Beirut burns again.

[FinnAgain]

@Frank

Frankly, I don’t usually bother to pay any attention to you. Instead of proving your points, you rant.

I proved my point by mentioning and citing the relevant facts. In this thread. That’s how one proves a point.
You have ignored everything I was saying about Hezbollah and Iran, and the cites I provided, and are trying some puerile gotcha by mentioning Syria. I’ve laid out my claim, I’ve provided the evidence, you responded with non sequitor inanity. Care to actually try to rebut a single thing I’ve said, and thus show I didn’t prove my point?
Or can you simply not do so?

I’ve already provided a cite, in this thread, as to the Lebanese government’s claims that Iran was specifically involved in the recent course of events that has led to civil war. Iran is, in addition, the creator, prime sponsor, trainer and weapon supplier for Hezbollah. All of this is documented fact. You’ve denied my claim, but not rebutted it, ignored it and tossed out an ad hominem fallacy, accusing me of ranting, but not refuting a single fact I mentioned. You even went as far as to claim I was somehow out of bounds for bringing up Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s actions and religious dynamic, despite all evidence to the contrary. You have, as of yet, not even retracted such an absurd claim.
Got anything to add to the debate?

@Frank

Is Syria a good guy now, then?

Yeah Frank, that’s exactly what I was arguing.

To get you up to speed, the thread is about the current evolving civil war between Hezbollah and Lebanese Sunnis, which looks to be spreading to the Druze and quite possibly Christian communities next. Cites have already been provided as to Hezbollah’s role in this conflict, as well as Iran’s role in current events.

You began by offering up a spurious challenge to me, after my response to Gala’s absurd claim that although there is a religious dimension to this conflict, people with “open minds” will be willing to lie about it and claim there isn’t.
In specific, you tried to change the subject by claiming that I was erroneously mentioning Iran. I wasn’t. You have neither touched on my cites nor attempted to refute any of my facts.
I suspect it is because you simply can not.

When it was pointed out that one cannot talk about Hezbollah in Lebanon and the current conflict without mentioning Iran, you’ve now… tried to change the subject by bringing up Syria. And not even had the dignity of intellectual honesty to withdrawn your objection to my mention of Iran in a context in which Iran is clearly and importantly involved. Yes, Syria still has influence in Lebanon, yes, Syria often serves as a transfer point for Iranian weapons to Hezbollah.
No, Hezbollah is far and away primarily an Iranian creature, not a Syrian one.

If you’re unable to touch on Iran’s involvement, and cannot rebut it, instead casting empty headed snark my way, and cannot touch on Hezbollah’s role, cannot counter the fact that Iran’s involvement in Hezbollah helps inform its religious dynamic (which was the tangent you responded to with a non sequitor which you still refuse to retract)… would you mind terribly if you just stopped thread shitting?

@FoiGrasIsEvil

Frank, I am surprised that you would level a rant accusation against a poster like FinnAgain that actually provides debateable information rather than spouting platitudes.

Truth be told, I’m a bit baffled by his reaction, and I’ve never seen a mod act with such ignorance or an obvious personal grudge. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s drunk.
Hopefully he’ll sleep it off.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

And on another note, I noted the ominous “Find out what Nostradamus said about the years 2008-2013” linky as an ad site for this thread.
Scary.

Hold on, now it’s gone. Let’s try again, everyone break out the Oujia boards to make it come back: NOSTRADAMUS.

[black_rabbit]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

And as far as Syria goes, the food chain works like this: Iran>Syria>Lebanon/Hezbollah. Syria is a puppet of Iran, Lebanon is a puppet of Syria/Hezbollah, etc.
It’s pretty obvious.

Iran = Shi’a
Syria = Baath and mostly Sunni
Hizbollah = Shi’a

I thought this was supposed to be all about religion.

[FinnAgain]

Heh. Spooky

As long as I’m at it Frank, this was my first post to the thread. Notice, two separate links which describe both Hezbollah’s actions which brought about this conflict, as well as Iran’s actions/involvement.

You need some quotes, maybe?

“Both sides have dug in their heels,” said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a political analyst and expert on Hizballah. “I think there’s going to be a battle for the state now.” Perhaps, but the unlikely catalyst behind the latest flare-up was a government attempt to regulate Lebanon’s telephone system.

An official Lebanese government report reveals that Iran is setting up an illegal telecommunication network across Lebanon, capable of intercepting all telephone conversations in the country, the Saudi-owned daily al-Sharq al-Awsat reported Sunday.

