PDA

View Full Version : We Don't Need Help, But Where The Hell Is It?



Yonivore
07-16-2006, 01:08 PM
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah seems a bit confused (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150886017765) after taking a beating from the Israeli military and provoking outrage from Lebanese politicians who resent Hezbollah's unilateral decision to commit an act of war. In a press conference earlier today, the terrorist chief said that Hezbollah needed no assistance to beat the Israelis -- but then complained that no Arab nation had come to his aid:


In a recorded television speech on Sunday evening, Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah urged Arab states to come to the organization's aid.

"Where are the Arab nations?" he asked, moments after declaring that Hizbullah wouldn't ask for help from anyone.

Speaking to Lebanese civilians, many of whom have expressed anger at Hizbullah's Wednesday attack in which two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and which triggered a massive Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanese infrastructure, Nasrallah affirmed that all damage caused by IDF strikes would be repaired after the battle was won.

"We have friends who have a great ability to help us financially," he said.

He also urged the Arab world not to believe Israeli claims about the escalating conflict. "The enemy is lying," he declared, saying the "Zionists" were "managing a psychological war against us."
If the Israelis want to psyche out Nasrallah, it appears that they have succeeded. First he declares that his terrorist group can beat Israel in an all-out war, including an invasion by tanks, for which he boasted that his troops were prepared to stop with their deaths, a deal that Israel would probably accept. In the very next breath, he called upon other Arab nations to stop sitting on the sidelines and rescue Hezbollah from its own folly.

That plea will fall on deaf ears. If Nasrallah has proven himself incapable of reading a map, the rest of the Arab world will not jump to correct his incompetence. Nasrallah has no lines of communication open, except from Syria. Syria has no lines of communication open, unless Jordan decides to support Hezbollah, which would be about as likely as snow in Mecca next week. Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey surround Syria, and the West controls the Mediterranean Sea. Even Saudi Arabia has no direct way to resupply Syria, which means that Syria has no way to keep Nasrallah supplied.

Once again, we see the strategic importance of holding Iraq in this phase of the war on terror.

Even if a direct supply route could be found, the Arab nations want no part of this battle, not while America has an overwhelming force in the region, one that has become battle-hardened and expert in confronting Arab terrorists as well as Arab military forces. It sliced through the best Arab military force in the region in three weeks. No other Arab nation has a military even at the reduced strength of Saddam's pre-invasion forces.

The only nation that would support Nasrallah is Iran. They have the same problem of communications that everyone else does, as I pointed out earlier. The Iranians might be tempted to start lobbing missiles at Tel Aviv -- I doubt they would try to hit Jerusalem, with the Muslim claim on the city -- but it would invite an immediate American response, perhaps including an anti-missile strike that would strip Iran of any leverage at all in the region.

The only support Nasrallah will get is when he accedes to the demands made for the return of the captured Israeli soldiers. Nasrallah gambled and lost; all of the press conferences in the world will not convince the Arab nations, outside of Syria, to help him double down.

velik_m
07-16-2006, 01:33 PM
I can beat up a creep, but i wouldn't mind having a couple of friends hold him down so i do it more easily.
Concept of overkill. Less casualties and effort on your side.

boutons_
07-16-2006, 01:36 PM
The only help he will get is from Syria, which is not a rich country and is supported by/allied with Iran, which the Repugs are pumping full of $Bs by refusing for the past 6 years to have a national energy policy that prioritizes oil conservation rather than oilco enrichment.

Here's an article that hits some pretty important points. I'm not at all confident that Israel can really rid Lebanon of Syrian/Iranian proxies aka Hisbollah, but it seems like they are going to try. Oil at $90+ anybody?

Perhaps the Christian/Sunni Lebanese will rise up and give their democratic govt the backbone to go after Hizbollah from the north.

============================

Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15

Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.

"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."

Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.

Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.

"It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah neutralization."

White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. "He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves," spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel."

Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory.

"We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.

The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year -- after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria.

If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said.

"The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel.

There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn.

"Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve," said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut.

The Bush administration's position -- and diplomacy -- are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration.

The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers.

Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993.

For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield.

Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was "way, way premature" to consider an end to hostilities. "There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change," he said. "That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities."

