Hizbullah and the clashes in Sidon

Now, as far as the involvement of Hizbullah in the clashes in Sidon: here is what I believe.  Without any analysis or information I can categorically rule out any intervention by Hizbullah in the Sidon clashes for one simple reason: the Lebanese Army (side) fought so clumsily and lost too many men, and their advance was too slow, and the top fighters and Al-Asir and Fadl Shakir managed to slip out from their "tightly cordoned off" area, that can only prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hizbullah was not involved and that the lousy fighting force of the Lebanese Army was in charge.  I in fact managed to interview fighters from the secular Syrian Social National Party (you know why I chose fighters from those party and not Hizbullah? Because Hizbullah fighters don't talk about their military exploits...EXCEPT when they encounter Western journalists with known hostile agenda to the party, like Prothero and Blanford.   Only to those hostile journalists and other Zionist correspondents in the region, Hizbullah fighters and commanders (famously tight lipped about their military work under the threat of expulsion) become garrulous for some inexplicable reason)) about their involvement in the one day of clashes in Lebanon known as May 7, 2008.  The Syrian Social National Party fighter described to me in detail how Hizbullah fighters managed the "battle" against Hariri Salafis that day, and I can categorically tell you that the fight in Sidon was typically clumsily run by the inept Lebanese Army.   On May 7th, the entire operation was over in a few hours.  So for me, I don't have to talk to anyone or research the matter or even make phone calls to rue: this is a Lebanese Army fight, through and through.  The Interior Minister of Lebanon (somebody who is close to March 14 and has presidential ambitions) has just announced that only Lebanese Army soldiers and commanders were involved in the fighting.  But most importantly, if there is evidence to the contrary, it should be presented.  I can easily and casually now dismiss anything on Hizbullah that comes out from Nicholas Blanford (after the fiasco of his "interview"--in which he was not present--with Hariri assassination suspects?  Or his hagiographic book on Rafiq Hariri funded and distributed by Hariri family?) or Mitch Prothero (and his paintballing with "Hizbullah"--with all of Hizbullah including Hasan Nasrallah personally, at least that is what I surmised from the title--and his admission that he paid someone from the southern suburbs for this game) has no credibility whatsoever as far as I cam concerned.  If there are non-political editors who judge the work on non-political bases, Prothero and Blanford would either have been fired or they would have reassigned and never allowed anywhere near Lebanon because their own work discredited them.  But my colleague, Elia Muhanna, is a much nicer person than I am and much more forgiving and patient than I am.  He in fact asked Prothero and Blanford for their evidence, and here is what they said:  "about seven or eight other guys all dressed in paramilitary clothing, some with yellow ribbons and very obviously Hezbollah. They were paranoid about our cameras..."  This must be a comedy material.  1) Don't you love the evidence of they were "obviously Hizbullah"? What is obviously Hizbullah? Are they men with tails?  Are they men who strap potatoes to their neck?  I mean, ordinary Lebanese can't tell who is "obviously" Hizbullah and who is not but this comedy duo can?  2) Let me get this straight: so those Hizbullah fighters were paranoid about the cameras but they had distinguishing Hizbullah markings and then invited those two Western correspondents for a chat?  I mean, do you know how typically unbelievable that is? 3) On Blanford: the man who is not-a-good propagandist for the Hariri family (and who hilariously published the Hariri family accusations about the killing of Rafiq in a book that named the Syrian regime as a culprit, before the Hariri family changed its mind and named Hizbullah?) does not even try.  He is so casual and flippant in his fabrications and tall tales that I now recognize his articles from this claims of encounters with Hizbullah fighters or commanders.  4) I received videos of Hizbullah fighters in Qusayr and they did not "obviously look Hizbullah" and they did not have distinguishing markings on them. But for some reason, they do that for Western journalists to be easily identified.  5) Paramilitary clothing?  Even journalists were them in Lebanon.  6) Is that Hajj guy the same as Hajji and the same as Rony and AbuKhalil who appeared in previous fabrications by Blanford, or are they newly invented superheros?  7) I noticed in the comment's section in Elias blog that somebody said that Now Hariri website (which has the stellar journalistic reputation of checkout's tabloids in the US) "reported" that Hizbullah participated in the clashes.  Well, yes, Now Hariri reported that people "on facebook" circulated a picture of what "they" said was a Hizbullah fighters and that "ground sources"--kid you not--confirmed to Now Hariri that the man was in the supportive auxiliary arm of the resistance of Hizbullah.  (Now Hariri is famous for attributing the most bizarre information and claims that are damaging to Hizbullah to "high places sources" or to "sources close to Hizbullah" or to "someone familiar with Hizbullah thinking".  8) But let me say this.  Why do Hizbullah fighters and commanders always talk to those Western journalists who are known as hostile to Hizbullah and they never talk to, say, reporters of Al-Akhbar which is owned by a man (Ibrahim Amin) who is a personal friend of Hasan Nasrallah? Why do they pick them of all people.  9) The area around the neighborhood of where the clashes occurred, and the neighborhood itself, has an army of Lebanese journalists belonging to all different warring factions in Lebanon and not one of them spotted a Hizbullah fighter. Not eve the TV stations that are hostile to Hizbullah.  In fact, Nada Andrawus works for LBC (which is a right-wing sectarian Christian station that is hostile to Hizbullah) and she was asked on the air by a guest on Kalam An-Nas whether she saw any Hizbullah fighter as she was on the ground, much closer to the action than the comedy duo above, and she said that she has not.  10) This is what Anne Barnard "reports" today:  "Some residents said they had seen people they knew to be Hezbollah fighters firing weapons, or moving through neighborhoods with the army. Others reported shelling from an area where Hezbollah has positions."  Wait.  This is a Sunni neighborhood and if the residents said that they saw people who are Hizbullah fighters, it raises questions.  Hizbullah fighters are not supposed to be known or seen, and they are not supposed to be Sunni.  The Sunni supporters of Hizb in Sidon are the Arab nationalist group, The Popular Nasserist Organization of Usamah Sa`d.  Big distinction.  As for the area where Hizbullah "has positions": I don't know for the life of me what Barnard means and if she knows what she was talking about, i would have asked her myself.  11) Hizbullah admitted its involvement in a foreign country (Syria), so why would they deny their involvement in Sidon if they were involved especially that the Asir guy had been provoking Hizbullah for over a year?  Why would they deny it if true when they did not deny their involvement in Qusayr?