According to the report, Iran has set up this network to aid the Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah.

In an interview with al-Sharq al-Awsat, Lebanese Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh said that the “issue of communications has been under discussion for a long time, but we were waiting for them [Hezbollah] to respond to the security authorities who requested they stop all infringements.”

According to Hamadeh, the Lebanese cabinet is planning to discuss this Iranian network on Monday, and later bring the issue before the United Nations Security Council as well as the Arab League, al-Awsat reported.

In the interview, Hamadeh added that Hezbollah was making efforts to link all the militias in Lebanon, Syria and Iran via a vast telecommunications network.

: Last weekend, Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon’s Druze minority and an archenemy of Hizballah, accused the militant Shi’ite party of maintaining its own private telephone network, and of using security cameras to monitor Beirut airport with the possible aim of staging attacks or kidnappings. On Tuesday, the government followed up with an edict declaring Hizballah’s telephone network “illegal and unconstitutional.” It also launched an investigation into the alleged monitoring of the airport, and dismissed airport security chief General Wafiq Shuqeir, on suspicion of opposition sympathies.

Hizballah was having none of it, angrily declaring that the telephone network is part of its military wing — which it justifies as necessary to defend Lebanon against Israel — and warning anyone seeking to dismantle it would be treated as an “Israeli spy.” Within days, the two sides were shooting at one another.

Since the war, however, Hizballah has expanded the network to cover its new military frontline north of the United Nations–patrolled southern border district, and into the Bekaa Valley to the east. Part of the system incorporates a WiMAX network allowing long-distance wireless access for the Internet and cell phones.

More recently, Hizballah has dug trenches for fiber-optic cables in the mainly Christian and Druze Mount Lebanon district and in north Lebanon, according to Marwan Hamade, the Lebanese minister of telecommunications. “It was confined to one or two small areas before and we overlooked it as part of their internal communications. But now it’s spread all over Lebanon,” Hamade told TIME.

The Iranian communications network has been completed in southern Lebanon, the Lebanon Valley, southern Beirut and several Christian areas in Mount Lebanon. Work is currently underway to complete the infrastructure in the northern Lebanon Valley.

According to the government report, the network is capable of tracking 100,000 numbers using a digital format in which each number is five digits long.

According to reports, the Hezbollah hardware can hook up to Lebanon’s main telephone network.

After that, Gala claimed that it was political, not religious. I pointed out Hezbollah’s religious dynamic and what part Iran played in it. She responded with something approaching Jabberwockian nonsense, which was most likely a tu quoque fallacy and did not directly or indirectly address the facts of Iran’s involvement of Hezbollah’s religious agenda. I then pointed out that she’d ignored the issue, and that I didn’t care for her take on the media as it was the facts that were at issue. She responded that despite the facts, she wanted to convince people with “open minds”. I reiterated the facts and pointed out that her stance was intellectually dishonest. You then implied that I was somehow wrong to bring up Iran, and we should instead be talking about Syria (evidently you couldn’t be bothered to read the links I provided).

And that’s how we got here.
So, care to add anything of substance and/or value?

@black rabbit

I thought this was supposed to be all about religion.

@FinnAgain

The fact is that there is a religious dimension to the conflict.

@FinnAgain

Hezbollah helps spread Iran’s particular brand of Shia Islam, as well as allow Iran to project its military and political power

You thought wrong.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@black rabbit

Iran = Shi’a
Syria = Baath and mostly Sunni
Hizbollah = Shi’a

I thought this was supposed to be all about religion.

Hmmm…or possibly about “who can provide us with the weapons we seek to destroy Israel and we will toss aside our religious differences with them if they can arm us”…

So is North Korea Sunni or Shia?

Confused, I am. Nuclear reactors for peace, they are.

[FinnAgain]

To elaborate on Foie’s point:

[

July 19, 2006 —
The Middle East is home to many unusual alliances, but one of the oddest is the enduring partnership between Syria and Iran. Syria portrays itself as a champion of secular Arab nationalism, although in practice it is a minority-dominated military dictatorship. Iran, in contrast, rides under the banner of revolutionary Islam, although as a Persian country, it is often at odds with the Arab world, particularly since the vast majority of Iranians are Shiites, while most Arabs are Sunnis. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, gunned down thousands of revolutionary Islamists in the 1970s and early '80s to prevent an Islamic revolution in Syria. Iran’s religious elite has often criticized Arab leaders as despots who have turned away from true Islam—a description that could easily apply to Assad’s Syria.

