Israel's bogus case for bombing Gaza (Max Blumenthal)
(snip)
As is so often the case, the Israeli army is lying. According to the army's own investigation of the Eliat attack last year, the attackers were not from Gaza as Israeli government spokespeople initially claimed -- they were Egyptian. The army's investigative findings were first reported by Alex Fishman, the military correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Aharanoth, who had treated the earlier attempts to blame Gaza's Popular Resistance Committees for Eilat with extreme skepticism. Bloggers Idan Landau [Hebrew only], Richard Silverstein and Yossi Gurvitz also marshaled evidence shredding the army's case against Gaza.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/5046
= new reply since forum marked as read
Seems their goals line up pretty well with Stormfront.
do you anything to say about the Max Blumenthal article?
oh and what exactly are you saying here-YMMV? how should I take that? my "mileage" interesting indeed, unless of course you meant somethingelse? 
Never mind. I give up. Have a glorious evening. 
Happy to talk about the POS article, but that wasn't what I was asked about. Apparently following my remarks with "YMMV" on a difference of interpretation was more important. Scroll up.
I just got it. Post 7 was supposed to be some sort of response to the article! I must commend you on the great detail and thought you put into it!
(not to mention, Hezbollah isn't a "state"
and secondly, did you follow the link provided to the NYT piece?
That may clear up the confusion, given that is where my remarks came from.
No shit? Hezbollah's not a state?? Goodness knows what we'd do without those little snippets of information to help us out!
I read the article. Nowhere does it say that the paper's a mouthpiece of Hezbollah..
And there's no confusion on my part. I asked you a simple question and expected that you might actually attempt to back up the claim you made. Asking you to do that doesn't mean someone's confused...,
Okay, I'll repost it for you then. Just because reposting something from upthread might be considered helpful, because you are anything but snarky and OBVIOUSLY just seeking information and input.
Al Akhbar’s access to Hezbollah allows it to scoop other papers on Lebanon’s biggest continuing story, but it also publishes muckraking exposés on the abuse of domestic workers, prison overcrowding and other delicate subjects.
That insurrectionary theme, he said, links the paper’s resistance to neoliberal economic policies and its support for Hezbollah’s fight against Israel. There are plenty of disagreements with Hezbollah, whose members regularly call to complain about articles — though not in any official capacity. But the Shiite group’s leaders appear to recognize the importance of maintaining alliances across Lebanon’s complex sectarian and political landscape.
Al Akhbar has sometimes criticized Hezbollah in print (though mildly), and Mr. Saghieh himself — who writes a regular column — has written excoriating critiques of Hezbollah’s chief Christian ally, the party of Michel Aoun, a former general.
Mouthpiece. Access.
You need me to repost #7 (that you have already referred to) as well?
Snark tends to lead to people getting all confused and stuff. You hadn't posted that before at all. Now you have, let's have a look through. The bolded bits are what you claim leads you to make the strange claim that the paper is a mouthpiece for Hezbollah. Oh-kay...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that a newspaper that champions gay rights and feminism isn't a mouthpiece of a fundamentalist religious bunch like Hezbollah. Mouthpieces don't champion things that the ones controlling them don't agree with. The ABC here is state-owned, clearly supports the ALP, and has access to it. There's always a rousing chorus from the RW types that the ABC is a mouthpiece for the ALP, even though blind freddy can see that the ABC at times disagrees with ALP policy and isn't shy about expressing it. So, claiming that something is a mouthpiece merely because it agrees with something and has access to a group is really falling far short of the mark....
No, thanks for the kind offer, but there's no need to repost a post that was very light on when it came to any sort of constructive discussion of the actual article.
Anyway, take my suggestion about lightening up on the snark. This group can be a pleasant place if you treat others how you'd like to be treated yrself
with emphasis added. 
Here's #7 responding to the allegation that it can't possibly be pro-hesbollah as people complain about aspects of it:
while maintaining their strategic alliances for access reasons.
Maybe start from the beginning on this one?
You enjoy your day now, ok?
Woulda kept me tossing and turning for hours tonight otherwise!
My day's finished
I do get twisted up on time zones (and we just changed ours today), so appreciate that patience. I can calculate Europe pretty easily, but Oz has that whole "new day, carry the one and subtract 8" thing going on. Heh.
