Some of the latest articles on Hezbollah and Syria indicate that this is a realistic possibility.
Their attacks on the US almost entirely centered around Lebanon.
So the facts I could obtain from your diatribe: Hezbollah last spoke clearly about their support for Assad (something I never doubted or argued) in December. That’s 8 months in a quickly changing war. You’d think they would do something.
Ah, I see that now you’re complaining about an imaginary “diatribe”. Oddly, you still haven’t been able to explain how you cited an article which debunks your wilfully ignorant nonsense and which confirm everything I’ve said, but boy you’d like to change the subject.
You cited an article which stated, in black and white, that Hezbollah would get involved “if there was foreign intervention”… while you were demanding that I provide a citation for Hezbollah potentially getting involved due to our foreign intervention. You provide a cite stating that Hezbollah will not possibly abandon the Assad regime, and then claim that Nashrallah’s pronouncements have an 8 (6? 4?) month shelf life and we should ignore his statements now, and you apparently honestly don’t understand why the fact that Hezbollah stands with Assad might just be important if we attack Assad. You’re also arguing out of both sides of your mouth, literally sentence to sentence. First you claim that you never “doubted or argued” about Hezbollah’s support for Assad (although you are unable to extrapolate what Hezbollah might do if we attack Assad) and then claim that, well, that support was 8 months ago in a “quickly changing war” and claim that surely Hezbollah would have “[done] something”. Of course, your noncomprehension on that point appears willful, as you just provided an article (kindly refuting your own claims) from the dim, dark past of two weeks ago which stated “Hezbollah has shown no sign of abandoning Assad and Lebanese officials close to the group say it won’t stand idle if the battle worsens.”
*
Of course, your obfuscation about Nashrallah’s 8 month old quote again strongly suggests that you didn’t read your own citation, as it clearly states that Nashrallah reiterated his support of Assad a matter of weeks ago and clarified that he views it as part of a battle against America/Israel. “(The goal was) after destroying the resistance in Lebanon to topple President Bashar al-Assad, destroy Syria and submit it to the American-Israeli agenda,” That you wish to handwave away potential retaliation in a battle Hezbollah sees as between it and America/Israel is an absurdity. *
Torrejon, Spain. TWA flight 847. Khobar Towers.
Unsurprisingly, you are wrong.
You have nothing, at all. Your own cites put paid to your claims. You cannot gainsay the facts. You will not even recognize or acknowledge the facts. Of course, with estimates putting the number of Heabolah operatives in the US in the hundreds, this is not an issue which is simply limited to you tossing out a bullshit argument in GD, Inbred.
This has been major news for a while, and is pretty much prerequisite readingbefore one adopts a position.
Meanwhile, we just admitted that we attacked Iran’s nuclear program, we’re working to undermine Hezbollah’s munitions pipeline and Nashrallah has publicly likened our interest in Syria to an American-Iraeli plot. Against this backdrop it is willful ignorance of the first order to try and claim that potential Hezbollah retaliation isn’t a concern that Americans should have.
Non-combatants, maybe, but their presence in Lebanon makes a hell of a difference, especially given the situation there at the time (and for the record, French troops in Lebanon where killed in the same fashion and at the same time, so it’s not something I had never considered)
As for Saudi Arabia, I’ll have to look up what attack you’re referring to, but I must say that “at the government request”, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, is essentially meaningless to me. I utterly despise the Saudi regime (it’s on my personal “axis of evil” list) and nothing they can do appears legitimate to me. You could as well write “at the request of the North Korean government”, as far as I’m concerned.
And I maintain what I said previously and that you didn’t address : attacking the USA would be a very counter productive action for people who support Assad. Non only it wouldn’t help Assad in any way, shape or form, but it would be the best way to ensure a larger American support to the rebels or direct action against the Hezbollah itself. “Those fucktards bombed us” would give legitimacy to about anything. They are way more likely to ramp up their policy of sending fighters in Syria or killing Syrian militants in Lebanon.
In fact, I had already read this article while looking up Hesbollah attacks againgst the USA. However, I’m not convinced by the assessment made (I mean about the possibility of an attack on US soil, not about the presence of militants in the USA).
It means that the US forces weren’t invaders and were still targeted in a terrorist attack when they were threatening neither Iran nor Hezbollah.
I thought that was an error on your part because as a non-native English speaker you’d confused retaliation with defense. I never claimed it was a defensive measure, but a retaliatory one. And if you know anything about the history of Hezbollah, they certainly don’t shy from drawing massive, overwhelming force upon themselves if their politics demand military action be taken. The fact that they also may become involved in Syrian domestic military issues hardly precludes their involvement in external military activities.
Further, your handwaving of the possibility for attacks against America lacks persuasiveness. As you see to be unaware of Hezbollah’s nature, being ignorant of the Khobar Towers bombing and the Jewish Community Center bombing, just as two examples, one has to wonder what, precisely, the source of your disagreement is. Seriously, doesn’t it give you any pause that you adopted a stance of disbelief and denial of potential Hezbollah attacks on the US, evidently before you had to go to the length of “looking up Hesbollah attacks againgst the USA”, because you were unaware of the full history before you decided to come to a conclusion about it?
My answer to both points is the same. I don’t believe it will happen because it isn’t a sensible course of action. Of course, sending men in Syria doesn’t preclude bombing a stadium in the USA. But doing so would for instance result in even Russia having to admit that American retaliations are justified. And even assuming that Hezbollah leadership thinks it’s a bright idea, it’s not like they aren’t in touch with and dependant from both Syria and Iran. I don’t believe they would launch an attack against the USA in the current context without the greenlight of Damas and Teheran. And there’s no way either would want this to happen.
