Hezbollah is a fascistic, sectarian organization

That I didn't need to make any claims, because the burden of proof is on him. Subsequently, he accepted this framework:"Pro needs to show that there is something in the nature of the organization of Hezbollah that is fascistic and sectarian. For example, Pro needs to show that the organization's mission statement, goals and funding, speeches, structure etc. are inherently fascistic and sectarian. "By accepting this framework, Pro has agreed that it's not enough to show that some "Hezbollah supporters" behave in fascistic or sectarian ways. The resolution is about the organization itself. Pro has failed to meet the BoPOnly a small part of Pro's argument has actually addressed the nature of the Hezbollah organization. He has talked about prejudice and perceptions, about the alleged actions of "pro-Hezbollah" individuals, but very little about the organization itself, it's publications, its official actions, or its leadership. Because this is the part of the discussion that directly addresses the resolution, I will summarize Pro's evidence here.1. The "either with me or against me" principle. Pro claimed that Hezbollah has this principle, but has provided no evidence for this, even when asked directly for it. He claimed that Hezbollah called Salman a "traitor", but this turned out to be a fabrication. None of his sources say this.2. Nasrallah's speeches. Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has called for the end of sectarianism on several occasions. I have cited some of these above. He has made statements supporting the national army, the government, and the independence of the judiciary. Pro cannot and has not contested any of this. Instead, he provided a "leaked" video from 25 years ago, in an unspecified context, where Nasrallah (before he became leader) is talking about plans for a combined Shiah state. Pro does not explain how a large Shiah state is an example of fascism or sectarianism. Pro has also misrepresented Nasrallah's speeches. He claimed that Nasrallah praised "the fascism that occurred. .. when Hezbollah started a coup and many Lebanese were killed. " This is a grotesque misrepresentation. Nasrallah was explicitly praising the end of the conflict. Pro claimed that Nasrallah said threatened "to cut of the hand" of anyone who tried to arrest Hezbollah members. Later, he admitted that this was, again, a gross distortion. Nasrallah was speaking metaphorically, objecting to the in absentia trial in the Netherlands of four individuals. 3. Hezbollah Press Office PublicationsPro concedes that there is no evidence of fascism or sectarianism in any of Hezbollah's official publications.4. Naim Qassem's bookIn his final round, Pro argued that Naim Qassem's book provides evidence that Hezbollah is both fascistic and sectarian. I don't have access to this book, but given Pro's record of mutilating his sources, I have no faith at all that what he says about this book is true. There is only one customer review on Amazon:"I was surprised about how closely their political goals align with our ideas of democracy and a sort of Roosevelt society where institutions are in place to provide education, job equity, health care and generally a social safety net for all citizens regardless of race or ideology. This is the Hizbullah that is allied with Michel Aoun, a progressive populist as well as a Christian. " (1)An article about the book in London Review of Books says:"Naim Qassem called the liberation of south Lebanon 'the grandest and most important victory over Israel since it commenced its occupation'. .. But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah's victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators - a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities. Hizbullah may have been playing politics in Lebanon, but it refused to play Lebanese politics. What it sought in south Lebanon was not revenge, but votes. In the interval between its founding in 1982 and the victory of 2000, Hizbullah had become - as well as an armed force - a sophisticated and successful political party. It jettisoned its early rhetoric about making Lebanon an Islamic republic, and spoke of Christians, Muslims and Druze living in harmony. When it put up candidates for parliament, some of those on its electoral list were Christians. It won 14 seats. " (2)These reviewers took away a completely different message from the book - a message of anti-sectarianism, forgiveness and collaboration. In a recent speech, Naim Qassem talked about the Islamic Awakening, that it "is characterized by its ability to cope with national and liberal opinions, and different races and languages". He also spoke out strongly against sectarianism. (3)For all these reasons, it's very difficult to believe that Naim Qassem's book provides evidence that the Hezbollah organization is either fascistic or sectarian.5. Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian conflictPro claims that the Syrian government is fascistic and by supporting this government, Hezbollah is therefore fascistic. As I showed above, in his interview with Julian Assange, Nasrallah was outspoken about the Syrian government's need for reform. He also said quite plainly that Hezbollah and Syria have not always been in agreement. Hezbollah's involvement in Syria is extremely controversial. However, recent fighting in Syria is within three kilometers of Lebanon's borders. (4) Hezbollah's involvement can be understood in terms of strategic self-defense. It may be a mistake for Hezbollah to be involved in this conflict, but you can't conclude from this alone that the organization is fascistic.6. Other evidenceThe remainder of Pro's evidence against Hezbollah is in the form of rumor and unsubstantiated allegations. Each time that Pro made an allegation, I have provided an alternate explanation. For example, Geha's claim that there was an assassination attempt against him could also be understood in terms of meeting his application requirements to emigrate to Sweden. Pro has demanded that I provide evidence for these allegations. But he misunderstands my point. My point is not that Geha lied about the assassination attempt or that Salman was killed by someone with a personal vendetta against him. I can't prove those things. But they are possible explanations and Pro can't prove that they are not true. Take for example his separate claims that Dariyeh is a "fascistic district" of Hezbollah where any opposition to the movement is stamped out, along with his claim that Sayyed El Husseini, a constant critic of Hezbollah who lives in comfort in Dariyeh, is being persecuted by the movement. What evidence is here except prejudice? Indeed, in his final round he resorted to quoting what the reporter's translator claimed before the pair went to interview El Husseini. This is ridiculous. Most of Pro's arguments, in fact, were like images of corpses he was so keen to put up. Shocking and unpleasant, but not proof of anything. Nobody is disputing that Salman was shot dead. Seeing a photo of his corpse does not prove, in any way, that the Hezbollah organization is fascistic or sectarian. It might excite the hatred of people already opposed to the movement, but this debate has never been about that. Thank you to Profor this debate. It's been interesting. (1) . http://www.amazon.com...(2) . http://www.charlesglass.net...(3) . http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com...(4) . http://www.presstv.com...