Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I got you trolling point the first time, before you misplaced the poster's handle. Thanks.

What point would that be?

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

What point would that be?

 

Guess the above (and expected future responses) would be another demonstration of your "focus on issues" and not "derailing" topics. Well done.

[khunken]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think you're pretty much on your own there arguing Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. Or alleging that it's "totally false" and nothing but propaganda. Doubt you could cite even one significant instance in which Hezbollah acted directly against Iranian wishes or interests. Doubt you could claim that all them arms supplies, financial support and religious guidance are fiction and do not come with a political price tag attached.

 

There wasn't a claim Israel did not invade and occupy Lebanon. The point made was that you highlighted it, while giving a passing mention to the Syrian occupation or the the civil war. The extra bit cited, does not relate directly to the Hezbollah, though, hence the comment.

 

My post was in reply to yours, which dealt with the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah's patron is Iran. And obviously that was the what my post centered on. The point stands, that while you call for foreign powers to lay off Lebanon's politics, there is no accounting of what this means as far as Hezbollah is concerned. With regard to Saudi Arabia's role in Lebanon, there was nothing said in support of it - and indeed, I'm all in favor of foreign involvement by all parties not being an issue - whether or not this is realistic is another story. But regardless, Saudi Arabia does not have the power (at least not currently) to mobilize a significant military force within the country on a whim, nothing which compares to Hezbollah's and Iran's relations. That doesn't amount to denying they play the field, just that it is of a different nature and scope than Iran's involvement. The Saudis are involved economically and politically, but not militarily. That's quite a difference, and to a degree, this is pretty much what this is about.

 

Your current post, and the previous one ignores Hezbollah status in relation to Lebanese sovereignty. The dual claim of it being both part of government and an organization acting according to other agenda, are problematic when it comes to addressing the latter. It was this issue to which "accepted" was applied - less to do with historical accounts and more with addressing an ongoing issue effecting current events.

 

The Saudi threats are not made in a vacuum, but in the context of the regional power struggle vs. Iran, and Hezbollah's actions. The question is whether Hezbollah's regional actions represents a Lebanese consensus regarding the country's best interests. 

I doubt very much that I am on my own in my opinion that Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. Robert Fisk, who lives in Beirut, said exactly that some years ago but He is an investigative journalist who supports the  Palestinian struggle, so he's probably not on your fan list. Supplying arms is not control otherwise the US controls Saudi Arabia - or does it? Same with financial assistance or the US would be in control of Israel as it supplies both arms & finance. Hezbollah has plenty of it's own mullahs.

No it's influence , rather similar to AIPACs influence in the US. Your list of support does not even come close to circumstantial evidence.

 

Saudi certainly doesn't have the means to fight on the ground (they can't even defeat the Houthis despite all their high-tech weapons) but it does have plenty of proxies in Syria that it can call upon to do any dirty work on its behalf. IS did move into Lebanon at one stage but were kicked out by a combination of the Lebanese army & Hezbollah.

 

I dealt with the claim you made about Hezbollah in my first reply - to repeat: it's no business of SA, US or Israel. It's purely an internal matter for Lebanon. So, no, the real question is whether SA and its supporters will ramp up their interference in Lebanon's affairs, just like they've done with Qatar.

 

BTW I agree that SA's interference is a part of the overall anti-Shia hatred that has come about from their severely reduced attempt to use their proxies (& the US) to bring Syria into the Sunni realm.

[khunken]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What point would that be?

He's making another smug remark about the fact that it was me - not Krataiboy that made the 'influence not control' posting.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, khunken said:

He's making another smug remark about the fact that it was me - not Krataiboy that made the 'influence not control' posting.

Oh, I thought he was saying that there is no significant difference in the meaning of  "influence" and "control" but except when there is. 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, khunken said:

I doubt very much that I am on my own in my opinion that Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. Robert Fisk, who lives in Beirut, said exactly that some years ago but He is an investigative journalist who supports the  Palestinian struggle, so he's probably not on your fan list. Supplying arms is not control otherwise the US controls Saudi Arabia - or does it? Same with financial assistance or the US would be in control of Israel as it supplies both arms & finance. Hezbollah has plenty of it's own mullahs.