](http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0719middleeast_byman.aspx)

[

But geopolitics has brought Iran and Syria together despite these many differences. In a strategic partnership that would have made Metternich proud, the two nations banded together against Saddam’s Iraq, which both saw as an immediate threat to their security. Israel, too, provided a common foe. Iran’s revolutionary ideology saw Israel as anathema; Syria also opposed the Jewish state, especially after its humiliating defeat in the 1967 war, since when it has strived to regain the Golan Heights. The United States is hostile to both regimes, producing further incentive to cooperate. Both countries worry that the chaos in Iraq will creep across their borders, but they’re also keen for the United States to suffer a bloody nose to dampen its enthusiasm for regime change. Finally, both nations have few allies, making the other’s support especially valuable.

Iran provides a strange sort of legitimacy for the Baathist regime in Damascus. Syria is dominated by Alawites, a minority sect of Islam that is even more hated and even less accepted by militant Sunnis than is Shiism. Some Shiite religious leaders have bolstered the Damascus regime by claiming that the Alawites are simply part of the larger Shiite family—a claim that does little to appease highly chauvinistic Sunnis but appeals to those with a wider view of Islam.

These many common interests have come together in Lebanon. Initially, Syria was wary of revolutionary Islam. However, after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Damascus welcomed Iranian help. Iranian officials nurtured Hezbollah, helping to unite various Shiite factions and providing the movement with training, money, and ideological support. Syria also backed the new movement, and with their help, Hezbollah became the edge of the sword against the Israeli invaders.

](http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0719middleeast_byman.aspx)

[

Syria’s goals are more local. Like Iran, Syria wanted Hezbollah to pose a threat to Israel that Damascus could calibrate according to its needs. This served as an inducement for Israel to agree to Syrian demands at the bargaining table. As Middle East expert Michael Doran has noted, “Syria has played this game of being both the arsonist and the fire department.” This double role has had mixed results. Although continued attacks did contribute to Israel’s decision to negotiate with Syria during the 1990s, they also led to lasting Israeli hostility toward Damascus, which in turn doomed hopes for peace.

Hezbollah’s importance to Syria has, if anything, grown in recent years. Bashar Assad, Syria’s callow ruler, is said to admire Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Even more important, when the “cedar revolution” forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005, Hezbollah became the most important champion of Syrian interests in the country.

Hezbollah is increasingly growing out of its role as a proxy and becoming more of a partner with both Tehran and Damascus. The organization has a strong Lebanese base, and Iran’s and Syria’s influence are waning there. Hezbollah still looks to Iran for ideological and strategic guidance, and it would not cross Damascus on important issues such as attacking Israel, but it is increasingly capable of asserting its independence.

](http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0719middleeast_byman.aspx)

[

As the conflict in the Middle East continues, attention turns to the influence of Iran and Syria over their local proxy groups—particularly Hezbollah. Experts say the two countries share little ideologically, yet are increasingly cooperating out of necessity. These experts see a new boldness in the way both countries are exerting their influence in the region.
What is the current relationship between Syria and Iran?

Many experts say geopolitical realities are bringing the two nations together in an opportunistic alliance. “It’s a strategic relationship, a marriage of convenience,” says Scott Lasensky, senior research associate and Middle East expert at the United States Institute of Peace. Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, says, “Syria and Iran both have a common goal, which is not to be the next Iraq.” The two countries agreed to a mutual defense treaty in 2004.

“There’s a clear confluence of interest between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah,” says CFR Fellow Steven A. Cook. Syria supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, breaking from most other Arab countries and reflecting the rivalry between its form of Baathism and that of Saddam Hussein. Damascus hosts thousands of Iranian tourists each year who make pilgrimages to Shiite holy sites in Syria; it also receives millions of dollars in Iranian donations for the upkeep and building of mosques. And Tehran | supported Damascus after the February 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri brought international censure to Assad’s regime. Syria and Iran see themselves as “two states under siege, surrounded by adversarial regimes,” Lasensky says. “The unified opposition against them reinforces the alliance.”

](http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/)

[

How are the two nations cooperating in the current conflict?

Iran’s foreign minister visited Damascus after the Hezbollah attack to express Tehran’s support for Syria in a clear sign of greater coordination between the two nations. For Iran, the opportunity to strike at Israel brings regional credibility, underscores Tehran’s reach, and shows the United States its power. Syria is also trying to assert its influence in the region. Hezbollah receives some $100 million per year from Tehran, and its Iranian-supplied weaponry is transported through Syria to Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon’s southeast.

