A Message For ‘Reader X’ aka It’s My Blog And I’ll Ban Who I Want To!

.

 

Is freedom of speech absolute?


Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog.


I make no apologies for this stance. Only one person has total free speech in this particular arena – and that’s me!

 

I’ve been pondering  ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop.

 
Of course, most bloggers ban those who submit abusive or racist comments. 
 
 
It’s just common sense. But what about banning someone who is usually polite..?
  
 
Is it ‘wrong’?  Does it ‘prove’ that I ban dissent, especially when it comes to the topic of Israel…?   I can’t respond privately to this person, hence this post.
 
  
Truth is, I welcome dissenting opinions. Genuinely. Blogging would be mighty dull if everyone who posted here was just echoing my views!


Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this


Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts.

 

But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions.  But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse.


The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate.

 

The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result.

 

But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’.

 

Wrong.
 
  
What they had was  freedom of opinion. But that doesn’t mean any institution, let alone Oxford, should offer them a platform to spread their malice.
 

If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis.

 

But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no.  They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that.  Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them.

 

I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…?

 

No, of course not – and nor would  Oxford dream of doing so!  Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs.


Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’.

 
Well, dear Reader X, you may continue to insist this, and deny reality, as much as you like. Go on – knock yourself out!
  
But not on my blog.
  
 
Any group which attacks and kills unarmed, innocent civilians, is a terrorist group. Yep – it’s as black and white as that. Thus when Hamas sent suicide bombers onto two Israeli buses, killing sixteen people, including a 3 year old child,  that was terrorism. End of.
 
I’m not remotely interested in Reader X’s apologetics for Hamas. Nor will I feel bad for denying his ‘right’ to publicly condone them. He can seek to justify and rationalise and apologise for Hamas terrorism all he likes.
  
But not on my blog.

 

Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry.

Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’.

 

Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite.

But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’

Er, right…

 Again, if Reader X wants to support anti Gay and Anti Jewish bigotry, he’s free to do so.
  
 But not on my blog.

 

In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify.

 

If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too.  If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation.

 

But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions.

  
There are countless sites out there where Reader X can share his inaccurate ideas on Israel.
My blog is not one of them.

 

And finally, Reader X,  I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is  ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here.

Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed.   But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed,  only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism!

This is rank  hypocrisy. When the UN condemns Israel, it’s acceptable. But when the UN condemns Palestinian and Islamic terrorism, it gets ignored. Again Reader X, you’re free to practise this hypocrisy.
  
But not on my blog.


 

Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi.

Responding to this post, what did you say?  You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran.

Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it  that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled.

 
And so, Reader X, if you are indeed looking at this post: don’t tell me that you’re ‘objective‘ and ‘fair‘ when it comes to any topic connected to either Israel or anti Jewish sentiment. You’re not. At least have the integrity to acknowledge your own bias and blatant double standards.

 

And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again.

But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs –  ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!

Advertisements

Top Obama Aide Shares Platform With Rabid Anti Semite

I recently read an excellent article over at the    Investigative Project On Terrorism   and the good folk there have kindly said I can re-post some of it here. It’s an important story – do read and then share this information. And do visit the IPT’s superb site!

The article details how one of Obama’s top aides cheerfully shared a platform with people promoting Jihad, Anti semitism, homophobia, and Islamic terrorism. This is an abbreviated version of the original piece; the extra emphasis in italics and colour are mine:

 

A top aide to President Barack Obama provided a keynote address at last weekend’s 46th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) national convention, a gathering that attracted thousands of people and also featured anti-Semitic, homophobic rhetoric and defense of the terrorist group Hezbollah.

In her remarks, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs Valerie Jarrett noted she was the first White House official to address ISNA. She spoke in general terms about interfaith dialogue and cooperation. She praised her hosts for “the diversity of American organizations, and ideas that are represented and will be debated” at the convention.

And she openly invited ISNA President Ingrid Mattson to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls that Jarrett leads.

The ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-support conspiracy and maintains significant leadership ties to its foundation 28 years ago by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. A more pointed statement also would have stood as a powerful retort to extremist sentiments offered in other segments of the conference.

While many panels featured criticism of U.S. policy and law enforcement, one stood out for its hate-filled rhetoric, and ISNA officials should have seen it coming a mile away. During a “meet the authors” session, Imam Warith Deen Umar, former head of the New York state prison chaplain program managed to:

Argue that key Obama aides are “Israeli,” proving Jews “have control of the world.”

Malign the motives of Jews active in the Civil Rights movement.

Portray the Holocaust as punishment of Jews for being “serially disobedient to Allah.”Insinuate that Hurricane Katrina was a result of tolerance for homosexuality.

