Do you feel I maligned BG? I certainly wasn’t intending to?
Do you feel I maligned Finkelstein? Again, not my intention.
I was merely making a joke.
Was your point that you think we should classify most Jewish Americans S biased and
unreliable regarding Israel because most, to one extent or another consider themselves
Zionists?
Respectfully I’d disagree, but posters have insisted that I can’t be trusted because of my nationality when discussing the Middle East so if it’s kosher to say Iranian Americans can’t be trusted it’s certainly hallal to say that Jewish-Americans can’t be trusted.
If that’s how you feel, about Iranian-Americans or Jewish-Americans just say it, because no serious person is going to argue it’s worse than saying blacks are mentally inferior to whites.
The answer to that is obvious – they shot their bolt. But Hezbollah hasn’t. Why have they not attacked in the U.S., if they have the capability? Surely what you were talking about, Stuxnet, etc., is sufficient provocation?
Nope, still not elevated above Truther rhetoric. The idea that a terrorist organization can “shoot their bolt” is amusing enough, but Al Quaeda attacked the WTC not once but twice and the fact that there were no attacks post 9/11 led many to claim that Al Quaeda was a fictitious organization and/or that it was no longer a threat and/or that we could ignore highly credentialed analysts because they’re Zionist pawns (whoops, sorry, that’s you, not the Truthers).
Meanwhile, we have Hezbollah agents in the United States. Why have they not struck yet? Maybe they’re waiting to see what happens in Syria. Maybe, as is Hezbollah’s MO, they’re planning terrorist operations once any proximal threat to them has passed. Maybe Nahrallah and his handlers in Tehran are debating strategies and targets. Maybe they’re planning on targeting American interests/troops/tourists and/or more Jewish community centers abroad. Etc, etc, etc. And, of course, maybe they won’t attack.
The entire point is the inherent willful ignorance in your (and others’) blithe, facile dismissal of the fact that when we attack a global terrorist organizations munitions pipeline, it’s secondary as well as its major sponsor, and do so publicly, we risk retaliation.
Comparing Hezbollah to Al Quada is really an apples to oranges situation.
Does Hezbollah have the top structure that allows independent groups to operate with limited guidance like AQ (Actually don’t know this really)
Does Hezbollah have a wide base of operations throughout all of the middle east and Europe? (Again don’t know)
Now Hezbollah considers themselves a political party/resistance group of sorts while AQ had no established political philosophies for governing a territory and if they did, it was secondary to their other goals.
The question to ask is how does an attack by Hezbollah help them politically (if they truly care about that side of the equation at all)? Or are they completely a puppet of Iran and would do whatever was necessary to help Iran even if it hurt them?
Hezbollah doe not carry out any operations that are not in Lebanon or Isreal.
There are no fund-raising people in the United States, it is illegal to money launder to them. You will be arrested, and the FBI watches this carefully.
Hezbollah does not aim to kill civilians. Look at casualty reports between their wars with Isreal.
I am muslim and from South Lebanon, i’ve lived this my life, i know the facts.
There aim is to proctect Lebanon from Isreal turning it into one of its colonies. For example the West Bank or Gaza.
Except for their operation against the US in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers when they bombed it. And their operation against Jewish civilians in Argentina when they bombed them. And their operation on TWA Flight 847 which they for a change didn’t blow up but did hijack and murdered Robert Stethem. And most likely the recent bombing on the 18th anniversary of their Argentinian bombing, this time in Bulgaria. And…
Wow.
Just wow.
Of course we have sworn testimony of one such cell which was caught and multiple sources stating that it’s the consensus of the intelligence community that there are quite a few more. I think I trust those facts more than your claims.
They thought that their bombs were full of love, who knew that they were filled with explosives?!?
Honest mistake.
And when they were collaborating with Al Quaeda, it was because they thought AQ were pizza delivery folks and, by gum, Hezbollah just wants people to get their pizza hot and fresh.
While the first two clauses may potentially be true,* the third is obviously not.*
Bullshit, the Hezbollah has carried out a number of operations that are not in either Lebanon or “Isreal”(sic).
Of course there are. You might as well claim there weren’t any fund-raising operations for the IRA in the United States.
What the fuck are you talking about and where do you hear such bullshit.
Hezbollah has regularly targeted civilians and has also regularly championed the targeting of civilians.
Are you insisting the Jews in Argentina turned into Kosher hamburger weren’t civilians?
Are you insisting that Hezbollah, on their TV network, didn’t repeatedly champion the “shahids” who during “martyrdom operations” blew up an Sbarro’s?
This is a gigantic load of shit.
“There”(sic) aim is not to “protect Lebanon from Israel” but to do what the government of Iran and the Ayatollah Khamenei tells them to do.
They are not a nationalist organization, but an internationalist organization who specifically chose to call themselves “Hezbollah”, which means “Party of God” in Arabic rather than a name that would label them a Lebanese nationalist organization for a reason.
When formed they swore allegiance to the Ayatollah Khomeini and declared,
The “faqih” they refer to is the philosophy of the Ayatollah Khomeini for any wondering about that comment.
