All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
July 18, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program have withstood the test of time.
Have withstood scrutiny.
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
It's great to have you with us.
I am Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist, setting standards others only dream of meeting.
800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
So it's on the table that the media, no, they're just reporting facts about Hezbollah.
They're not promoting them, and they're not saying that they're really good people.
They're just reporting facts.
Yeah, like they report the facts of U.S. soldiers and how we are murderers and rapists and we tear up people's homes.
Not just the drive-by media saying that, but John Kerry has accused U.S. soldiers of terrorizing Iraqis in their homes at night and disturbing religious services.
You know what Senator Durbin and others in the drive-by media have said about people that run our prisons, Club Gitmo and Abu Ghrab.
We know Ted Kennedy has talked about how Abu Ghrab is no different now than when Saddam ran it, is just under different management.
We've got, I mean, you don't get any heroic stories about the U.S. military in Iraq.
No stories of heroism and sacrifice.
And certainly nowhere else in the U.S. effort in this war on terror are such stories to be found in the drive-by media.
Drive-by media just today, ladies and gentlemen, reporting on how many civilians Israel has killed with their missile strikes into South Lebanon.
And not a word about the missiles launched from civilian locations in South Lebanon.
I mentioned to you yesterday that the Hezbollah social workers, the matchmaking services, all the wonderful garbage removal and sewage work that Hezbollah is doing, never do we hear that they are launching missiles into Haifa and other areas of Israel from private homes.
You don't hear that report.
No, no, no, no, you don't.
And now this.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor.
With Israel's confrontation with Hezbollah and Lebanon lurching closer to all-out war, winds of anger are blowing through the Middle East that are likely to strengthen the political hand of radical Islamists from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.
Well, this is a prediction.
It's not a news story.
See the word likely to strengthen the political hand?
It's a prediction.
The confrontation, coupled with the rising civilian toll, also poses a serious threat to U.S. interests in the region.
Islamists who are hostile to Israel and the U.S. and to their Arab allies who have criticized Hezbollah are shoring up support, increasing the chances that they will seize power if the elections President Bush has urged for the region take place.
Countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have little influence over the militant Shiite group and its backers, Iran and Syria.
So their statements may be of little practical value.
Instead, their comments emphasize the widening gap between their regimes and their people.
So what that's about is this story.
I've had one yesterday, another one here from the Jerusalem Post.
Arab world fed up with Hezbollah.
Told you yesterday, this reports it again today, that Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Emirates, none of them, they're not condemning Israel as they have in the past.
They are condemning Hezbollah.
So here you have CNN International doing this story, humanizing the great leader, the great Sheikh, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah.
And we hear about all the great work that he is doing to make life better for his people, including strapping bombs on their backs and sending them out to die in acts of terror.
Winning over the Arab street, Hezbollah, winning over the Arab street?
The Arabs are divided over this.
How do they know this is happening?
They say it's likely to strengthen the political hand.
What do they do?
Are they taking a poll of registered Arab voters for crying out loud?
How do they know any of this?
And by the way, we're not talking about democracies here.
What the hell does it matter what the Arab street thinks as long as their governments are calling the shots?
What you have here is quite simply the drive-by media trying to counter the reality of Arab division and creating their own reality again, their own alternative universe here.
You know why Arab governments are not rallying behind Iran and Hezbollah here?
It's not Arab.
Iran is Persian.
They are not Arabs, and the Arab nations that are in the region see them as a threat to their oil fields because they're ramping up with their nukes.
Now, the Christian Science Monitor won't write this.
Christian Science Monitor is not going to write anything about the fact that, well, neighboring countries fear Iran.
No, it's always going to be hatred directed at the United States.
Wonder what the Iranian street thinks about what its mullahs are doing.
Will they look into that?
Wonder what the drive-by media thinks about what kind of unrest is going on inside Iran.
So what you have here, folks, is a classic example of the humanizing of our enemies, the humanizing of Israel's enemies, the demonization of our guys, the demonization of our allies that stand with us, in this case, Israel.
And it's all done for the express purpose of portraying the United States and its allies, in this case, as the focus of evil in the modern world.
Here's a story from the Boston Globe today.
It's a Reuters story, actually.