The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.

U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say.

"They do have space to operate for a period of time," the U.S. official said about Israel. "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course."

Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. "There is no Hamas government -- eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little," said the senior U.S. official.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/07/14/bs060714.gif

clambake
07-16-2006, 03:43 PM
It would most likely be suicide if Iran and Syria tried to help.

ShackO
07-16-2006, 06:16 PM
Perhaps the Christian/Sunni Lebanese will rise up and give their democratic govt the backbone to go after Hizbollah from the north.

Not going to happen........ One they have no power to do so and the place is a big mess with ppl getting bombed...... Makes it a little difficult to organize...

FromWayDowntown
07-16-2006, 08:15 PM
For those following along:

Captain's Quarters (7/16/06) (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007509.php#comments)

MannyIsGod
07-16-2006, 08:17 PM
Yonivore does this allllllllll the time.

FromWayDowntown
07-16-2006, 08:23 PM
Yonivore does this allllllllll the time.

Yonivore seems to only find other arguments and post them without acknowledging sources -- that, or Yonivore is still another in a litany of internet aliases that span any number of conservative blogs. I'm leaning to the former. One would think that crediting sources would be at least polite; but I suppose acknowledgements that one is, individually, a vapid windbag whose arguments rely entirely on reasoning and research done by others might not be as palatable as taking credit for having devised the argument in the first place.

spurster
07-16-2006, 08:38 PM
I move to change his title to resident plagiarist.

scott
07-16-2006, 09:13 PM
Lame ^ 2

scott
07-16-2006, 09:22 PM
5 days ago I engaged in this brief back and forth (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45456&page=4) with Yonivore:




I love these overly-simplistic, in-the-moment, disregard all other approaches, either/or answers. You would, since it sums up about 95% of your posts.I've always considered my post to be thoughtful.

It turns out Yonivore's posts are thoughtful. They are just someone else's thoughts.

ChumpDumper
07-16-2006, 09:33 PM
:lmao

exstatic
07-16-2006, 10:40 PM
5 days ago I engaged in this brief back and forth (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45456&page=4) with Yonivore:



It turns out Yonivore's posts are thoughtful. They are just someone else's thoughts.
Y'know, the political forum is about as entertaining as it's been in a LONG time.

:elephant :elephant

exstatic
07-16-2006, 10:41 PM
I move to change his title to resident plagiarist.
I think that "Warning: this post may contain unattributed material" would suffice...

Yonivore
07-16-2006, 10:46 PM
Y'know, the political forum is about as entertaining as it's been in a LONG time.

:elephant :elephant
You're welcome.

exstatic
07-16-2006, 10:55 PM
You're welcome.
You're the Pinata, and I've never once yet thanked one of those....

Yonivore
07-16-2006, 11:06 PM
You're the Pinata, and I've never once yet thanked one of those....
If I'm the pinata, you're swinging at air. Who's the fool there?

FromWayDowntown
07-16-2006, 11:20 PM
I have one last point on attribution and then I'm done for the evening.

The source of information is frequently as important to an audience as the information itself. In fact, sometimes, the source makes the information entirely unimportant. At the very least, the disclosure of a source of material that is not original to the author is a means of allowing an audience to gain context and decide for itself how to best understand what's been said.

Yonivore himself has, in other threads, dismissed arguments entirely because of the source from which they are taken. For instance here (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=717020&postcount=18), in this thread on the death penalty (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33526&highlight=death+penalty). In that instance, Peabody was willing to provide a source in defense of an argument; Yonivore's response was to immediately challenge the credibility of the source. Remarkably, by refusing to cite to the sources for his "takes," Yonivore takes the rather unprincipled route of assuming that there could be no similar challenge to the sources actually relied upon. I'm not saying that it's ever a strong argument to challenge a source -- though that rarely stops Yonivore in the arguments made around these parts; but I do think that there's always value in giving a reader a citation to a source, if only so that the reader can decide for him or herself whether the source is reliable and whether the source has everything in context.

I've said my piece. If Yonivore sees fit to continue to post matters without attribution, I'd think the ignore feature would be an appropriate means to protest that decision.

Yonivore
07-16-2006, 11:39 PM
I have one last point on attribution and then I'm done for the evening.