Moreover, they have regularly called not only for getting Israel out of Lebanon, but also called for the extermination of Israel and shelled Israel years after Israel had pulled out of Lebanon so claims that their goal is merely to defend Lebanon is laughable.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how anyone familiar with Lebanon could talk about them opposing making Lebanon into a “colony” of a former power seriously.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Syria’s claims regarding Lebanon, how Syria raged that Lebanon should have been made part of Syria following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire were it not for the racist European imperialists, how for decades Syria refused to recognize the Lebanese government, how to this day maps in Syria don’t show “Lebanon” but merely “Southern Syria”, and how for decades, with the support of Hezbollah, Syrian occupied Northern Lebanon and made it into a de facto colony.
See…this is a good example of another consideration that AQ didn’t have to deal with in the same way. They didn’t have to win the hearts and minds by wearing the white hat and parading around showing off their restraint (like any government would do). Its a much more complicated situation with Hezbollah.
A colony? In Lebanon? What, we don’t have enough problems?
Some people have an over-inflated sense of their own importance. Believe me, if it weren’t for Hizballah, Istael would have no interest in Lebanon whatsoever.
Think about it: Israel occupied a strip of southern Lebanon for almost 20 years (I was there, BTW; beautiful country). Did they found a single settlement? Did they see a cent of financial gain? Of course not. So why would they want more?
Doesn’t necessarily apply Hezbollah in general. Bad example on my part. But they do have to play a different political game and put on a different face publicly than AQ because of how they have chosen to portray themselves. Really no different than any other government or quasi political entity. I was critiquing the comparison to AQ which doesn’t have the same restraints.
Apologies.
Restraint was not the correct word or concept there.
The general comparison was made with regards to “terror cells”. As it were, its a minor point and not really applicable in this discussion. My train of thought took a little detour when I considered why Hezbollah would attack the US with “terror cells” and what the cost/benefit analysis totaled out for them politically.
No it wasn’t. And your scare quotes around a reference to Hezbollah cells lowers your argument.
But as you say it’s a minor point, so be it.
As you’ve stated that you don’t really know much about the basics of the situation that would be a good point to start at before debating it. As Hezbollah has attacked the US before when the US wasn’t threatening them, and now we’ve publicly admitted to attacking Iran’s nuclear program as well as trying to eliminate one of their two state sponsors in the world and their munitions pipeline, your question seems more than a bit Jabberwockian.
If someone will attack you when you aren’t a threat what do you think they may do when you are a threat?
Israel invaded Lebanon twice, first in 1978 and secondly in 1982, before Hezbollah even existed.
In fact, in both occasions Israel didn’t even give a shit about the Shia of Lebanon but were going after the PLO, which had set up their own mini-state within Lebanon.
Initially, the Israelis were actually greeted with enthusiasm by the Lebanese Shia, but such feelings evaporated after the Israelis displayed about as much understanding and sensitivity towards Lebanon as the Americans did towards Vietnam or the Soviets did towards Afghanistan and made the Shia into their enemy.
I’m not saying they wouldn’t. I’m asking is it in their best interests. Support Iran and go toe to toe with the West head on and whatever may come of that. Or attack the US indirectly and maybe get the best of both worlds. Or option 3, say screw Iran and sit this one out and lose your financing and support, but maybe establish a bit of independence which may be good for PR. This is a question that no one can answer right now and is probably at best just a thought exercise. I have no opinion one way or the other.
And as you noted, the only reason Israel invaded Lebanon in the past is because outside elements - in that case, the PLO - had set up shop there. Israel has no interest in Lebanon itself, only in the outsiders (Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians) who choose to make it their battlefield.
And with all due respect, while Israel made many mistakes in Lebanon, one of the main reasons the Shia turned against Israel was due to Iran. Iran sent thousands of Revolutionary Guard operatives to the country in the early 1980’s, and it was they who founded Hizballah, and they who, to a large degree, turned the community against Israel.
Hezbollah was framed for all the attacks that your claiming were outside of Lebanon and Isreal. They also deny having anything to do with them. So don’t tell me they took credit.
It’s funny that Hezbollah are considered terrorists even though there is evidence right in front of your face that Isreali mindlessly kills. Don’t make me bring up the U.S. vs Vietnam. Who is the real terrorist? None of this would even be happening if these Zionists hadn’t kicked Palestinians off there land. Even before Isreal came around, Jews and Palestinians were doing fine together, until the powers had to get involved.
How about the U.N. school isreal bombed? How about the U.N. base?
As for the original question of the thread, i can assure you there are no terror cells of Hezbollah in the U.S. Since first they are not terrorist and have no ties to Al Queda, who actually despise eachother, and the agencies here would catch them very fast.
For example the owner of the old arabic restaurant chain that had to flee the country because they were on to him money laundering.
Hezbollah is not here to control Lebanese society. If they wanted to it would be done. They shut the whole country down one time because their security cameras in the airport were removed. They do not impose laws on anyone, and the only law that goes is that of the current Lebanese government. They have also opened social welfare programs for the people. More than the lebanese government has ever done.