The headline, Iran's Hezbollah, says ready to attack U.S. and Israel.
Iran's Hezbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said today it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.
We have 2,000 volunteers who've registered since last year, said Iranian Hezbollah spokesman Mojtaba Big Deli.
He's not a spokesman.
He's a spokes terrorist.
He was speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qum.
They have been trained.
They can be fully armed.
We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America's interests.
We are only waiting for the supreme leader's green light to take action.
If America wants to ignite World War III, we welcome it.
This is the Iranian branch of Hezbollah.
The Iranian branch of Hezbollah is also in Lebanon.
Hezbollah is Iran.
I mean, it's funded, trained, and maintained, and they've even issue them orders.
And now the drive-by media is beginning to say that, you know, the Israelis are just, it's all over so little.
It's just two kidnapped soldiers.
Why, now Israel's out-of-proportion response, and I want to deal with that after the break.
Israel's out-of-proportion response is, guess what?
Well, it's creating new terrorists.
Just like our trip into Iraq is said to have been creating new terrorists.
It's a drive-by media to Democrats who say that.
Now, the same thing is being said about Israel, which in this case is acting in self-defense.
Israel's making them mad by defending themselves.
See, we're just supposed to, Israel's so big compared to poor little Hezbollah guys.
I mean, look at these Hezbollah guys.
They haven't shaved in 200 years.
They're so poor.
And what do you expect them to do?
They have rockets they launched.
Israel should know better.
Israel should be grown a bit.
But no, Israel is making them mad.
So, I mean, the media template here and the action line are easy to see.
Brief timeout.
More of your phone calls.
We got other things in the stack here today, too, such as the downsizing of the New York Times.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
And back we are, Rushland Boy, cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right.
I just saw it again.
CNN just displayed their puff piece profile of what's his name, Hasran Nasrallah, the leader, the charismatic leader of Hezbollah, who's building sewers and massive social programs to help his small group of disadvantaged people deal with the big Goliath of Israel and the United States.
And they went to Damascus.
They're in Syria doing man on the street interviews with Syrians who speak English, praising this Nasrallah guy to the hilt.
He's great.
He's this, he's that.
We love him.
And the conclusion on the part of the CNN reporter was his support is increasing.
His popularity is blowing up.
It's big, it's big, it's big.
And of course, this action against Israel is making him even more popular.
I'm telling you, I have seen videotapes of this guy's speeches to his people.
And it's the one thing that anybody could go get.
CNN, none of the news agencies bother to do that.
They don't go out and find speeches of these people to their own people.
And they never did it with Arafat.
You know, Arafat would respond in English, condemning every act of terrorism that occurred.
And then when he went back and started speaking in his native tongue, he would say something totally different.
Everybody in the Drive-By Media knew it, but would not make a big deal out of it.
They're not doing it.
This guy, Nasrallah, is not who he is being portrayed to be by the American Drive-By Media.
David in Vancouver, Washington.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi.
I am really nervous to talk to you here.
Anyway, one of the things that hit me is you were talking earlier.
You were talking about how they were praising everything that he does, and it just hit me that it's almost a smokescreen type argument that they're putting out, similar to what they'll do.
And it's almost like they're making him a made man.
It's almost like they would, like the Mafia would do.
They take somebody that's wicked and does bad things.
And he does all the, on their side, he's doing all these great things.
And the great things create a smokescreen for what his real motives and desires are.
And that's to take power and to destroy others.
Well, of course, but they're not.
I think I'm not sure I heard everything you said.
Not your fault.
But I think one of the Aspects of this is that you get no judgment from the media when reporting of the bad guys.
You get judgment on the U.S. military.
You get judgment on the U.S. president.
You don't get any judgment on Ted Kennedy's actions.
You don't get any judgment of Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin's actions.
You get judgment on George Bush's actions and Rumsfeld.
And it is clear to the drive-by media who the good guys are and the bad guys.
So if you want to say, well, they're just doing a factual report here on old Nasrallah, there's no judgment on Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
There's no judgment on the actions that they engage in and the acts that they commit.
And there is plenty of judgment elsewhere from the drive-by media.
And who can explain it, folks?
We all have our theories.
I just think it boils down to two things.
I think there's such hatred for George W. Bush.