 

Umar’s radicalism is no secret. He previously hailed the 9/11 hijackers as martyrs who were secretly admired by Muslims. He has called for violent jihad. In a January 2004 speech, he urged people:

“Rise up and fight. And fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. You think there is no terror in Quran? It’s called [word unclear] read it in the 56th Surah of the Quran. There’s no lack of translation, there’s no mistranslation There’s not one Sheikh says one thing, no, it’s very clear. When you fight, you strike terror into the heart of the disbeliever.'”

 

He has a website promoting a past book, Judaiology, which features an excerpt describing “the inordinacy of Jewish power.” Jews, he wrote, are “an amazing people who can steal you blind as you watch. If you discover the theft, they can put you to sleep. If you wake up to them, they can put you back to sleep with mind games, tricks of fancy, smoke screens, and magic. Henry Ford almost uncovered them.”

 

Other choice comments of his included:

“It’s against the laws of Allah and against the laws of the Bible for homosexuality. And if you think the Quran talks about harsh punishment from Allah, you should read what the Bible says. I don’t have the time to go into it, but it’s in my book. The Bible is very hard on, he says, Allah says that the land itself is doomed. You wonder why things are happening in America are going to happen? You think that Katrina was just a blow of wind?”

And also:

“My conclusion is that there should be more jihad,” he said. “But people don’t want to hear that. They’re scared.”

 

This is the man responsible for the Muslim chaplain program in New York prisons for 20 years. He was forced out of that job after his praise for the 9/11 hijackers became known. This is who ISNA chose to showcase in a “meet the authors” panel and provide an unchallenged platform for.

 

Umar shared the microphone with another author who did not spew out bigotry, but who did cast Hezbollah as an innocent player.  Cathy Sultan described her book, Tragedy in South Lebanon: The Israeli/Hezbollah War of 2006, as a history of “the tragedy of the repeated incursions and wars in South Lebanon, the complexities of the Lebanese politics.”

She made no mention of Iranian funding for Hezbollah or Syrian meddling in Lebanese politics or its suspected involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Nor did Sultan describe indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket fire toward Israeli civilian communities, or the cross-border attack on an Israeli army base by Hezbollah that left three soldiers dead and two others kidnapped.

In response to a question, Sultan said: “Hezbollah still serves a role. I think that Lebanon is still under constant threat from its southern neighbor. And I see nothing wrong, as long as Hezbollah abides by certain rules and regulations; I see no reason why Hezbollah should not remained armed.”

The United States considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist group, and some experts consider it a bigger potential threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda.

The panel did not feature anyone with contrasting viewpoints to challenge Sultan or Umar. The program drew about 50 people, who sat passively during most of the remarks.

Umar’s books were available for purchase at the convention. Government agencies were represented with booths of their own, including the departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

 

In Cairo, Barack Obama said:

“Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong and a hindrance to peace.”

But somehow, partnering with a group that invites the same thing is okay?

 

 

With thanks to the Investigative Project On Terrorism for allowing me to re-post this material.

Visit the IPT by clicking

Iran’s ‘Peaceful’ Nuclear Project

Mad Mahoud AhmadinejIhad has insisted for months that his nuclear programme is a ‘peaceful’ one. Much of the world has chosen to swallow this fiction, with Israel being the lone dissenter.

Now Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point in yesterday’s Sunday Express:

Referring to a recent Hezbollah rally in Lebanon that he attended, Hitchens notes:

In a large hall that featured the official attendance of a delegation from the Iranian embassy, the most luridly displayed poster of the pro-Iranian party was a nuclear mushroom cloud! Underneath this telling symbol was a caption warning the ‘zionists’ of what lay in store.

We sometimes forget that Iran still officially denies any intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet Ahmadinejaad recently hailed an an Iranian missile launch as a counterpart to Iran’s success with nuclear centrifuges and Hezbollah has certainly formed the idea that Iranian reactors may have non-peaceful applications.

This means that the vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered an ‘internal affair’. Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad.  Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name.”

Cognitive Dissonance And The ‘Palestinian State Will Bring Peace’ Myth

 

One of the most astute commentators on the Israeli/Arab conflict has to be Steven Plaut. Here is an extract from one of his latest posts, see the links at the end of this post for more details.

 

Today to promote “Two States for Two Peoples” requires a bit of
cognitive dissonance. After all, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, turning
it over to the “Palestinian Authority,” and the whole world saw the
consequences. They included 8000 rocket missiles aimed at Jewish civilians
inside Israel.

So those who insist that the Palestinian will desire to live in
peace once they have their own state are about as consistent and credible as
are people who argue that North Korea and Iran will seek genuine peace once
they get nuclear weapons, or those that once insisted that Hitler would be
satisfied once he got the Sudetenland.