The source of information is frequently as important to an audience as the information itself. In fact, sometimes, the source makes the information entirely unimportant. At the very least, the disclosure of a source of material that is not original to the author is a means of allowing an audience to gain context and decide for itself how to best understand what's been said.

Yonivore himself has, in other threads, dismissed arguments entirely because of the source from which they are taken. For instance here (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=717020&postcount=18), in this thread on the death penalty (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33526&highlight=death+penalty). In that instance, Peabody was willing to provide a source in defense of an argument; Yonivore's response was to immediately challenge the credibility of the source. Remarkably, by refusing to cite to the sources for his "takes," Yonivore takes the rather unprincipled route of assuming that there could be no similar challenge to the sources actually relied upon. I'm not saying that it's ever a strong argument to challenge a source -- though that rarely stops Yonivore in the arguments made around these parts; but I do think that there's always value in giving a reader a citation to a source, if only so that the reader can decide for him or herself whether the source is reliable and whether the source has everything in context.

I've said my piece. If Yonivore sees fit to continue to post matters without attribution, I'd think the ignore feature would be an appropriate means to protest that decision.
First, I always link to statements of fact and source material offering facts. I only steal opinions which, quite frankly, are just that...opinions.

Second, I've suggested on many occassions that the ignore feature is valuable.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2006, 12:27 AM
FWD, for what its worth I don't think any of the more intelligent people here actually give Yonivore much credibility. By this point, anyone who is going to see through his stances has already done so.

I'm quite certain the majority of the posters here attatch the appropriate values to Yonivore's posts.

Nbadan
07-17-2006, 05:32 AM
Hezbollah has it's own FAUX News network in Lebanon and contrary to popular opinion in the U.S., has operated independent from Syria since 2000...


Having the Americans pressure Hezbollah to disarm would be considered aggression on the Shi'ite community as whole. It would enrage Iran and alienate whatever support the Americans still had left among the Shi'ite community in Iraq. The leaders of Lebanon, who came to power after the Syrian troop withdrawal in April 2005, wanted to court Hezbollah. They believed that by making them shoulder responsibility for government, Hezbollah would show more reason in dealing with Israel.

The same reasoning applied to the Americans when they brought the Sunnis to power in Iraq, hoping that this would help end the Sunni insurgency. The Lebanese, headed by Siniora, reasoned that with seats in parliament and government ministries allocated to Hezbollah, the resistance group would not possibly engage in war with Israel.

Apparently, they were wrong.

Many wrongly believed that once the Syrian army left Lebanon, Hezbollah would be weakened, gradually losing its influence in the country. This turned out to be nonsense, since contrary to what is commonly portrayed in the Western media, Hezbollah is a party that is totally independent in Lebanon from control of the Syrians.

They used to work under Syria's umbrella under former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad in the 1990s, needing his support to keep their arms in the post-war era, but since their victory in liberating south Lebanon in 2000, they have become independent of Syrian control.

They still confer with the Syrians, seek their advice and coordinate with Syria but they do not take orders, money or arms from Damascus. For example, they had four parliamentary seats in 1992, and four for their allies, a total of only eight, and this in the heyday of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Today, with Syria out, they have 14 seats.

This explains why Hezbollah remained pro-Syrian until curtain-fall. Nasrallah never relied on the Syrians for his power base, nor did any member of Hezbollah. Also in Hezbollah's favor now is the victory of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has shown strong support for the Shi'ite Lebanese resistance. Ahmadinejad clearly believes in the vision of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to promote Shi'ite Islam and help emancipate the Shi'ites of Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad said on Thursday any Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response", state television reported.

Relevant to all that is happening in Lebanon today is the degree of support Hezbollah and Nasrallah have in the Shi'ite community - and the amount of animosity in non-Shi'ite districts. One reason the Shi'ites support Hezbollah is religion. It is not the only one, however, because a study conducted by Dr Judith Harik, a professor at the American University of Beirut in 1996, showed that 70% of Hezbollah's supporters saw themselves only as moderately religious, and 23% said they were religious only out of obligation.

