TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Lebanon on brink of civil war?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Lebanon on brink of civil war?

Hizballah is reported to have completely taken over West Beirut today in retaliation for the government shutting down Hizballah's telecommunications network, which in turn was done over accusations Hizballah had installed spy cameras in Beirut airport. It seems Hizballah and Amal have overrun Sunni neighbourhoods - strongholds of Hiriri - and even fired a rocket propelled grenade at his home!

Seems Lebanon has been heading this way for quite a while now with the political deadlock over there and the internal and external forces that are pulling the country in completely opposite directions.

It also seems that possibly this time the country won't be as fractured as in the previous civil war as there seems to be two groups - pro-Syria/anti-Western and anti-Syria/pro-Western - although Lebanon is liable to fall apart and the population splinter among the many ethno-religious divisions

Government attempts to shut down Hizballah telecommunications

Hizballah takes over west Beirut

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Dude if you didn't know half a city has been taken. It ain't a brink, it is the real thing. But it is lebanon so it is like a new quarter.

No I think it would be the "real thing" if non-state factions on the anti-Syria side started fighting with Hizballah. What happened yesterday could be described more accurately as either terrorism or rebellion, albeit on a very low level. And so far it has only involved the army (ie the state)

quote:

You must understand there is Hezbollah, and there is Lebanon.. both have militant arms and have widespread support, they generally share land more or less, but since the south the UN came in Hez needs a place to call their own - and lebanon is easier to deal with than the UN.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Lebanon has an army, not militants. Within Lebanon there are militant groups, of which Hizballah are one. Also, no, the UN in not more difficult to deal with than "Lebanon" (I assume you mean the national army) as the UN force is minimal and very restricted in what it can do (Hizballah would wipe the floor with the in a second)

quote:

What else are they going to do now that they can't attack Israel? Soccer?

What's that supposed to mean?

quote:

What lebanon needs is a president, and I think the west will be a little upset with Nasrallah.

Nasrallah can't be President - the President must be a Maronite Christian

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley the President must be a Maronite Christian

that's interesting. A country that is increasingly becoming more muslim, it can only have a christian president.

How was Hezbollah spying on the airport? The media is so vague on so many things as to why they're being accused of trying to take over the airport or somethin?

"Hezbollah is making it abundantly clear that its participation in Lebanese politics ends when Hezbollah is asked to submit to the state�s authority. How many more Middle East �experts� are going to proclaim that the answer to Islamic supremacism is dialogue and political integration?"

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "Hezbollah is making it abundantly clear that its participation in Lebanese politics ends when Hezbollah is asked to submit to the state�s authority. How many more Middle East �experts� are going to proclaim that the answer to Islamic supremacism is dialogue and political integration?"

yeah, hezbollah has refused to negotiate or participate in a vote the last 3 times the issue was raised. to be honest i dont think israel did anyone but hezbollah a favour by bombing the shit out of the country, this only weakened the state and placed more influence in hez & iran's hands.

i wonder if israel would help now that force is justified. someone's gotta teach these militias that if you dont work within the state you get your ass kicked instead. im sick and tired of militant islam's impatience with democracy and their inability to accept not getting their own way all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sick and tired of militant islam's impatience with democracy and their inability to accept not getting their own way all the time.

Sounds more like the US government. All psychos think alike I guess, except militants wouldn't be militant if they got their way... which is a little ironic.

Re: Lebanon on brink of civil war?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Hizballah is reported to have completely taken over West Beirut today in retaliation for the government shutting down Hizballah's telecommunications network, which in turn was done over accusations Hizballah had installed spy cameras in Beirut airport. It seems Hizballah and Amal have overrun Sunni neighbourhoods - strongholds of Hiriri - and even fired a rocket propelled grenade at his home! Seems Lebanon has been heading this way for quite a while now with the political deadlock over there and the internal and external forces that are pulling the country in completely opposite directions. It also seems that possibly this time the country won't be as fractured as in the previous civil war as there seems to be two groups - pro-Syria/anti-Western and anti-Syria/pro-Western - although Lebanon is liable to fall apart and the population splinter among the many ethno-religious divisions Government attempts to shut down Hizballah telecommunications Hizballah takes over west Beirut

Well, that was a predictable consequence of Israel's recent insanity. I'm a bit curious about what makes you think it'll turn in to civil war. Just a simple power vacum? [a serious question btw]

Does anyone have any solid information on what the illegal communications network was that Hezbollah was operating? Or was it just a closed military phone system?

Anyone have insights into why this was a big deal to the Lebanese and basically led to this violent tension release?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Well to say the least you are taking a very western view. I'd like to clarify some things- Members of any military are Militant - see definition of word not slanted propaganda to attack not fascist totalitarian states attacking grass roots movements - Militant means # Fighting or warring. # Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause

Come on man! You're just back tracking and it's obvious!

When people use the term "militant" they are usually referring to non-state groups, not to state aparatus. If you meant to say "army" in your first post say so, otherwise you're confusing the army with all the various non-state militant groups in the country

quote:

I disagree I still beleive the French and other nations are better trained and have better equipment and support than the Lebanese Army. If this is not the case let me know because I've seen the Lebanese equipment, and I've seen the UN's Expeditionary Force Nations equipment and I think that they are far more formidable and better trained than the Lebanese army.

The UN isn't there to fight (or even defend). I don't think they have a mandate to enter into any combat situations, if they do, they certainly aren't manned/equipped to do so. They are there primarily as an observer mission. This isn't like the UN forces in Bosnia that were peaceenforcers. They won't become involved in ANY fighting that happens in Lebanon. They might have some nice weapons (ie guns that actually fire) but they lack the numbers to stand up to any of the militias or the Lebanese (or indeed Israeli) army

quote:

Also - no the Lebanese President does not need to be Maronite. That is part of the problem - when you always have a marontite president and a sunni PM obviously the Shiites are going to feel oppressed. It is religious discrimination and institutionalization of religion with the state. It is against UN fundamentals of religious tolerance and the premise of Free Democracy

Until there is a new agreement signed then the President of Lebanon will always be Maronite Christian. The National Pact agreed by all parties at independence states this (altho it is "unwritten", that might confuse those used to American style "written" constitutions but I'm British and our whole constitution is "unwritten" so I am aware that unwritten constitutions are perfectly legally binding).

Altho I completely agree that this system is maybe not so democratic, but then Lebanon is an exception and there needs to be some kind of safeguards in place to prevent one sect gaining control of everything or we'd never see the end of civil war there.

I think the perfect scenario would be years of political reconciliation where all the groups began to see themselves as Lebanese first and foremost, then maybe it wouldn't matter which sect was elected to which positions. However, there are too many meddling outside influcences - from Israel and America, to Syria and Iran - to allow things to simmer down right now...

Re: Re: Lebanon on brink of civil war?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, that was a predictable consequence of Israel's recent insanity. I'm a bit curious about what makes you think it'll turn in to civil war. Just a simple power vacum? [a serious question btw]

Well I didn't say it would escelate to civil war! It's just that when a militia group takes over an oppoisition groups stronghold and neighbourhoods, you fear there might be an escelation of violence. Over the weekend, Hizballah clashed in the mountains with Jumblatt's pro-government Druze forces (this group were one of the major players of the civil war). However, the army has deployed there and hostilities appear to have stopped for the time being.

The country is basically split into two groups (very generally speaking) between pro and anti government (unlike during the civil war when the country was split into many many groups). The anti-government include Hizballah, Amal and Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (which enjoys support from around 70% of the Christians in Lebanon). Then the pro-government (March 14 Alliance) include the Druze, Sunni Muslims and the remainder of the Christian parties (plus others)

During the civil war, Hizballah generally kept its nose out, but now it's the major player in hostilities so who knwos what will happen?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/7395421.stm

Hezbollah has displayed its agression well enough during this scuffle. Its not just Israel who is their enemy - but anyone who is trying to get in the way of their power and expansion. When any of their officials get sacked, as it became clear in this case, they take up violence. I applaud the Lebanese government response to this act of agression by Hezbollah - they stood aside and prevented a serious conflict from flaring up, saving so many people's lives.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** First off it isn't at rest illegal - but some pratices in establishing the not totally known network very well could be especially if they including taping into other networks, by splicing. The phone network is a private non-commercial fiber-optic land-line telephone network. Various companies have their own dedicated communications lines, and this private network is not unlike that. It is said to provide 'secure communications' for the organization. Lines of communication exist between the southern suburbs of Beirut to south Lebanon, Bekaa Valley and the Mount Lebanon district, south along the Israel-Lebanon border It is parallel to the Iranian state network created with support of Iranian electronic engineers. The Fiber-Optic lines laid by Iranian Telecommunication Corporation can be used for Internet, TV and phone networks. Hezbollah prevented Israeli electronic warfare (EW) jamming attempts south of the Litani River Regular copper phone lines can be spliced, and is used in the wider Hezbollah communications network, composed of copper land lines and cables, next to communications companies lines. It is deemed a secondary emergency communication system. Fiber optic cables while they are able to be tapped and data decrypted it is not as simple as the analog phone lines, and they are not suscpetable to the same electromagnetic interferance EW vunrebilities. Mobile phones are used. Israel used jammers to block frequencies of cell phones during their recent incursion into Lebanon. Satellite phones are also used by Hezbollah. Hezbollah is also on the Internet, and is said to have hackers/crackers within its organization. The network stetches and encompasses many different aspects of the organization - from HQ, military outposts & launch sites, also radio and TV stations. Note though that I have only seen information from other sources and the full size and scope of the network is unknown. As for the reason.. of course they arn't going to be happy if their very expensive communications network becomes prohibited, much like major companies like Sunlife would be upset if their private fibre optic lines got shut down by the government - not saying Sunlife is using them for military operations but they are using them for business functions and data backups.

So basically their government had the balls to do what ours didn't?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Not exactly. Although fog of war may be in effect "An army statement said it would run Hezbollah's controversial communications network, which the government had been trying to disband. An airport security chief fired by the government for his links to Hezbollah will also be kept on." It is hard to tell what it means - except that the Lebanese Military may have some type of oversight in the communications network. I'm not very good on IDing exactly where Lebanese Military interests exist or what exactly it means (since the Gen to be president has leanings toward Syria (was born in Syria) which is allied with Iran which is allied with Hezbollah so said.. but I could be mistaken on my impressions.. since the Gen. was trained in Europe and the United States also.

Lebanon's army is not capable of fighting any foreign invader. Instead their capabilities are mostly limited to keeping internal security intact. But they certainly couldn't do that without all sects cooperation..

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Not exactly. Although fog of war may be in effect "An army statement said it would run Hezbollah's controversial communications network, which the government had been trying to disband. An airport security chief fired by the government for his links to Hezbollah will also be kept on." It is hard to tell what it means - except that the Lebanese Military may have some type of oversight in the communications network. I'm not very good on IDing exactly where Lebanese Military interests exist or what exactly it means (since the Gen to be president has leanings toward Syria (was born in Syria) which is allied with Iran which is allied with Hezbollah so said.. but I could be mistaken on my impressions.. since the Gen. was trained in Europe and the United States also.

Okay, thanks for the information... wish there was more to go on.

I have a question - so how exactly is Hezbollah serving the interests of the Lebanese people, especially after this incident?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I have a question - so how exactly is Hezbollah serving the interests of the Lebanese people, especially after this incident?

They serve the interest of Iran, Syria, and the Shiites in Lebanon. Lebanon is the historical battleground between the Muslim east and Christian west. Underlying the conflict is a clash of civilizations as has happened for thousands of years since Alexander the Great conquered Persia. There is a huge population of shiites in Lebanon and Hezbollah represents them. The West can not simply push them aside and refuse to deal with them. That is ludicrous. There are some real grievances underlying all the chaos, terrorism, and conflict. We have to deal with the underlying causes of the conflict instead of doing nothing but brokering cease fires all the time.

And Bush's trips to the Middle East? What? NOW he cares? He waits until his last year in office to try to even look like he's attempting to do something about it...

quote:

"For seven years, Bush served Israel and made war," says Bustami, 31, the portly, soft-spoken Palestinian owner of a TV repair shop in this West Bank city. "Now with a few months left in his presidency he thinks of the Palestinians. But it's too late."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...-bushtrip_N.htm

7 years of war. Now he goes on a peace trip? And to all places...Israel? What happened to talking with our enemies? These hardliners must not remember Nixon and China/Vietnam in the 1970's. We have no choice but to talk to our enemies. Of course not Al-Qaida, but states like Iran, Syria, of course!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I have a question - so how exactly is Hezbollah serving the interests of the Lebanese people, especially after this incident?

Well despite the impression we in the West might have of Hizballah, the impression Lebanese (all the different sects) is quite different. They are seen as liberators and protectors of Lebanon from Israel. We saw recently the devestating effect Israeli agression can have for the country, and Hizballah were seen as successfully defending Lebanon, as they were seen as successfully repelling Israel from it's decade long occupation of the South.

You might think that the large Christian population would not share these sentiments towards Hizballah, and indeed recent developments in the last few years have made Lebanese think twice about the influence Hizballah has over the country, but Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement is a key Hizballah ally, and they enjoy the support of around 70% of the country's Christians.

I think Krypton has it slightly wrong in what he says below. He tries to portray what's happening in Lebanon in terms of the "clash of civilisations" and from the outside that might look the case, but inside, that would mean the West would be backing Aoun's FPM and vica versa. But in fact it is the opposite - the FPM, representing 70% of Lebanese Christians, is allied to Hizballah and favourable to relations with Syria over the West (as favoured by the March 14 Alliance)

But Hizballah do represent their constituent Shias and they are funded by Iran. However, I do not believe Hizballah are Iran's proxies just because they receive spiritual/physical help from the country. I think Hizballah take orders from Hizballah, otherwise Lebanon would have been conquered by Hizballah (Iran) long ago - as it is, Hizballah have no interest whatsoever in "taking over" Lebanon (like we are led to beleive Hamas has done in Gaza)

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Underlying the conflict is a clash of civilizations

Ay yi yi... please, I implore you: never use this term again.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Ay yi yi... please, I implore you: never use this term again.

Or he could at least try and spell "civilisation" correctly!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But Hizballah do represent their constituent Shias and they are funded by Iran. However, I do not believe Hizballah are Iran's proxies just because they receive spiritual/physical help from the country. I think Hizballah take orders from Hizballah, otherwise Lebanon would have been conquered by Hizballah (Iran) long ago - as it is, Hizballah have no interest whatsoever in "taking over" Lebanon (like we are led to beleive Hamas has done in Gaza)

ive heard differently. i heard that an operation like the israeli soldier kidnapping would receive approval from the iranian government beforehand. sorry, dont remember the doco or the source :/

Thanks Krypton and George for the insight. It was very helpful for me to get a better picture on this situation.

I just didnt feel like Hezbollah (Lebanese) killing Sunnis (Lebaenese) is a very Lebanese thing to do. But then again - its kinda like the 1975-1990 civil war, I suppose?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ive heard differently. i heard that an operation like the israeli soldier kidnapping would receive approval from the iranian government beforehand. sorry, dont remember the doco or the source :/

Yea I heard that too at the time and my personal theory about the kidnapping is that Iran wanted to deflect attention away from its nuclear programme (weren't there international talks at the time that would have concentrated on Iran's nuclear programme had it not been for the outbreak of hostilities between Hizballah/Lebanon and Israel?)

However, I still think Hizballah and Iran are two mutually beneficial partners who help each other, rather than Hizballah being merely an Iranian proxy. It's useful for America and their supporters to claim Iran controls Hizballah becuase as Iran is the new bogey man* then it becomes alot easier for America to be hostile towards Hizballah (on Israel's behalf)

Portraying Hizballah as Iran's proxy allows America to ignore any localised factors effecting Lebanon (such as the constant looming threat of Israel) and concentrate solely on defending Israel's point of view. They can't bring themselves to think there might actually be a good reason for Hizballah's existance, because that would lead them into criticism of Israel...





* Americans know that there is always a James Bond style baddy in the world that is plotting against them. And when they don't know who that is they just go crazy! Often the bogey man is invented out of thin air, but usually some random is selected to be the rock that steadies the American ship. Saddam had his turn, now it's Ahmadinejad and Chavez is also a contender. It always has to be an individual and never a group or nation. This is because Americans don't like thinking that just perhaps their country has done something wrong, whereas an individual means that that person's individual hatred of America is the cause of everybody elses hatred of America - that is the only "rational" explanation. It also means the government avoid any criticisms of their foreign policy. Now, can you think of a time when there hasn't been a bogey man for the American people to concentrate on and overcome their constant paranoia?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Ay yi yi... please, I implore you: never use this term again.

Why not? That's how I see it. From Alexander conquering Persia, to the Romans conquering Parsis, to the Christian Crusades, to the creation of Israel. There have always been a clashes between East and West.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why not?

Because it completely ignores what's going on inside Lebanon, and considering that is the most important factor, it renders the "clash of civilisations" about as useful as brown toilet paper...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.