No it's influence , rather similar to AIPACs influence in the US. Your list of support does not even come close to circumstantial evidence.

 

Saudi certainly doesn't have the means to fight on the ground (they can't even defeat the Houthis despite all their high-tech weapons) but it does have plenty of proxies in Syria that it can call upon to do any dirty work on its behalf. IS did move into Lebanon at one stage but were kicked out by a combination of the Lebanese army & Hezbollah.

 

I dealt with the claim you made about Hezbollah in my first reply - to repeat: it's no business of SA, US or Israel. It's purely an internal matter for Lebanon. So, no, the real question is whether SA and its supporters will ramp up their interference in Lebanon's affairs, just like they've done with Qatar.

 

BTW I agree that SA's interference is a part of the overall anti-Shia hatred that has come about from their severely reduced attempt to use their proxies (& the US) to bring Syria into the Sunni realm.

 

I'm quite familiar with Robert Fisk's views, thanks. And if may add a quote (from memory) - there's a misconception involving journalist and objectivity.  ere is a misconception that journalists can be objective. Of course, he said quite the opposite on other occasions, and apparently doesn't seem to think this applies to his good self. Sorry if I'm not a fan - think we did the Fisk idolization issue on previous topics. May want to look up "fisking". I don't know that he made the exact same point as you do, and don't know in which context - so kinda hard to respond to that.

 

Saudi Arabia buys arms from the USA, and pays top dollar for that, so not quite the same thing at all. The USA does have some clout with Saudi Arabia, but this goes just so far. As for Israel, the USA does have more leverage - given it's support more than business. This seems to be in line with what I posted earlier. The gap between Hezbollah, as being a non-government agent and Iran as it's patron would be even greater, and appropriately so would the Iranian level of leverage. As for the religious direction, it doesn't apply to the two other countries and the USA. And many, if not most senior Lebanese mullahs had religious training and indoctrination in Iran, or by Iranians. There is no equivalence.

 

AIPAC does not represent a country providing massive military and financial support to the USA, nor is it of any religious significance as far as USA administrations go. I understand the need to muddy the waters by bringing off topic examples, but there's no need to get nonsensical.

 

This topic is about Lebanon, and as you say, the Saudis do not have anything matching Iran's client, Hezbollah. What Saudi Arabia might have had in Syria (and you're either confusing outfits or engaging in conspiracy theories) is not quite relevant. I don't think that you can demonstrate that Islamic organizations in Syria attacked Lebanon on Saudi Arabia's request or direction.

 

You haven't "dealt" with anything, unless that stands for obfuscating and deflecting. The point raised was with regard to Hezbollah's actions outside of Lebanon. But even what you refer to isn't quite so - considering the Hezbollah being Iran's client. I don't think that there's any other faction in Lebanon getting a similar level of support from an outside source based on sectarianism. So by all means - if the Hezbollah doesn't mess with other countries, and does not play to Iran's tune - no issues. As this isn't the case, problems arise.

[khunken]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I'm quite familiar with Robert Fisk's views, thanks. And if may add a quote (from memory) - there's a misconception involving journalist and objectivity.  ere is a misconception that journalists can be objective. Of course, he said quite the opposite on other occasions, and apparently doesn't seem to think this applies to his good self. Sorry if I'm not a fan - think we did the Fisk idolization issue on previous topics. May want to look up "fisking". I don't know that he made the exact same point as you do, and don't know in which context - so kinda hard to respond to that.

 

Saudi Arabia buys arms from the USA, and pays top dollar for that, so not quite the same thing at all. The USA does have some clout with Saudi Arabia, but this goes just so far. As for Israel, the USA does have more leverage - given it's support more than business. This seems to be in line with what I posted earlier. The gap between Hezbollah, as being a non-government agent and Iran as it's patron would be even greater, and appropriately so would the Iranian level of leverage. As for the religious direction, it doesn't apply to the two other countries and the USA. And many, if not most senior Lebanese mullahs had religious training and indoctrination in Iran, or by Iranians. There is no equivalence.