Pragmatism, nationalism and charity networks, rather than Muslim ideology, are the secrets of Hezbollah's success. Hezbollah enjoys authority and commands unwavering loyalty among Shi'ites because it always appears to be a confident political party that is doing an honorable job in fighting Israel. Adding to the nationalist aspect is the social one, which is that many people in the Shi'ite community, mainly at the grass-root level, rely on Hezbollah for charity and welfare.

Hezbollah has succeeded in promoting itself through the media, igniting confidence, safety and security among the 10 million viewers of al-Manar television, for example. Many of those viewers are Shi'ites. Not once does al-Manar, for example, show viewers a member of Hezbollah defeated. Rather, it shows pictures of dead Israelis, real footage of Hezbollah operations and programs highlighting Hezbollah's charity organizations. Hezbollah is a movement inspired by nationalism rather than religiousness.

Precisely for these reasons it would be difficult for anyone to tackle Hezbollah. The only way to disarm is for the Shi'ite group to wait until the Israelis leave Sheba, then free all prisoners. They would then have to modify their agenda, after quiet discussions with everybody in Lebanon, and transform themselves from a military party into a political one.

That would have been the logical response, but Nasrallah proved otherwise. What he has done in the past few days is show the world that if he so wishes, he can create havoc in Lebanon and the entire Middle East.

Nasrallah is sending a message to the world - and to his opponents inside Lebanon - that he is still strong and a force to be reckoned with. He is also sending a message to the United States, Israel and the Lebanese that the Shi'ites are still there - still strong, still a force and still visible to the rest of the world.

Asia Times (http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html)

boutons_
07-17-2006, 09:58 AM
Nasrallah is doing what he wanted to do since he was a child, unlike dubya who still isn't doing what he wanted to do as a child.

==========================================

Inside the Mind of Hezbollah

By Robin Wright
Sunday, July 16, 2006; B01

Hasan Nasrallah is exactly where he always wanted to be.

"Ever since I was 9 years old, I had plans for the day when I would start doing this," the Hezbollah chief reflected on his leadership quest, when I visited him in the southern slums of Beirut not long ago. "When I was 10 or 11, my grandmother had a scarf. It was black, but a long one. I used to wrap it around my head and say to them that I'm a cleric, you need to pray behind me."

Nasrallah is a man of God, gun and government, a cross between Ayatollah Khomeini and Che Guevera, an Islamic populist as well as a charismatic guerrilla tactician. The black head wrap -- signifying his descent from the prophet Muhammad -- is now his trademark, and he is Lebanon's best known politician. Lines from his speeches are popular ring tones on cellphones. His face is a common computer screensaver. Wall posters, key rings and even phone cards bear his image. Taxis play his speeches instead of music.

At 46, Nasrallah is also the most controversial leader in the Arab world, at the center of the most vicious new confrontation between Israel and its neighbors in a quarter-century. Yet he is not the prototypical militant. His career has straddled the complex line between Islamic extremist and secular politician. "He is the shrewdest leader in the Arab world," Israeli

( meanwhile, the USA is run by venal crooks and liars like dubya and dickhead )
Ambassador to the United States Daniel Ayalon told me on Friday, "and the most dangerous."

Until this eruption of violence along the Lebanese border -- the most dramatic cross-border acts of war by Israel since its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 -- Nasrallah had largely succeeded in being both. A fiery populist, he extolled the virtues of democracy to me in one breath, then argued that only suicide bombers can secure that democracy. "As long as there are fighters who are ready for martyrdom, this country will remain safe," he bragged in a speech earlier this year. But now the man who helped create Hezbollah may finally have to make a choice.

When we met in his office, before this new battle with Israel, Nasrallah claimed to see peaceful political activism as Hezbollah's future.

"We have ministers, we have members of parliament, we have municipal council members, leaders of unions and syndicates," he boasted as we sat on faux French brocade furniture at his now-bombed headquarters. "If we are maintaining our arms until now, this is due to the fact that the need for it is still there, due to the permanent or constant Israeli threats against Lebanon. Whether we keep on with the resistance or stop the resistance, we are effectively now a full-fledged political party."

