40's?

Andrew

Edited August 15, 2007 by AndrewL

[M.Dancer]

Nice pointless rant.

Are you suggesting that Israel was fully justified and deserves no blame for killing hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians and destroying their infrastructure because a couple soldiers got killed and kidnapped?

From a legal standpoint and from a moral standpoint Israel deserves not one milligram of guilt. As soon as Hezbollah violated the rules of warfare and placed military material within civilian areas those areas became legitimate targets. Compounding their guilt by using civilian areas to launch attacks and then using the deaths of civilains only deepens my disgust of them. Infrastructure, or As i prefer, bridges and roads are always fair game as that is what belligerents use to move up ammunition.

Btw, the kidnappings of soldier by Hezbollah was just the last straw....they had been firing missiles at civilians for months previously.

So is Israel safer? Yes. Hezbollah lost quite a bit of prestige I doubt they will be provoking Israel any time soon. The biggest failure on Israels part was endi g the war too soon. They should have occupied the entire south and sprayed it with Raid.

[White Doors]

Are you suggesting that Israel was fully justified and deserves no blame for killing hundreds of innocent lebanese civilians and destroying their infrastructure because a couple soldiers got killed and kidnapped?

According to the Geneva conventions, Israel, just liek any other country was fully justified in it's response. Hezbollah was violating Geneva conventions in two obvious manners, and probably others as well

1) using civilian Shields

2) not dressing in military unifroms.

Are you suggesting that Hezbollah was justified in it's actions?

Also, do you think that Israel and Hezbollah share the same moral platitudes?

Please do explain your reasoning.

When a nation resorts to terrorism to achieve their goals (however legitimate) is it too much to ask for results or competency?

Please explain how you consider that Israel resorted to terrorism.

thanks

We could do cause and effect back to the 700's first.. actually, we could go back 3500 years for a cause and effect. Who do you think would win that argument?