this account in the Economist

The special supplement of the Economist about Arab Uprisings should have been signed by the Hariri press office because it relies so heavily on its propaganda talking points.  "Burly men wearing yellow armbands attacked the small crowd with clubs and pistols. Yellow is the colour of Hizbullah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese party-cum-militia that has lately also entered the fray in Syria. Mr Salman took two bullets in his legs and one in the back."  Well, they were indeed attacked by thugs loyal to Amal movement and Hizbullah but with clubs and not with pistols.  The article did not mention that the bullet did not come from the thugs who were administering the beatings and that Nasrallah himself later condemned the attack and called for an investigation and spoke favorably about the victim (he called him a "dear one").   Worse, the Economist lies when it said later:  "The killers in both cases saw themselves as punishing traitors to the faith."  That is a blatant lie: no one (either in Hizbullah or Amal--but notice that Amal is missing from the account to make it more sexy) spoke in this language that is perfected by armed groups in Syria.  No one.  But most importantly, the passing reference placed this incident in a religious context when all concerned were Shi`ite themselves and the article did not mention that the victim was part of a small group run and funded by Saudi intelligence service (its small leader, Ahmad Al-As`ad, blatantly spoke of such ties and funds in 2009 during the election when he netted a whopping 1% of Shi`ite votes in South Lebanon).  To refer to a "secular" criminal killing and to equate it with the religious zealotry of the armed groups in Syria is an attempt to downplay the consequences of the agenda of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.