Are Older Men in Thailand Trading Love for Financial Ruin

[webfact]

Hezbollah leader says U.S. actions aiding Islamic State in Syria

 

Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters during a public appearance at a religious procession to mark Ashura in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon October 12, 2016. REUTERS/Aziz Taher

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Sunday that the United States was serving the interests of Islamic State by preventing the Syrian army and its allies advancing in some areas of eastern Syria.

 

American jets have this year targeted pro-government militias in eastern Syria that were advancing towards Washington's local allies.

 

Nasrallah said the United States was delaying the Syrian military in its battle to retake territory from Islamic State.

"The American air force in some areas prevents the Syrian army and its allies from advancing in areas controlled by Islamic State," said the leader of Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi'ite movement designated by Washington as a terrorist group.

 

"The Americans are working to hinder the battle against Islamic State," he said in a speech, part of a commemoration for Hezbollah fighters killed in clashes against Islamic State.

 

His comments came after a senior U.S. official said President Donald Trump was considering putting sanctions on Iran for its support of Hezbollah, and as the U.S. Congress prepares to consider tighter sanctions on Hezbollah itself.

 

The battlefield situation in Syrian is complex, comprising both a civil war that pits Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government against rebels, as well as two separate campaigns against Islamic State.

 

The Syrian army, backed by Russia, Iran and Shi'ite militias including Hezbollah, has advanced against Islamic State in an offensive across the central Syrian desert in recent months.

 

The United States is meanwhile leading a rival international coalition against the Sunni jihadists that includes an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias.

 

Russia and the United States have put in place measures to prevent outright conflict between the two offensives against Islamic State, but there have been times when they fired on each other.

 

Security sources in Lebanon have said that Hezbollah has lost hundreds of fighters in Syria since it entered the conflict in support of Assad in 2013 against rebel groups.

 

Last week Islamic State counter attacks against the Syrian army and its allies killed a number of Hezbollah fighters including a senior commander, Ali al-Hadi al-Asheq.

 

(Reporting By Angus McDowall; Editing by Pravin Char)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters Full story:

[boomerangutang]

Ummm, let's see; the enemy of my enemy is my friend, ....so the friend of my friend is my enemy, .....and the enemy of my enemy of my friend of my enemy is my...... ?  Ummm, I don't know.  In the Middle East every entity seems to be the enemy of every other entity.  

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah

This man is a coward and hypocrite, hiding in bunker like a sewer rat

fearing an imminent Israeli drone/gunship rocket, he should be the last

person to have the right to speak about what the US is doing,

sending tens of thousands of his man to fight and die in a land 

that doesn't belong to them and a cause that doesn't concern them and 

being Iran proxy and a army for hire.....

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

The coalition in Iraq seems to be doing a great job.  This guy needs to go.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22031/isis-fighters-are-surrendering-en-masse-iraq-emily-zanotti

SIS Fighters Are Surrendering 'En Masse' In Iraq

The "soldiers of Allah" who promised to be martyrs aren't being fed or paid.

[ilostmypassword]

17 hours ago, ezzra said:

This man is a coward and hypocrite, hiding in bunker like a sewer rat fearing an imminent Israeli drone/gunship rocket, he should be the last person to have the right to speak about what the US is doing, sending tens of thousands of his man to fight and die in a land that doesn't belong to them and a cause that doesn't concern them and being Iran proxy and a army for hire.....

 

 

 

The day American Presidents dismiss their secret service protection is the day you can legitimately call the leader of Hezbollah a coward.

[ilostmypassword]

46 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The coalition in Iraq seems to be doing a great job.  This guy needs to go.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22031/isis-fighters-are-surrendering-en-masse-iraq-emily-zanotti

SIS Fighters Are Surrendering 'En Masse' In Iraq

The "soldiers of Allah" who promised to be martyrs aren't being fed or paid.

So you think Hezbollah is not fighting ISIS and similar Sunni extremists? Really?

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The day American Presidents dismiss their secret service protection is the day you can legitimately call the leader of Hezbollah a coward.

I've yet to see an American President (or that of any Western nation) hiding like this guy.  Coward is an appropriate term.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you think Hezbollah is not fighting ISIS and similar Sunni extremists? Really?

Guaranteed Hezbollah isn't ONLY fighting ISIS.  And what constitutes a Sunni extremist?  One who's against Assad?  Really?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Guaranteed Hezbollah isn't ONLY fighting ISIS.  And what constitutes a Sunni extremist?  One who's against Assad?  Really?