The outskirts of Beirut are known as the dahiya , Arabic for "suburbs." It has come to mean the poor, dense and sometimes dangerous maze of slums that is also Hezbollah-land. Its dirty alleys are crammed with concrete-block shanties. Gnarled masses of wire run from one building to the next, illegally tapping into electrical, phone and television lines. While lights burn brightly in trendy downtown Beirut, the dahiya is often eerily dark because of sporadic electricity.

( so it's the dahiya to the south of Beirut that the Israelis are hitting )

Hezbollah has become an enterprise in the dahiya, often outperforming the state. It runs a major hospital as well as schools, discount pharmacies, groceries and an orphanage. It runs a garbage service and a reconstruction program for homes damaged during Israel's invasion. It supports families of the young men it sent off to their deaths. Altogether, it benefits an estimated 250,000 Lebanese and is the country's second-largest employer.

In the dahiya, Nasrallah is an icon, famed for his oratory and revered as a champion of Lebanon's long-dispossessed Shiite minority.

Born in a Christian suburb of Beirut in 1960, the first of nine children, Nasrallah only joined Hezbollah after the Israeli invasion. Trained in Islam at the top seminaries of both Iraq and Iran, he became one of the original military leaders in Iran's new training camps.

"I was then 22 years old," Nasrallah told me. "We used to discuss issues among ourselves. If we are to expel the Israeli occupation from our country, how do we do this? We noticed what happened in Palestine, in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in the Golan, in the Sinai. We reached a conclusion that we cannot rely on the Arab League states, nor on the United Nations," he said. "The only way that we have is to take up arms and fight the occupation forces."

With a force of between 600 and 1,000 full-time fighters, along with thousands of backups pulled from the streets willing to become human bombs, Nasrallah managed what the tens of thousands in the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan were unable to do for a half-century -- force Israel to retreat. Today, his is the last private army left in Lebanon.

Nasrallah became the movement's secretary general in 1992, at age 32, after Israeli helicopter gunships assassinated his predecessor. His first major decision was to shift a movement best known for its terrorism spectaculars against the United States, France and Israel into politics -- and run candidates for parliament.

"They resist with their blood," declared Hezbollah campaign posters at the time, featuring suicide bombers. "Resist with your vote."

But Hezbollah's shifts under Nasrallah should not be mistaken for moderation. As with other Islamist groups in the Middle East, change was about survival of both cause and constituents. The end of Lebanon's 15-year civil war in 1990 had altered the environment. From then on, Hezbollah needed to participate in the political system -- or face loss of the weapons that gave it power.

Today, Hezbollah holds 14 seats in parliament, one of the larger blocs, and in 2005 joined the government for the first time. This year, Nasrallah even made an unlikely alliance with a right-wing Christian who was once a Lebanese army general -- while still accepting what U.S. intelligence has pegged at about $100 million annually from Iran in goods, cash and arms, including an estimated 13,000 rockets and missiles.

For six years, Hezbollah also demonstrated some military restraint. When Israel ended its 18-year occupation of Lebanon in 2000, Nasrallah declared, "We have liberated the south. Next we'll liberate Jerusalem." Yet until last week, Hezbollah's increasingly infrequent offensives were largely limited to the disputed border town at Shebaa Farms.

But the transition is far from complete; Nasrallah still wants it both ways. A few weeks before I saw him, he gave a speech about the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad, which triggered rioting worldwide and more than 100 deaths. Nasrallah condemned "those fools that did wrong to our prophet," but he also criticized the attack on the Danish Embassy in Beirut. "Let us stop this nonsense," he said. "As Muslims and Christians, we should continue to cooperate and unite in order to reject the offense to our prophets and our holy belongings."

Yet Hezbollah still has refused to comply with U.N. Resolution 1559, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Hezbollah's militia. "The Israeli Air Force could destroy the Lebanese army within hours, or within days, but it cannot do this with us," Nasrallah told me. "We exercise guerrilla warfare. . . . Lebanon still needs the formula of popular resistance."

Whenever Nasrallah talks about the terrorist tactics with which Hezbollah has become synonymous, the message is still tortuously two-faced. Our exchange about al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was typical:

"What do the people who worked in those two [World Trade Center] towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world?" he asked me. "Therefore we condemned this act -- and any similar act we condemn."

But the Pentagon?