But more generally, the whole “Two States for Two Peoples” campaign is
nothing more than a special case of the “Then Maybe they Will” doctrine.
For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been prisoner to
the “Then Maybe They Will” doctrine.

Every major policy decision made by the
government has reflected the power of wishful thinking and faith in the
make-pretend. Here is a brief recapitulation of the doctrine:

If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the
Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in their state-run media.

If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
stop seeking Israel’s destruction and the world will not try to set up an
independent Palestinian Arab terror state.

If Israel provides the Palestinian Authority with arms and funds, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL
not be used for terrorist atrocities against Israel.

If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and seeking the annihilation of Israel
and its Jewish population.

If Israel frees thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL renounce
violence and not murder any more Jews.

If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL put a stop
to Palestinian terrorism.

If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold elections, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
not
elect Hamas.

If the Palestinians elect Hamas, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not pursue a program
of aggression and terrorism against Israel.

If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their
genocidal ambitions and seek peace.

If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and
allows Hezb’allah terrorists to station rockets on the border,
THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL not
launch any of them.

If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in Hezb’allah and stop border attacks on Israel.

If Israel refrains from retaliating against Hezb’allah terrorists after
they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not
seek to kidnap any more soldiers.

If Israel agrees to one cease-fire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE
THE ARABS WILL eventually comply with one.

If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public
lands, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and moderate.

If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel.

If Israel ignores Hezb’allah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL come
to an end.

If Israel lets the Muslims control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation.

If Israel expels all Jews from Gaza as a gesture of friendship to the
Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with friendship toward the Jews.

If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL not
use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel.

If Israel turns the other cheek after Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired.

If Israel allows the Palestinian Authority to control parts of the West
Bank, THEN MAYBE THE PALESTINIANS WILL not fire rockets at Jews the same way
they do from Gaza.

If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE THE SYRIANS WILL
seek peace and reject the idea of using the Heights to attack Israel again.

If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo/Road Map/Saudi Plan noose,
THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL not pull the rope.

If Israel officially agrees in principle to let the Palestinians have a
state, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.

 

Brilliantly said.

 

 

Links:

 

Steven Plaut’s site,

Obama: Can We Help Fund Hamas? Yes We Can!


A question for Americans: would you want a single dollar to get into the hands of Hamas? No?

Then brace yourselves.

Because if changes in American law are pushed through, financial aid will be sent to a unified Palestinian government – even if Hamas officials are part of that government.

Let’s recap. Despite attempts by the liberal media to rebrand Hamas as doe-eyed ‘resistance fighters’, Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Here’s a whopping big clue to the truth of that statement: Hamas was spawned by the radical Muslim Brotherhood. And so was Al Queda.

Check out the Hamas Charter.  It openly rejects any form of peace negotiations and blames Jews every war ever fought. Indeed, the Charter is one long rant about Jews. Oh, and Rotary Clubs. Both of which, according to Hamas, are responsible for all the world’s ills.

Oh, and we’re all familiar with the numerous videos of Hamas leaders and followers declaring their desire to ‘drink jewish blood’, right?

Hamas has always refused to recognise the right of Israel to exist. It won’t acknowledge any Jewish presence in the Middle East, period.

And no matter how hard Israel has tried to broker a peace, Hamas has remained resolute. Indeed, the group has been extremely busy for the past six years, bombarding southern Israel with missiles.

And let’s not overlook the countless suicide bombings – you know, the ones steadfastly ignored mentioned in the mainstream media.

Thus the notion of financial aid ending up in Hamas hands is pretty terrifying, frankly.

Bush would never have entertained it. But apparently Obama’s response to the question of whether America can, ethically, give funds to Hamas is ‘Yes We Can!’.

“The administration’s proposal is akin to agreeing to support a government that “only has a few Nazis in it,” Rep. Mark Steven Kirk told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a House hearing last week.

The Democrats have discussed the changes to the law governing funding to Gaza this month, as part of an $83.4-billion emergency spending bill that also contains funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also would provide $840 million for the Palestinian Authority and for rebuilding in Gaza, following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead earlier this year.

American officials stress that the new proposal doesn’t amount to recognizing or helping Hamas. Under law, any U.S. aid would require that the Palestinian government meet three criteria: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas does not meet those criteria.


But if rival groups Fatah and Hamas achieve a power-sharing deal, Obama wants to provide aid as long as the Hamas-backed members of the government — if not Hamas itself — meet the three criteria.

Clinton defended the administration’s position last week before Congress. She said that the United States supports and funds the Lebanese government, even though it includes members of Hezbollah, another terrorist group.

She also proposed that the United States should try to gradually change the attitudes of Hamas members, as it did with militants in Northern Ireland.