Thanks for putting words (figuratively) in my mouth Now tell me where I defined a Sunni extremist as "one who's against Assad." I don't see how else your remarks can be construed except as being directed at me. Unless of course, in your post you were having a debate with yourself. In that case, let us know who won. But if you weren't debating yourself, then your comment was very very dishonest.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, ezzra said:

This man is a coward and hypocrite, hiding in bunker like a sewer rat

fearing an imminent Israeli drone/gunship rocket, he should be the last

person to have the right to speak about what the US is doing,

sending tens of thousands of his man to fight and die in a land 

that doesn't belong to them and a cause that doesn't concern them and 

being Iran proxy and a army for hire.....

 

No matter what you think, Hezbollah fight in Syria with the permission and support of the Syrian military i.e. Assad, so legitimate presence from a Syrian dictatorship POV. It is claimed Hezbollah have been effective against the Sunni Islamist extremist forces. As Craig and others have mentioned a very complex environment.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I've yet to see an American President (or that of any Western nation) hiding like this guy.  Coward is an appropriate term.

When the American skies start being filled with assassination drones and jets targeting the President, then your comparison would be a valid one. Until then, it's really not too bright. I remember when Bill Maher made himself very unpopular by pointing out that, despite what was being widely said, the the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards. They sacrificed themselves for their cause. That's not the hallmark of a coward. They were despicable, but they werent' cowards. But calling your enemies cowards is the hallmark who are too overcome by emotion to think clearly. And it leads to believing that they will run away at the first sign of danger. That kind of thinking didn't work too well in Iraq.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

When the American skies start being filled with assassination drones and jets targeting the President, then your comparison would be a valid one. Until then, it's really not too bright. I remember when Bill Maher made himself very unpopular by pointing out that, despite what was being widely said, the the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards. They sacrificed themselves for their cause. That's not the hallmark of a coward. They were despicable, but they werent' cowards. But calling your enemies cowards is the hallmark who are too overcome by emotion to think clearly. And it leads to believing that they will run away at the first sign of danger. That kind of thinking didn't work too well in Iraq.

Luckily, that probably won't happen.  We've got a form of government that's much better than Syria.  Where a brutal dictator has turned his country into a war zone.

 

You are a coward if you kill innocent people.  Nuff said.  Insane you are backing these nut jobs.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Luckily, that probably won't happen.  We've got a form of government that's much better than Syria.  Where a brutal dictator has turned his country into a war zone.

 

You are a coward if you kill innocent people.  Nuff said.  Insane you are backing these nut jobs.

Thanks for the new definition of coward. It would of course be nitpicking to note that your definition does not appear in any dictionary I could find. Apparently, you are now the new Humpty Dumpty of English. And, of course, your definition would also apply to armed forces on all sides of the conflict who kill innocent people. Given your definition, are there any forces there that are not led by cowards?  

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, simple1 said:

No matter what you think, Hezbollah fight in Syria with the permission and support of the Syrian military i.e. Assad, so legitimate presence from a Syrian dictatorship POV. It is claimed Hezbollah have been effective against the Sunni Islamist extremist forces. As Craig and others have mentioned a very complex environment.

 

The legitimacy of inviting a non-government militia from one neighboring state, and which is financed and directed by yet another, could be argued. 

 

 

[craigt3365]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for the new definition of coward. It would of course be nitpicking to note that your definition does not appear in any dictionary I could find. Apparently, you are now the new Humpty Dumpty of English. And, of course, your definition would also apply to armed forces on all sides of the conflict who kill innocent people. Given your definition, are there any forces there that are not led by cowards?  

Be nice.  Personal jabs aren't appropriate.  You know that.

 

Yes, forces led by their commanders, in the front line, are not cowards.  Though rare these days.

 

Again, amazing you attack me and provide support for this killer.  Though you do the same for Assad and Kim in NK.

[Morch]

Political leaders aren't usually at the forefront, but Nasrallah does take this to a different level. And, of course, he is in no way the equivalent of POTUS. Rather, he heads a sectarian political movement with its own militia. While not officially representing Lebanon, he does take actions (or is directed to take actions) influencing the country as a whole.

 

Hezbollah was effective in fighting ISIS and other Sunni extremists organizations, even if this came at a high price casualty wise. That said, anything coming from Nasrallah is calculated and aimed at furthering political goals (either those organic to Hezbollah, or their Iranian masters). Taking his comments at face value or treating them as objective observations is misguided, at best.

 

 

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The legitimacy of inviting a non-government militia from one neighboring state, and which is financed and directed by yet another, could be argued. 

 

 

Who exactly invited the US in?

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Be nice.  Personal jabs aren't appropriate.  You know that.

 

Yes, forces led by their commanders, in the front line, are not cowards.  Though rare these days.

 

Again, amazing you attack me and provide support for this killer.  Though you do the same for Assad and Kim in NK.

What forces are led by commanders in the front lines? Modern warfare has long since dispensed with that. But if it's the case, then the militaries of virtually all nations are led by cowards since the people making the decision on deploying front line troops are virtually always elsewhere. And there's a really sound reason for that.

 

And I don't know that the leader of Hezbollah is worse than some - if not all - of the non-Islamist forces he contends with.

 

And if you're reference to personal jabs has something to do my reference to Humpty-Dumpty, it's just that you, like he, apparently believe that you get to decide what words mean. You don't.

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Who exactly invited the US in?

Excellent point.  It was the rebels fighting against Assad, who initiated the violence.  If you remember correctly....

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Excellent point.  It was the rebels fighting against Assad, who initiated the violence.  If you remember correctly....

So if you approve of that, then you should have no problem with Hezbollah soliciting support from the Iranians in Lebanon.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So if you approve of that, then you should have no problem with Hezbollah soliciting support from the Iranians in Lebanon.

As long as no innocent civilians are hurt, they can have at it!

[simple1]

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The legitimacy of inviting a non-government militia from one neighboring state, and which is financed and directed by yet another, could be argued. 

 

 

True. But for the moment so far as I know realpolitik reigns

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As long as no innocent civilians are hurt, they can have at it!

Does that caveat apply to all parties or just to Hezbollah?

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Who exactly invited the US in?

 

If you're looking for an argument, you'd have to find someone making a strong case about the legality of USA presence in Syria. Think I acknowledged, on many topics, that even if one supports the USA's intervention in Syria, the legal angle is problematic.

 

That said, it doesn't change the comment made in my previous post.

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So if you approve of that, then you should have no problem with Hezbollah soliciting support from the Iranians in Lebanon.

 

The Iranian involvement in Lebanon and with the Hezbollah is nothing like the Hezbollah's involvement in Syria. Very different scenarios. The problem with Lebanon is that Hezbollah effectively carries its own foreign relations and security policies, while not being the official sovereign, and not bearing the responsibility for the consequences of these policies.

If Hezbollah was engaged in civil war like scenario, and sovereignty would be disputed, the comparison would be more suitable.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you're looking for an argument, you'd have to find someone making a strong case about the legality of USA presence in Syria. Think I acknowledged, on many topics, that even if one supports the USA's intervention in Syria, the legal angle is problematic.

 

That said, it doesn't change the comment made in my previous post.

It makes your comments hypocryte.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

The Iranian involvement in Lebanon and with the Hezbollah is nothing like the Hezbollah's involvement in Syria. Very different scenarios. The problem with Lebanon is that Hezbollah effectively carries its own foreign relations and security policies, while not being the official sovereign, and not bearing the responsibility for the consequences of these policies.

If Hezbollah was engaged in civil war like scenario, and sovereignty would be disputed, the comparison would be more suitable.

The issue was whether non governmental military organizations have the right to ask for foreign intervention. I was just pointing out that if one poster felt that if  rebel groups in Syria had that right, why not Hezbollah also?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It makes your comments hypocryte.

 

How so?

 

I point out it could be argued that inviting Hezbollah, a non-government player, supported by another interested party is legally questionable. I also concur that the USA status on that front is problematic, if for other reasons. It's not a zero sum game.

[jgarbo]

Just now, Morch said:

 

How so?

 

I point out it could be argued that inviting Hezbollah, a non-government player, supported by another interested party is legally questionable. I also concur that the USA status on that front is problematic, if for other reasons. It's not a zero sum game.

Hezbollah is a legitimate political party of the Lebanese govt. Do some research before wasting time.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, jgarbo said:

Hezbollah, Iran & Russia were invited by Syria to defeat the CIA/Mossad backed ISIS terrorists, which they are doing. The US has invaded Syria, while Israel continues its illegal occupation of Syrian land. Do some research.

Lots of bad things are happening in the Middle East. Not all of them are because of Israel.