Just such hatred that he's the bad guy to the drive-by media, to liberals, and that's who the drive-by media are.
And then I also think that there's this little thing about, yeah, they're just small people, you know, they're just little victims.
They're just trying to eke out a life in a part of that country, part of the world that was theirs until these European Jews were given this little plot of land that somebody called Israel back in 1949, the United Nations did that.
And it's just not fair.
It's just not fair.
And so anytime somebody's being acted upon in an unfair way, whatever they do is permissible because they have no power.
They're just people striking back, trying to be heard.
They're fighting for their car.
There's no judgment whatsoever.
You're right.
Gene Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
I just wanted to offer something to the mix.
First of all, I'd say you're a hell of a choreographer.
You do a great job of pulling a lot of divergent things together.
I heard something this morning that really kind of put together a series of dots for me.
I heard one of our local stockbrokers talk about how some NYMAX traders were watching a lot of heavy activity buying of oil futures, oil contracts, all through June.
Very large acquisitions, more than the normal concern for prices and hedging.
The second thing that I'd add to that is the big meeting in Damascus, where all the major players in terror were there.
Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, TLO, Al-Qaeda was supposedly there.
All of them were there.
And then you put that together with Blair's comments yesterday that there was concern about this whole thing being orchestrated.
It starts to really raise some real serious questions about what's going on here and how serious it is.
If everybody remembers, one of the major things that happened in front of 9-11 was heavy buying of oil future contracts.
So I just wanted to run this by you and see what if it raised red flags in your mind.
Now, don't stop there.
I mean, I need you to tell me where you think.
Forget, leave 9-11 out of a minute.
Because one thing that can't be denied, the whole thing was orchestrated.
What did happen was that Hezbollah did blow up an Israeli Humvee and kidnapped a couple of soldiers.
That is what started us.
Somebody had to say, we're going to do this.
So obviously it was something that didn't start by not an accidental shooting.
There was not an accidental missile launch.
There was a purposeful act of aggression against Israel by Hezbollah.
Now, take your theory out because I don't know where you're going with this.
You got the terror masters meeting in Damascus.
You got the oil futures guys going nuts before the meeting.
Where does it all lead in your mind?
Well, my mind is that this is a choreographed, constant orchestrated effort across the Arab world of the time to really do something.
I mean, this is more than to just expand the war in the Middle East.
It could be a great smokescreen for other things here in the domestic arena.
I just think there's some seriousness to a level that a lot of people aren't talking about going on.
It's not about this isolated thing or an escalation in the Middle East.
I think your points earlier raised this whole thing about, you know, it's not about two people getting kidnapped.
It's about this an orchestrated plan to really do what they've been saying.
A lot of people didn't believe Hitler.
A lot of people don't believe these guys.
And they keep blowing it off until we had 9-11.
I'm just concerned that this is going to go much, and I'm concerned about what's going to happen here in August.
You know, so basically this is a distraction.
And Israel fell for it, and everybody else now is falling for it by getting involved in it, thinking that we're on the verge of a major, major war when, in fact, it could just be a diversionary tactic to get us focused elsewhere while something really big is planned outside the region.
Is that basically your theory?
That's what preceded 9-11.
We get so easily distracted.
We're such total crows.
We go for the shiny thing, the thing that's, you know, and we beat it to death.
That's what the media does.
They get fixated.
Well, you and I know that.
Terrorists know that.
So I'm just trying to think outside the box here.
And when people start putting hundreds of millions of dollars of their money into oil contracts, you know, they're sure something's going to come down.
And well, they're not sure, but they're betting.
Well, it depends on.
I'd like to know who they were.
That's what I would like to know.
And I'd like to know why there isn't some media coverage of this whole thing that happened in Damascus.
I mean, where was it?
I mean, if that isn't a major event, what would be?
Well, look, I know about it, and you know about it.
There has been coverage of it.
Otherwise, we wouldn't know.
Now, Fox is doing a puff piece on this guy, Nasral.
Well, I don't know if they're doing a puff piece, but they got some guy talking about him with the cutest, most cuddly-looking picture of this terrorist that you've ever seen.
You mentioned Hitler, and because people are ignoring Ahmadine Zad as they ignored Hitler.
