Difference between Israel and Hezbollah

There is a big difference between accidentally or unintentionally killing civilians, and the intentional targeting of civilians. Israel has gone out of it's way by spreading fliers, even CALLING civilians up on their phones to inform them of an upcoming attack. Hezbollah hides amongst civilians, fire their rockets from between occupied civilian houses, jeapordizing these Lebonese citizens and at times getting them killed when Israel fires back to try and hit the spot where the rocket came from.

Hezbollah has initiated this.
Hezbollah has rejected a cease-fire.
Hezbollah endangers Lebonese citizens.
Hezbollah is using Lebonese citizens as human shields.

But it is Israel that is blamed.
Israel is attacked, and they are blamed when they respond.

Why are the media and everyone else making Hezbollah out to be the VICTIMS in this?!?!?!

Is the Anti-Israel bias and at times bigotry so bad they cannot even report the stories correctly? How much of the rocket attacks on Israel, the damage in Israel, the wounded and dead in Israel, have you seen in comparison to the almost FULL-coverage of Lebanon and Hezbollah?

It is bad enough it is a war zone, but now it seems the media needs to doctor spice up their photos of the attacks even more?

Bloggers are swarming to review photos now after finding altered / doctored photos by Adnan Hajja, a photographer for Reuters. His excuse? He was removing DUST!


Michelle Malkin with "Smoke Clearing Blogswarm"

Little Green Footballs with "Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?" (I believe the first to catch this)

Drinking from Home with "Extreme Makeover - Beirut Edition"

Gateway Pundit with "More Staged Photos by Reuters and Adnan Hajj"

Ace of Spades with "Another Hajj Photo That Should Be Retracted" (Seriously)

The Jawa Report with "Reuters Doctoring Beirut Photos" (Updated)

Left and Right with "Reuters faking photos"

Allah at Hotair with "The worst photoshop I’ve ever seen" (Update: Picture killed)

And so many more....


Too many people seem to have forgotten that it was NOT Israel who started this.

It was Hezbollah.
It was Hamas.

Israel has given back Gaza and Southern Lebanon, and for that they have paid a price of Hezbollah and Hamas moving their terrorists into those sections to continue to fire rockets into Israel.

Both terrorist groups INVADED Israel, killed and kidnapped Israeli citizens.

Let's not forget who the aggressors were people.

Israel has always stated they only want peace, but Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel. The terrorist group Hezbollah does not want peace, they have their backing by Iran and Syria, and are DEVOTED to the destruction of Israel.

You cannot have a cease-fire with a terrorist group.
A cease-fire is a sign of weakness to Muslims, and even states in the Qur'an.

A very good observation by Silas:

...all we have to say is, "truce" and the Muslims will stop their terrorist attacks. All we have to do is say we’re "sorry, let’s be friends", and they’ll leave us alone. Do you believe this for a second? You might as well ask that cobra not to strike you as you walk by because you mean it no harm.

Silas at Answering Islam examines what the word TRUCE means to Muslims and Extremist (Very informative read at this site):

In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else.

... Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim ...

From the Encyclopedia of Islam:
HUDNA, abstract noun from the root h.d.n. with the sense of "calm", "peace". Other terms which have the same meaning are muwada’a, musalaha, musalama, and mutaraka, the general meaning of which in Islamic law is the abstention of the parties concerned from hostilities against each other. The process of entering into a peace agreement with the enemy is called muhadana or muwada’a, but the instrument of peace is hudna (peace agreement).

When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.

As for Hamas, they have proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna — replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.

Remember, the Caliph instructs the Extremeist to war with anyone who is not Muslim:

The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax Jizya ... in accordance with the word of Allah Most High:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." 9:29

The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim ...

The quotes above are taken from a Manual of Islamic law (Shafi’i). It states Islam’s official position towards the non-Muslim: War and subjection.

Definately a very interesting read.....
Islam Revealed
Islam & Terrorism