](http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/)

[

How much of an issue is the divide between Syria’s Baathists and Iran’s Shiites?

Syria is a secular state run by the Baath Party; Iran is a Shiite theocracy. Yet the split is not significant enough to make the two countries overlook their political goals. “Iran talks a good religious game, but it’s willing to work with secular governments for a common goal,” Berman says. And their association with Shiite Iran “gives Syrians the [religious] legitimacy they need,” Cook says.

Hokayem points out the two countries also have different global and regional status. “Syria is a junior partner, uncertain about its future, very Levant-centered and concerned about regional dynamics. Iran is a very confident regime which deals with major powers like Russia and China and plays big-power politics,” he says.

](http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/)

[

Finally, the other element in this Shia revival is the rise of Iran. Iran has a far larger economy than either that of Saudi Arabia or Egypt. One might say it was inevitable that Iran was going to assert itself.

The Iraq war had two dynamics in it that accelerated this process. One is that it removed the Sunni bulwarks around Iran. This began, really, with the Afghan war. For reasons that had nothing to do with Iran, the U.S. took the Taliban out. Now, the Taliban-Pakistan-Saudi axis was the principal Sunni wall on Iran’s east. On Iran’s west, the Iraq war removed the Saddam regime and, in fact, made southern Iraq far more permissible to Iranian influence. Iran all of a sudden found itself in a Prussian moment. Its zone of influence became very obvious: the Persian/Shia zone in Central Asia and north-western Afghanistan, and the Shia zone of influence across the Persian Gulf and southern Iraq.

Iranian assertiveness feeds on the Shia revival because in some ways Iran believes a Shia regime in Iraq and Shia power in the region automatically makes the region less hostile to Iran, even forgetting about ruling over them. Generally, Iran believes that Arab nationalism is racist, chauvinistically anti-Iranian, that Ba’athism was particularly anti-Iranian; and that a greater Shia voice in the region makes it more “Iranian friendly.” That can have multiple impacts – cultural, economic, all the way to military, foreign policy and the like.

Iran’s profile as a rogue state obviously increased after [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad became president and began to attack Israel and question the Holocaust and the like. Clearly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan see playing this game of emphasizing the Iranian-Shia relationship as a way of actively engaging the U.S. in the containment of Iran and changing the balance of relations in Iraq among the U.S., the Shia-led government and the insurgents.

](The Revival of Shia Islam | Pew Research Center)

[

The conflict in Lebanon has ignited a robust debate on jihadist Web sites over backing for Hezbollah, the Shiite group that set off the crisis when it seized two Israeli soldiers on July 12. The discussions reflect the widening divide between Shiite and Sunni Arabs in parts of the Middle East. Accusing Palestinians of being anti-Shiite, one Iraqi Shiite militant bitterly wrote, “It is better to concentrate one’s efforts on helping the Shiite kinfolk rather than the Sunnis.”
[…]
But experts in the United States who study the messages say prominent supporters of holy war, including religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have joined the debate. Well-recognized guerrilla groups and militant clerics in Iraq have also posted their views . About 80 percent of the postings this week on jihadist sites concern the question of supporting Hezbollah, according to the SITE Institute, a group in Washington that tracks and translates the messages. (The group’s translations were used for this article.)

Suspicions among Sunnis over growing Shiite power — and a backlash by Shiites — have come to the fore during the Iraq war and fighting in Lebanon. Animosity is especially virulent among Sunni militants who adhere to a conservative strain of Islam that views Shiites as infidels. And like many of the region’s Sunni leaders, they see Hezbollah as a puppet of Iran, whose Shiite Persian majority has traditionally been seen by Arabs as a mortal enemy.

So while many ordinary Sunnis have spoken out in support of Hezbollah, Sunni Arab governments and ultraconservative militants have withheld their backing. One Sunni fighter said the Lebanon conflict was a plot by an Iranian-American-Israeli axis to spread the Shiite faith across the region. Another militant suggested that the Sunnis should sit this one out and let the Americans and Israelis fight the Iranians and their proxies to the death

](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22jihadists.html)

And in Hizballah’s own words, from one of their founding documents PDF, HTML:

Our Identity
We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!

Etc, etc, etc.

In short, there is beyond a shadow of a doubt, a religious dynamic at play. There are, also, political, military and economic dynamics at play.