This DVD that I saw, this documentary slash movie that some people very concerned about, this has put together called Obsession.
Many of these Arab terrorists and the Al-Qaedas and this Hezbollah guy praise Hitler.
And they have a common bond in that these guys hate Jews and Hitler hated Jews.
And Hitler is a model for these people in some of the speeches and some of the comments that they've made in interviews that are on this DVD.
It's not out yet.
Don't try to find it.
I, of course, have an advanced copy.
I don't know when it's coming.
I don't know if it is of pleasure and delight.
The EIB network and El Rushbo.
All right, proportionality.
I looked up some things here, folks.
You know, one of the criticisms of Israel is that their response has been disproportionate.
Yeah, Hezbollah kidnapped a couple soldiers.
Big deal.
That's no reason to blow up the runway in Beirut.
And it's no reason to be firing rockets and missiles and so forth.
This will stun many of you.
Some of you not, but many of you will be stunned by this.
And I wish that what I'm about to tell you wasn't news to most of you.
Had we maintained a decent history curriculum in the public schools in this country, this wouldn't be news, but it is, sadly.
In World War II, the United States suffered around 92,000 battle deaths in the Pacific theater.
92,000 in the Pacific theater.
Can you imagine how it would have gone if the drive-by media then were counting up to 1,000 and then 2,000 and then 2,500?
92,000 battle deaths in the Pacific theater.
The Japanese, though, you know, take a guess, Mr. Snerdley, what were the Japanese battle deaths?
Not civilian deaths, Japanese battle deaths.
1.59 million.
1,590,000 battle deaths suffered by the Japanese.
That means that it's a ratio, and this doesn't really state it properly.
22 Japanese battlefield deaths for every one American battlefield death.
This does not include the million more that were targeted, civilians targeted, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Battle deaths, 1.59 million.
That's in addition to the civilian deaths ranging from several hundred thousand to more than a million.
Precise figures hard to come by since estimates vary so widely on the number of deaths as a result of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now, what, if you're going to say, well, that was a disproportionate response by the United States of America.
Disproportionate response.
Why, we had to kill 22 of them for every one we lost just because they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Of course, this kind of thinking didn't even exist then.
And if it did exist then, nobody ever heard about it because the people that thought that way were such oddball kooks that not even the media back then gave them any airtime.
There probably were looney tunes that thought that way back then, but nobody ever heard about them.
Today, they are the experts everybody in the drive-by media runs to.
I think Israel's response is way out of proportion.
Disproportionate response.
The people have forgotten what is actually the definition of winning a war.
You know, it is serious stuff.
It is killing more of them than you lose of your own and breaking more of their things than you lose.
1.59 million battle deaths.
The Japanese, 92,000 Americans.
So if that ratio of 1 to 22 is disproportionate, what would proportionate mean?
Well, war is to be one for one.
Really?
How do you accomplish anything that way?
How about this?
17 Japanese deaths to every one American death or 12 to 1?
Would 8 to 1 have been a better response?
How about 5 to 1?
Would that have made more sense?
I mean, you put that historical fact and reality into the mix today, the way wars and other such things are covered.
And people can't believe it.
That's why it's why we didn't finish Iraq the first time, because we don't do that anymore.
It's why we didn't.
We stopped on the highway to hell, I think it was called, because there was so much battlefield injured and Republican Guard wounded.
And we saw the pictures of it where we didn't see the 1.59 million Japanese deaths or the 92,000 American deaths in the Pacific theater.
But we see these because we've got pictures.
No, it's terrible.
It's terrible.
Politicians, oh my gosh, I can't survive this.
Why we can't go in and wipe out these poor people?
What are people going to country about me?
So we have new obstacles that we've placed on ourselves.
And now, trying to fight this war in Iraq, I mean, it's become literally absurd.
We're trying to take something that is a deadly serious enterprise, war.
And we're treating it as a neighborhood kerfuffle.
We're treating it as an argument at the gas station or at the 7-Eleven over the blue shock slurpee and who's first in line.
You know, this is what blue shock.
You ever had a blue shock slurpee?
Oh, you got to like Mountain Dew because that's what it is.
But you like Mountain Dew?
Well, it's, you know, Mountain Dew is loaded with caffeine in there, which means caffeine is great for cirrhosis of the liver, they said the other day.
