First two paragraphs of the article: "The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10—story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the 'resistance.' Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And 'everyone' apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit."
Is it just me, or [do] the first two paragraph[s] of this articles directly contradict its thesis? Thesis: Hezbollah does not hide behind civilians. First paragraphs: A Hezbollah commander and other "Hezb guys" force themselves into the top floors of a ten—story apartment buiding, knowing that its likely to be targeted by Israel.
By the way, the editor of Salon is Gary Kamiya. He promotes the myth that the dual loyalties of American Jews led us into Iraq. He was also chosen by the New York Times yesterday to be one of ther book reviewers. He used George Packer's book about Iraq to help bolster his views that the dastardly Jews are resposnible for the mess that is Iraq.