"I said nothing about the Pentagon, meaning we remain silent. We neither favored nor opposed that act," he replied. "Well, of course, the method of Osama bin Laden, and the fashion of bin Laden, we do not endorse them. And many of the operations that they have carried out, we condemned them very clearly."

The use of terrorism is a difficult subject for the head of a group that succeeded in redefining extremist tactics. Hezbollah deployed the first Islamic suicide bombers in modern times. It was also the first to carry out multiple attacks simultaneously. Al-Qaeda and Hamas and Iraq's insurgents -- all Sunni movements -- have copied these tactics.

Nevertheless, Nasrallah has only disdain for bin Laden and the Taliban. In April, an al-Qaeda cell in Lebanon tried to assassinate him. And the late al-Qaeda chief in Iraq this spring condemned the Shiite movement as an "enemy of the Sunnis" -- ironically, in hindsight -- for protecting Israel by preventing Palestinian attacks from Lebanon. "The worst, the most dangerous thing that this Islamic revival has encountered . . . was the Taliban," Nasrallah told me. "The Taliban state presented a very hideous example of an Islamic state."

Yet Hezbollah has not abandoned its extremist origins, even as it tries to establish conventional political legitimacy.

"It is unacceptable, it is forbidden, to harm the innocent," he told me, reflecting on Iraq. "To have Iraqis confronting the occupation army, this is natural. But if there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden. It is not acceptable to harm them."

( but Hezbollah's suicide bombers murder innocent Israelis? Or all Isaelis guilty by birth? )
In 2004, Hezbollah issued a communique condemning the beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg by al-Qaeda in Iraq as a "despicable act" that did "grave damage to Islam and the Muslims." But the day before we talked, a suicide bomber had detonated a bomb at a Tel Aviv restaurant during the busy lunch hour, killing 11 and wounding more than 60 civilians. The bomb was laced with nails and other projectiles; the injuries were particularly gruesome. Islamic Jihad, another Iranian-backed group, claimed credit.

I asked Nasrallah how he applied his metric on civilians to Israelis. He described the issue of what he calls "occupied Palestine" as "complicated."

"It is our opinion that in Palestine, women and children need to be avoided in any case," he responded. "But it came after more than two months of daily Israeli killing of Palestinians, and the destruction of houses and schools, and the siege that is imposed on the Palestinians. There is no other means for the Palestinians to defend themselves. That is why I cannot condemn this type of operation in occupied Palestine."

<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]

Robin Wright, Washington Post diplomatic correspondent, interviewed Nasrallah for her upcoming book, "Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East" (Penguin Press).

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

======================

I, of course, I don't agree or support Nazrallah, but compare the personal accomplishments and charisma of Nazrallah to the incompetent, unaccomplished, inarticulate, ignorant donkey's ass of dubya the Repug puppet.

RandomGuy
07-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Even Saudi Arabia has no direct way to resupply Syria [and, by extention, Hezbullah], which means that Syria has no way to keep Nasrallah supplied.




:rolleyes


Once again the lack of in-depth understanding that no few conservative commentators have about the middle east is apparent.

The funny thing about this bit here is that it also ignores the Bush administrations own releases about what is going on, all in a rush to paint "the Muslims" as some grand monolithic conspiracy.

Here is a bitwhere Saudi Arabia condemns Hezbullah, (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=July&x=20060714162308ndyblehs0.6876642) AND Bush says that is a great thing.

Here is another reason that the above statement also represents some flawed understanding.

Hezbullah is a shia group. Most Muslims including the vast majority of Saudis, are not Shia, but Sunni.

RandomGuy
07-18-2006, 12:11 PM
[American forces] sliced through the best Arab military force in the region in three weeks. No other Arab nation has a military even at the reduced strength of Saddam's pre-invasion forces.


More ignorance showing its ugly head.

Saddam hardly had the "best" Arab military force in the region.

After over a decade of crippling sanctions, the Iraqi military was far from combat effective, and even the US military knew that.

I remember reading stories of defectors from the Iraqi army long before the run up to Gulf War two detailing low morale, lack of spare parts for vehicles and so forth.

Saddam did not have the "best" military, but rather the biggest. He had it because he conscripted a large number of ill-trained and poorly motivated men into a "paper tiger" army, with soldiers lucky if they fired 8 rounds per year from their rifles.