Well, it’s clearly a case of whether they want to or not. They can do it if they want to. They can probably carry out a lot of simultaneous attacks if they want to if they’ve got such a large network. While 9/11 was devastating, I’ve always felt a lot of smaller attacks all over the nation would generate more fear and confusion.
Yes, I agree with you on this point.
There are 15 million Alawites in Turkey-will they stand by if their Syrian co-religionists are massacred? Henry Kissinger thinks that Syria may well break up-can a nation exist that has such religious hatreds embedded in it?
15 million Alawites in Turkey? No, there are not 15 million Alawites in Turkey. There are roughly 10 - 15 million Alevis in Turkey. They are primarily Turkish and Kurdish. I do not think they would like to be grouped with Alawites. Although they are Shia muslims. There are less than 500,000 Alawites in Turkey and likewise, I do not think they would like to be considered Alevis:
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
In order to avoid confusion with Alevis, they prefer the self-appellation Arap Alevileri (“Arab Alevis”) in Turkish.
[/QUOTE]
The facts being what they are, I rank this concern slightly more probably than Hezbollah attacking the USA over a rebellion in Syria
That is certainly a more intellectually honest way of saying that other than “more probably than Hezbollah attacking the US over the facts that the US publicly admitting that it successfully attacked Iran’s nuclear program via cyber warfare and the US is now publicly revealed that it will be aiding rebels who aim at closing off Hezbollah’s arms pipeline and removing Assad from power.”
Obviously, the other facts simply complicate the calculations and should be ignored.
OK, when comparing the chances of the 15 million Alawites in Turkey rising up in conflict to support their Syrian brothers to the chances of the USA suffering an attack by Hezbollah over its minor role in supporting the rebels, I will have to say it is ever so slightly more likely that Hezbollah will attack the USA.
I’m compelled to point out that the report was headed by Peter King, the New York congressman who has notable positions such as being neck-deep in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, has said the “80-85%” of mosques in the US are run by radical Muslims, has said that “no Muslim-American leaders” are helping the US on anti-terrorism measures, that Guananamo should remain open and waterboarding should continue, and that Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization.
Finn, this is really the guy that you think should be on prople’s required reading list?
Of course it can; Lebanon still exists.
Worse yet, the testimony in question comes from “Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy” – and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a motherfucking AIPAC sock. :mad:
SourceWatch is your friend.
Well come on. Good guys in the Mideast are few and far between. There is no black and white, there are only shades of gray there … often, MORE THAN fifty shades of gray! Most of them are deeply, horribly sexist to one degree or another, most hate Israelis, most hate the US as well. But we should stick to our principles, go for what maximizes freedom and democracy for people in the Mideast and hope the culture there modernizes. Western culture is a lot more FUN than the stuff they got in the Middle East for your average guy or gal, if we can keep the channels of communication open, they’ll come around eventually.
Who is Sourcewatch and why should they be considered reliable?
Are they the people that informed you that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt weren’t extremists and were no different than the Christian Democratic Parties in Europe?
FWIW, the report is correct that it was founded by Martin Indyck who was a member of AIPAC and went on to be a US Ambassador to Israel.
Unless you’re claiming that somehow it wasn’t a committee and King and/or got the write the report, then it’s not terribly relevant. Claiming that I’ve suggested that Peter King should be on someone’s “required reading list” is beneath you, Raven. Besides, the report’s conclusions were not particularly novel and we’ve known, for years now, that Hezbollah has numerous members in the United States. The idea that any findings of the US House Committee on Homeland Security should be ignored because King wrangled himself a chairman’s spot is shaky enough of a claim without then implying that I’ve somehow personally endorsed King.
Why, you might as well try to handwave the whole thing away with a Conspiracy Theorist interpretation of the fact that one person (utterly without credibility, eh, eh?)who offered testimony happens to be from an think tank which AIPAC founded and while nefariously published an “endless” number of press releases and then you could darkly hint at What He Must Be Up To due to his Zionist masters’ plans and… oh…
Meanwhile, while Glutton is focusing on some good ol’ fashioned character assassination and ad hominem CT’ing, if we get past Glutton’s 'Ayieeee, AIPAC pawn!!!" schtick, it’s clear thatthe report was solid. Read Swecker’s testimony for a start, although he’s probably under AIPAC’s control too, I’m sure.
Of course, as I said, this has been big news for a while and should’ve been read prior to debates such as this. Clapper’s testimony, for instance, was that Iran is now more willing to strike at the US in response to perceived threats against their regime is particularly relevant as we’ve just admitted attacking their nuclear program and we’re now publicly acting to topple their ally in the region. Even a skeptical read of King’s claimsstill concludes that Hezbollah has the capability to attack the US on our soil or attack American interests abroad (although does include a caveat that some in Hezbollah would be wary of attacking on American soil due to its importance as a fundraising locus):
What on earth are you talking about, this being “beneath” me? You said reading the report is a “pretty much a prerequisite” for holding an opinion on your assertions. I pointed out that the committee chairman has a pretty robust history of taking controversial stands on issues relating to terrorism and Islam, which is entirely relevant to this matter. (I’ll take this moment to point out that I previously did not raise King’s support for the Provisional IRA because I do not believe his support for THAT kind of terrorism is relevant to this discussion.)
And allow me to correct something: the report you are referencing is not a bipartisan product of the entire committee. The report referenced in the news article you linked to is here: the report consists only of the findings of the Republican members of the committee. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee, said that the report was based on “outdated” information and that the committee “should not engage in a public discussion that creates fear and delivers misinformation.”
You’ve endorsed the work that King’s committee did on a partisan basis. Why you’re calling for me to be ashamed of questioning your cite on this matter is totally baffling to me.