The one thing that any discussion of the ME is not served by, is oversimplified, non-nuanced sophistry.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Nice post. The assertion that Syria plays the dual role of “arsonist and fireman” is a perfect one to describe them.
And furthermore, the hatred of Israel runs deep because these deluded, falsely religous leaders build up an army and think they’re the shit, only to get their asses handed to them by the IDF over and over again. That’s gotta sting.
Fuck the Arab countries that hate Israel for religious/nebulous/political reasons.
I hope Israel kicks their asses again and again and again. Given Israel’s military supremacy in the region, it is remarkable to note that Israel is even willing to give land back to hostile factions they seized in previous wars as an olive branch, but nobody sees it that way, because Da Jooz are Da root of all evil.

[FinnAgain]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Nice post.

Eh, I guess it’s okay for something that doesn’t prove any points and is just a rant

[chique]

@FinnAgain

You can’t separate the political/military actions of a theocracy from its theology all the time, and especially not when we’re talking about that theocracy supporting militant, genocidal theocrats.

Why do you say this? 100 years ago (and as late as 20 years ago) on a different continent one branch of Christianity tried to kill off another branch of Christianity. Eventually both sides realized that religion wasn’t really the cause, just an excuse, and today (at least, from what I no longer read in the media) one doesn’t have to worry about getting shot in Belfast.

I’m truly not attempting to be snarky; I just think that saying “Oh, it’s just a Shia/Sunni thing” is as much of a cop out as saying that Northern Ireland was a Cathlolic/Protestant thing, but I don’t know enough about the socio-economic disparities between the two groups in any locale.

[FinnAgain]

The IRA isn’t Hezbollah, the analogy doesn’t stand.

Hezbollah is an explicitly theocratic organization, started and continued in large part to spread Khomenism (not just normal Shia Islam, but Iran’s specific brand). I’ve already provided cites specific to Iran’s involvement in Hezbbollah as well as how Hezbollah’s ideology is informed by the Iranian theocracy. I’ve provided evidence that various other militant groups have had reactions to Hezbollah based largely along the Shia/Sunni split.

I can provide a bit more, I suppose:

[

CNN: Can Syria stop Hezbollah?

Mackey: Syria is secular and Baathist. Baath ideology is based on the idea that most of the problems in the Arab world are rooted in Islam and that there needs to be a separation between church and state.

Syria can’t stop Hezbollah from the standpoint that Hezbollah, theologically and politically, belongs in the Iranian camp.

](CNN.com - Lebanon 101: Behind the headlines - Jul 27, 2006)

[

CNN: Why is Iran helping Hezbollah?

Mackey: When he was alive, [Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini said the interests of the Iranian nation were not as important as the interests of Islam. He wanted to promote Islam over Iran.

However, there was a ring of people around Khomeini [including then-President Hashemi Rafsanjani] who said we’ve got to make peace with Iraq because it’s destroying the Iranian nation. [Iran and Iraq were at war from 1980-88.]

That’s where Iran has been up until this last presidential election. What Iran is doing now - not just in Lebanon but everything – needs to be looked at in [that light]. All the noise that [Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad are making about destroying Israel [and] talking about nuclear weapons has its domestic political component because they have returned to the promotion of Islam over the protection of the interests of Iran.

CNN: What are the ties between the Lebanese Shia and Iran?

Mackey: Traditionally in Shia Islam, the religious and the pious are not supposed to get involved in politics other than as a sort of moral guide of society.

In the 1960s, [Khomeini introduced] a whole new theology and he basically said, “Religion is politics, and politics is religion.”

This was really a revolutionary theological movement. What he was really talking about was that you had government by the clerics who would ensure society was justly ruled.

When Khomeini died in 1989, the leadership of Hezbollah [which is popular among the Shia] split over the issue of who would be the rightful successor to Khomeini and the Faqih.

The original voice of Hezbollah, who was Ayatollah Fadlallah, would not support the election of Ali Khamenei, who is currently the spiritual leader of Iran. He said he did not have the qualifications to hold that position.

[Instead, Hassan Nasrallah backed Khamenei and became Hezbollah’s leader.]

](CNN.com - Lebanon 101: Behind the headlines - Jul 27, 2006)

[

Hezbollah is a Lebanese umbrella organization of radical Islamic Shiite groups and organizations. It opposes the West, seeks to create a Muslim fundamentalist state modeled on Iran, and is a bitter foe of Israel.
[…]
Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah is considered the group’s spiritual leader.

Hassan Nasrallah is Hezbollah’s senior political leader. Nasrallah was originally a military commander, but his military and religious credentials—he studied in centers of Shiite theology in Iran and Iraq—quickly elevated him to leadership within the group. Experts say he took advantage of rivalries within Hezbollah and the favor of the head of Iran’s theocratic government, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, to become the group’s secretary general in 1992, a position he still holds.

