Which furriners we talkin' about, Mr. Sovrinty?

But, your comment explains something that has puzzled me for a long time - it seems you ascribe exceptionalism to the Shi'a, no matter how vile any individual or group may be. And, given the nature of the neighborhood in that part of the world, the vile usually rise to the top, whether Shi'a, Sunni, Alawite, or secularist. There's nothing exceptional about that.

Now, there is nothing 'wrong' with freedom or sovereignty as such. However, Hezbollah (like Hamas, Fatah, Force 17, the Quds Force, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, the "Mahdi" army, and all the other Muslim terror groups) wants nothing of freedom. To them, sovereignty is something to be taken by force (when they aren't running away from it), not to be earned or won via the ballot. Hamas will not sponsor another election, and you can be sure Hezbollah isn't going to 'validate' their position by holding one, either.

Ironically, the one Muslim group that seems to be moving in the opposite direction is the parent of them all, the Brotherhood (at least in Egypt). Perhaps they will one day run things in Cairo, and have to establish sovereignty against their spawn.

Somehow I doubt that Hezbollah putting up pictures of Assad after ransacking and destroying TV stations has much to do with sovereignty.

Yes, Iran, the Brotherhood and Hamas are all good examples of how these groups moderate over time, especially when they actually acquire power. Hezbollah will be no different but it has to take the power violently first, like the Colonists did.

You see, you have it exactly backwards, they're an entirely typical movement, not exceptional at all.

oj's love affair with the Hezzies is particular amusing given his belief that Syria is the most odious regime in the region and has to go.

Without Syria -- particularly in making it relatively simple for Iran to transit intelligence personel and weapons to Lebanon -- the Hezzies as such would cease to exist, and likely a more moderate leadership for the Lebanese Shia would emerge.

That this is willful blindness on orrin's part is exemplified in the way he ignored Thacker's comment.

Nothing has been worse for the Shia in Lebanon than that their "cause" was hijacked by Syrian and Iran.

Indeed, that Hezzies have risen at this particular moment is likely the result of orders from their master Baby Assad, who wants to prevent information regarding Syrian assassination(s) of Lebanese politicians from coming out. (It's of course not inconceivable that the Hezzie's acted in some capacity as Syrian hatchet men as well and would like to avoid revelations to that effect.)

Syria wants the status quo. A Shi'a state on their SouthWest flank as well as their Eastern is extraordinarily dangerous for a minority regime of heretics. The longer The Lebanon can be held together at ridiculous effort by the West the longer folks are distracted from the real problem in the region: Assad.

Iran correctly wants self-determination for fellow Shi'a. That's just one f the ways they are our de facto allies in the Middle East.

The Revolutionaries honored, briefly, the French, then ditched them as soon as we had a country.

The Revolution wasn't run from Paris.

Damascus and Tehran are not so detached, eh?

"Meet the New Boss".

Detatachable, like Russia and China.