If you drink a lot of coffee while you consume your adult beverages, it might cancel out the cirrhosis of the liver.
They'll change that in two years.
Say, nope, sorry, we were wrong about it.
War is it is serious.
It always has been.
And sadly, we're not allowed to take it that way.
We're not allowed to look at it that way.
We're not allowed to prosecute it that way.
And I know what some of you people are saying, you cold-hearted, cruel guy.
There are people that die in wars.
And you're sounding like it's just a bunch of inanimate figures.
And we're counting up bodies that are lying around.
And you think that's okay.
No.
And nobody that I know loves Wallace and Kooks that love war in the Middle East and so forth.
But peace-loving people don't love them, but they are inevitable.
And at some point, you have to determine whether what you have and what you are is worth fighting for.
And I raised this question earlier.
We've got this problem with Iran.
It is a real problem.
I have made the analogy.
In fact, a previous caller said others have made.
I've made the analogy.
It is eerily similar to what people said about Adolf Hitler when you look at what they're saying about Ahmadinezad.
Ignoring it.
No big deal.
He's just huffing and puffing.
He's insane.
Doesn't really mean this and so forth.
We can make deals with it.
We can send diplomacy into action.
We can fix this.
It is eerily, eerily the same.
And so we've got a situation here where Iran is pledging to acquire nuclear weapons and then threatening to use them.
Okay, question.
Do we care about that?
Do we want Iran to have nukes?
Because what is our plan to deal with them afterwards?
Appeasement?
Containment?
Is that better than having an Iran that is not nuclear?
If we decide that it's better to have an Iran than it's not nuclear, then what do we do?
And that's when it gets tough because this is a representative republic.
And the question arises, is the will of the people in this country ready for such a thing?
And I doubt it.
And I have a number of different observations that I make in my daily travels.
I just, you know, we have some people thinking World War III has started.
We have a whole bunch of people in this country who not only don't think so, they're not even aware that the hostilities that involve the United States are as serious as they are and furthermore don't want to even think about it because none of it is affecting their lives.
None of it is affecting their daily comings and goings.
None of it's affecting their ability to find a job.
None of it's affecting their ability to get paid.
None of it is affecting their ability to get a raise.
None of it that's going on over there has any impact on their lives other than, you might say, the price of oil.
And people in this country blame big oil for it.
I mean, not even blaming the right sources for the rise in the world price of a barrel of oil.
So I'm not, I just have the impression that even though Newt Gingrich says, others have said since 9-11, we're at World War III, we've declared war on terror.
And I tell you, you can't negotiate with these people.
You have to defeat them.
That's what war is.
And you defeat them by killing them.
It's so easy for you to say.
The word kill them just rolls off your lips.
They're human beings, Rush, just like you and just like me.
No, they're not human beings, just like us.
And that's the difference.
And people want to establish a moral equivalence and come up with justifications based on sympathy or guilt to explain why these people do what they do.
There must be a reason for it because nobody is inherently evil.
Nobody's inherently that bad.
Yes, they are.
The world and human history full of examples.
We have so much prosperity.
We have so much affluence that it just doesn't seem possible there could be such serious problems out there.
And I don't want to jeopardize the things that are enjoyable about my life right now by having to face these things, and we'll just put our heads in the sand and maybe it'll all go away and blow over.
And that is one way of dealing with it.
You go back and look at the New York Times during Stalin.
Stalin, what are the numbers?
17 million?
Is that a low estimate?
17 to 25 million.
Joseph Stalin literally starved that many million people in Ukraine and throughout the Soviet bloc simply to punish them for being rebellious, not going along.
And the whole time, there was a New York Times reporter by the name of Walter Duranty who saw it all, who wrote not a word of it and got a Pulitzer Prize.
Back, what was that in the 50s or 40s, whenever it was?
So you've always had people that look right at evil and don't want to see it as evil.
The consequences of seeing evil are really, I mean, you've got to do something about it then.
You can't become a coward and turn away from it.
And a lot of people don't want to be cowards.
So avoid becoming cowards.
You just don't even admit there is any evil.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Jeff in Las Vegas, your next Arsh Limbaugh program in the EIB network.