](http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/)

Etc…

In a nutshell, Hezbollah is a militant, Khomenist, theocratic organization. You can’t ignore that dynamic, simply because there are other dynamics at hand.
Beirut isn’t Belfast. The Middle East isn’t the UK.
Analogies will only get us so far.

And for folks who aren’t aware of the specific situation in the ME, trying to mentally replace it with a familiar western situation isn’t helpful, at all.

[FinnAgain]

@Frank

this entire thread contains only one mention of Syria, the support of the Lebanese government.

While reading the news/reading over this thread, that little gem of ignorance caught my eye.

First off, the (nominally) governing coalition in Lebanon is US backed, not Syrian. The Syrian government does have a strong hand in opposition groups, but neither faction has been strong enough to take the reigns of power. The opposition has, however, succeeded in making it very difficult for the government to move ahead, and has effectively been flouting the government’s authority for roughly 18 months now. But the fact of the matter is that it is ignorant, at best, to claim that Syria is the support of the Lebanese government.

But sorry I was busy ranting, Frank, and not adding quality, knowledgeable posts to the thread. Like you.

Ahem.
Anyways.

Current news is that Hezbolah and/or Hezbollah aligned forces, made a bid for Trippoli, with pro-government supporters fighting them and, evidently, the Lebanese army being called into play. Interestingly enough, the current calm in Beirut is largely due to the government backing down on its demands that the Iranian/Hezbollah telecom network be removed. That means, for all practical purposes, that the Lebanese government is powerless to stop Iran from unifying its international militias, compromising Lebanese communications and perhaps most importantly, building up Hezbollah’s military and political power in the region.

It still remains to be seen if these measures will hold the tide of violence back or if there will be a larger civil war as the weeks go on. Tensions are undoubtedly running high, and the Iranian/Hezbollah telecom network’s fruits have yet to be seen. That sort of intel gathering capability doesn’t point to any good possibilities, but what exactly will develop from it is, as of yet, conjecture.

What is clear is that Hezbollah has been rebuilding its weapons stocks, UNFIL forces seem to be impotent and, in effect, have covered up (or at least, has been in absolutely no hurry to publicize) facts that would be embarrassing to them. All that, of course, in the context of Jumblatt advocating a ban on all Iranian flights into Beirut due to the possibility for weapons smuggling. Demands which would later coincide and/or lead to the removal of the airport security chief.

Should there be a full blown coup, however, it is uncertain at best that the Lebanese government would maintain power, especially without foreign intervention. Should Hezbollah seize political control of Lebanon, it would essentially mean that Iran would now have a border with Israel. For that reason, among others, any further escalation of the conflict has a very real potential to go international, if not inter-regional. Especially since the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis has been drawing increasing flak from the Arab League and Saudi Arabia in particular. With all that being the case, there is a very real potential for the Sunni/Shia dynamic to be given prominence, as any proxy fight between the theocratic states of Iran and Saudi Arabia would get messy, fast.

[BrainGlutton]

Now Beirut is quiet, but they’re fighting in Tripoli.

[FinnAgain]

+1 posts, good for you.

@the post before yours

Current news is that Hezbolah and/or Hezbollah aligned forces, made a bid for Trippoli, with pro-government supporters fighting them and, evidently, the Lebanese army being called into play. Interestingly enough, the current calm in Beirut is largely due to the government backing down on its demands that the Iranian/Hezbollah telecom network be removed.

At least you didn’t start a new thread in GD though.

[Trollhaugen]

Finn, in my opinion, your posts are full of quality information, but you come across as a dick.

[FinnAgain]

If the accusation is that I’m rude to people who shouldn’t be posting in threads of this sort in the first place, who spread misinformation and ignorance like cats shred fur, whose presence in a thread of this sort amounts to them crapping in public?
Then fair enough, I wouldn’t argue with that.
I am rude to people like that, as they’re borderline trolls whose very posts are spreading, not fighting, ignorance.

People who debate honestly, intelligently and knowledgeably generally get no snark from me.
Others, no so much.

[DanBlather]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Israel doesn’t fuck around. You would think that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would quit fucking with them, as Israeli responses typically are FAR heavier-handed than the incident that prompted the reaction.

It’s because they fear humiliation more than death. This sort of “honor society” causes all sorts of problems. You see it in the middle east, the American south, and in black American culture.