Yeah, good luck with that, Hilary. Anyone who has paid attention to what Hamas itself states is painfully aware that trying to ‘adjust’ Hamas attitudes would be like Chamberlain beseeching the Nazis to ‘just give Jews a chance’.

And the IRA analogy, so beloved by politicians and pundits alike, is invalid. The IRA did not seek the slaughter of an entire religion. Hamas openly does.

Besides which, both Hilary and Obama fail to grasp the vital point: Islamic law states that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam. Once Muslim, always Muslim.

Hence the claim on Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It’s about religion – not land.

The war between Hamas and Israel is not just a localised issue. Nor does it have anything to do with the ‘palestinian problem’.

Rather, it is merely part of a global conflict between the free world – and Islam. The Jihad against Israel is the exact same Jihad being waged against America and Europe.

What will it take for Obama, and indeed the world, to get this?

One shudders to imagine.

Hezbollacks To That

And here’s the latest from Anglostan – sorry, Britain:

The British government has spent more than £20,000 of taxpayers’ money – so that civil servants c ould attend a course on Islam. And the keynote speaker? A HEZBOLLAH ‘media relations officer’.

Wait, don’t start screaming and throwing things in frustration yet. It gets better:

When the lucky civil servants in question arrived at the London School Of Oriental Studies, the course venue,  they got a surprise.

For the Hezbollah spokesman, one Ibrahim Moussawi, had been  barred from entering the UK by the Home Office!

(Will continue posting in a sec, just gotta pick myself up off the floor as I have fainted in shock at the home office actually getting something right).

Yep. Even as one government body deemed Moussawi a man worth listening to, another government body deemed him so dangerous that it refused him entry into the country!

Details released under Freedom Of Information laws reveal that the Ministry Of Defence, and the Department for International Development, each had five representatives at the Political Islam seminar, where Moussawi was due to speak. And the title of his lecture? ‘Current Politics And Prospects Of Hezbollah’.

One delegate from the Cabinet Office also attended the conference. The full fee was £1,890 for the five-day course.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the “lavish” spending was “frankly disgusting. This man and his organisation are committed to violence and the spreading of hatred. British people do not pay their taxes to provide a platform to that kind of bile.”

A government spokesperson stated:
“Staff need to improve their understanding of the current thinking and arguments” on Middle East-related issues and there was intrinsic value in their attendance.”

OK – now you can scream.

Hezbollah:
a.k.a. ‘Party of G-d’

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 in. Based in Lebanon, this is a radical Shia group which takes its ideology from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The group follows the religious guidance of Khomeini’s successor, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran is a major supporter of Hezbollah and is believed to support it financially.

Hezbollah also has ties to Syria.

The Majlis al-Shura, or Consultative Council, is the group’s highest governing body and has been led by Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah since 1992.

Hezbollah exerts a powerful influence over Lebanon’s Shia community, which comprises roughly one-third of Lebanon’s population.

Hizballah maintains offices in Beirut and elsewhere in the country, has official liaison officers to the security services, claims 14 elected officials in the 128-seat Lebanese National Assembly and was represented in the Cabinet for the first time, by the Minister of Water and Electricity Mohammed Fneish, until his resignation, along with other Shia ministers on November 11, 2006.

Hezballah supports a variety of violent anti-Western groups, including Palestinian terrorist organizations. This support includes provision of weapons, explosives, training, and funding.

Activities

In 2006, Hezballah launched a number of attacks on Israel, including the May 28 and July 12 attack, which resulted in the capture and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

Hizballah has repeatedly called for the total destruction of Israel and has actively provided support to various Palestinian groups to aid their attacks on Israel.

Since at least 2004, Hezballah has provided training and logistics to Iraqi Shia militants, including for the construction and use of shaped charge IEDs, which Hezballah developed against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon during the late 1990s and which can penetrate heavily armored vehicles.

Hezballah has also taken part in numerous anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, and prior to September 11, 2001, was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group.

Hezbollah attacks have included the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984.

Four members of Hezballah, Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, Mohammed Hamadei, and Ali Atwa, are on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered.

Hezbollah members were also responsible for the kidnapping, detention, and murder of Americans and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Hezballah has also been implicated in the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires in 1994.

The U.S. Government has indicted a member of Lebanese Hezballah for his participation in the June 1996 truck bomb attack of the U.S. Air Force dormitory at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

In 2000, Hezballah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers in the Sheba’a Farms area and also kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant.

Hezbollah has thousands of supporters, several thousand members, and a few hundred terrorist operatives.

Hezbollah primarily operates in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the Beka’a Valley, and southern Lebanon. In addition it has established terrorist cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia.