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.

___________________