Welcome, sir.
Thanks for your time, Rush.
You bet.
The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, the timing of it was not a coincidence.
We all know that Iran and Syria are the basic leaders of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is just a proxy of them.
It's no coincidence because Wednesday was the day that the G8 was going to determine what actions they were going to take against Iran for continuing their nuclear program.
So Iran had Hezbollah go after Israel to distract the world from their continued development of nuclear weapons.
The second point, Rush, is there is very credible evidence, despite what the drive by media lets us hear about.
There's convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were moved before the war into Syria and potentially into Lebanon, into the Beka Valley.
And this is confirmed by General Sada, which was the number two guy at Saddam's Air Force.
Yes, and to add to that, this general also says that it was the Russians that were doing the heavy lifting and the actual moving.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that.
Yeah, and so part of the reason Israel's response has been so strong and quote-unquote disproportionate is they can't take the chance of Hezbollah actually having access to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in the Baca Valley, which is where their center of operations is.
They can't take the chance that those weapons are going to be used against Israeli cities.
That's why they've decided for once and for all, we're going to destroy Hezbollah.
Well, it's, you know, you're on to something.
I mean, it could be the weapons of mass destruction.
Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal today has a different theory, but still addresses the point of the so-called disproportionate response of Israel here.
There is no such thing in a war.
I don't know, not hard for me to understand, but for some people, it obviously is.
When you've had years and years and years of conflict resolution taught and years and years and years of the OPRA show and years and years and years of the feminization of the American culture at large, it's understandable.
It's just frustrating at the same time.
As to the notion that Iran wanted to distract the G8 from talking about what to do about its nuclear program, that theory has also been put forth by Amir Tahiri, who writes in the New York Post today, this is not just Iran, he calls it the Israeli card.
Anytime an Arab regime gets in trouble, the way it gets out of trouble is to do something that focuses everybody on Israel and blames Israel for something, and that will align people's attention elsewhere.
And his theory is that Ahmadinezad did not want to deal with whatever the G8 was going to do regarding his nuclear program.
Bamo sends the order to Hezbollah, do something to provoke Israel, and that'll take us off the front page, and it'll take us off the main agenda item at the G8, which it did.
Bashir Assad in Syria, same thing.
Bashur Assad, he's feeling some heat over a number of things.
And so this served that purpose.
Now, there's all kinds of thinking that's going on at the end.
Well, there's really more to it than just taking the Iranians' nuclear plans off the top of the agenda item list at the G8.
Are there other things being planned?
Because these are long-term planners, terrorists are.
So I'm sure there are a lot of people thinking outside the box trying to figure out exactly what all is behind this.
But regardless of that, you still have Israel's response and people criticizing it as being disproportionate.
Let me print out Hitchens' piece in the Wall Street Journal today when I have a little time and share it.
He talks two instances here that are largely behind Israel's so-called disproportionate response.
And one of them is something that happened 20 years ago involving an airman that they lost that Hezbollah basically, in fact, Nasrallah informed the Israelis, look, at first they told the Israelis, look, we're going to send him to Iran, or we're going to do this, unless you give us some of our people that you're holding as prisoners, we're going to send your airmen to Iran, and you know what will happen to him in one of those jails.
And it turns out that the Israelis said, no, we didn't have a prisoner exchange with you.
And turned out later that very recently that Nasrallah told the Israelis, look, the guy's dead.
He's been dead for a long time.
We don't know where he is.
He's in a million pieces.
And your family's not going to ever see him again, and so you can forget it.
This is the guy being lionized and humanized as a great leader and charismatic and so forth.
And Israel is saying, okay, we've got three more guys that they kidnapped here, and we are not going to have the same thing happen to them that happened to our airmen 20 years ago.
We're going to make sure that they're not able to send this guy anywhere, these three guys.
This is a long conflict.
There are grudges or memories that are long here.
And it's always the case.
There are far more things beneath the surface that people don't consider that are probably root causes or fundamental causes that if you just take your time and be patient, they will eventually surface.
In the meantime, I have to disappear for mere moments.
We'll surface again shortly.
Stay with us.
Fastest three hours in media.
Two hours in the can.
One more hour to go just as powerful and solid as the previous two.
▲
Export Selection