The republican guard units were slightly better off in terms of equipment and enthusiasm, but were also far from the "best" in the region.

The confusion of the commentator between "big" and "best" is yet another symptom of how flawed understanding seems to shape a lot of conservative thinking these days. Garbage in=Garbage out.

RandomGuy
07-18-2006, 12:17 PM
Yonivore seems to only find other arguments and post them without acknowledging sources -- that, or Yonivore is still another in a litany of internet aliases that span any number of conservative blogs. I'm leaning to the former. One would think that crediting sources would be at least polite; but I suppose acknowledgements that one is, individually, a vapid windbag whose arguments rely entirely on reasoning and research done by others might not be as palatable as taking credit for having devised the argument in the first place.

... and god forbid you should have the temerity to ask him to defend his positions.

He is part of a cadre from both sides of the political spectrum that is all about the :soapbox: and little else.

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-18-2006, 12:52 PM
Hasan Nasrallah is exactly where he always wanted to be.

Getting bombed into oblivion? Robin Wright has always written articles that are slanted to the side of the terrorists. That she writes an article like that is not surprising. Nor boutons linking it.

clambake
07-18-2006, 12:57 PM
It's all posturing. Why not target evacution helicopters and ships?

boutons_
07-18-2006, 01:21 PM
"Getting bombed into oblivion?"

Israelis didn't bomb Hesbollah HQ on the first day. By the time they did hit it, locals say it had been emptied of computers, paper files, telecomms, etc. Hardly bombed into oblivion.

What's amazing is the low number of Lebanese deaths compared with the pervasiveness of the Israeli devastation.

How many Hezbollah have Isrealis really bombed into oblivion, when Hezbollah rockets continue raining into Israel a week after Israel started bombing S. Lebanon?

Any oblivion that Israel creates in S. Beirut and S. Lebanon will be re-built and re-armed by Syria and Iran as soon as the Israelis stop attacking, just as was done in S. Lebanon after Israel withdrew, and as is being attempted when Israel withdrew from Gaza. Iran of course can't lose, with oil at $75+, they have an unending flow of 100s of $Bs to finance pushing Israel into the sea, just as Iranian present recently announced.

What is Robin Wright slanting? What is your "truth" that redresses Wright's "slant"?

As long as Syria and Iran keep financing Hamas and Hesbollah (and Shiites in Iraq), there really isn't a solution.

Had dubya and dickhead not shot the US military'd wad in Iraq (a Sunni country under Saddam countervailing mortal enemy Iraq), there might have been some US military intimidation available to stare down Syria and Iran.

The US military is now tied down and exhausted in Iraq and in no position to threaten Syria or Iran, who are now free, as the REAL axis of evil, to export state-terrorism through their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.

Nice going, dubya/dickhead/rummy/wolfowitz, just a couple more years, and you can bequeath the huge pile of stinking shit you've created to the next administration.

clambake
07-18-2006, 02:21 PM
But, could this be Bush's "out of Iraq clause"? What better way to deny failure in Iraq?

"We must concentate our efforts on the growing concern in Syria and Iran, and let Iraq implement the fabulous democracy we have graciously gifted them" says the president in the state of the union address.

Nbadan
07-18-2006, 03:22 PM
But, could this be Bush's "out of Iraq clause"? What better way to deny failure in Iraq?

"We must concentate our efforts on the growing concern in Syria and Iran, and let Iraq implement the fabulous democracy we have graciously gifted them" says the president in the state of the union address.

Won't happen because Iraq is tumbling toward civil war, if not already in it. This gives the Cons two choices, they can either stay and keep proping up the government troops and thus the Iraqi government indefinitely, or they drastically need to increase the number of US combat troops to fight back the insurgency so that the government and Iraqi defense forces can be properly trained. At least to give the Cons enough time to get the US troops out and claim victory before Baghdad becomes the next Ho Chi Man City (formerly Siagon).

clambake
07-18-2006, 05:11 PM
What do you think the chances are of bush sending more troops to Iraq?

I think he should have done that long ago ( when advisors suggested it).

Isn't it possible that the far left would agree with this strategy?