 

AIPAC does not represent a country providing massive military and financial support to the USA, nor is it of any religious significance as far as USA administrations go. I understand the need to muddy the waters by bringing off topic examples, but there's no need to get nonsensical.

 

This topic is about Lebanon, and as you say, the Saudis do not have anything matching Iran's client, Hezbollah. What Saudi Arabia might have had in Syria (and you're either confusing outfits or engaging in conspiracy theories) is not quite relevant. I don't think that you can demonstrate that Islamic organizations in Syria attacked Lebanon on Saudi Arabia's request or direction.

 

You haven't "dealt" with anything, unless that stands for obfuscating and deflecting. The point raised was with regard to Hezbollah's actions outside of Lebanon. But even what you refer to isn't quite so - considering the Hezbollah being Iran's client. I don't think that there's any other faction in Lebanon getting a similar level of support from an outside source based on sectarianism. So by all means - if the Hezbollah doesn't mess with other countries, and does not play to Iran's tune - no issues. As this isn't the case, problems arise.

'Kinda hard to respond to that' but you did anyway, quite at length and I doubt that he said any 'opposite'. 'Doesn't apply to his good self' - not a clue what that means, but Im sure it's a playing the man not the ball tactic which you use quite often.

 

No equivalence you say - rubbish I say. Do you have any evidence that Hezbollah doesn't pay for the arms they get from Iran? Receiving religious instruction in Iran is not any different to Catholics all over the world receiving religious instructions from the Pope. In any case religious indoctrination is nothing like control - it's a take it or leave it activity. All the examples I give you dismiss out of hand - not worth going any further with this as your biased mind is obviously closed.

 

No I'm not dealing with conspiracy theories - there's no conspiracy (outside a Saudi-influenced one) that its proxies still operate in Syria. To you that seems ok, but Hezbollah operating their is not. There is no Lebanese government mandate preventing Hezbollah operating there, as well as inside Lebanon (& in Iraq too) and there is no opposition from either the Syrian or Iraqi governments to having them in their country. And again Iran is NOT Hezbollah's patron - your underhand attempt to continue the control lie.

 

Not a single attempt from you to address all the regimes and militant groups currently being influenced, if not supported & controlled by Saudi Arabia. Apart from the groups in Syria (including Al-Qaeda renamed) there are quite a few: UAE, Bahrain, the Sunnis in Yemen, the Taliban - all except the latter under a form of US patronage.

 

Shias in the Middle East and parts of Asia are currently being killed all over the place by Wahhabi-influenced Sunni militants, not under direct Saudi control but quite often getting their poisonous doctrine from Saudi madrassas. Hezbollah is a bit player in Lebanon, Syria & Iraq - it's not hard to see  which are the real horribly-influenced groups - unless you're an Israeli propagandist.

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, khunken said:

Accepted by who? They are accepted and supported by the majority Shias & their Christian allies so it is no business of SA, US, Israel or any other serial interferer in Lebanon's business. Yes Syria & Iran can be included too.

 

Hezbollah was basically set up as a group following the Invasion of Israel in the early 60's (when Sharon had the Phalange militia murder hundreds of Palestinians in 2 refugee camps in Lebanon). They (rightly) felt that the weak Lebanese army was no match for any invading force in Lebanon. The country has been almost destroyed by the various invasions over the last 60 or so years & it's about time other powers stopped using it as a political football. Given the distrust between the Sunnis & the Phalange on one side & the Shias & the FPN on the other, the country has (IMO wisely) set up a distributional system for major political posts - president. PM & parliament speaker. It has very likely averted all-out civil war given that there has been outbreaks of strife between factions (even Christion on Christian).

 

They are not just an armed militia but also an organisation supporting social services - again plugging a hole in the factionalised government's inability to provide all sorts of services in Lebanon. Of course they have been supported by Iran, just as Hariri's side has been supported by SA (& Israel & US).

 

Hezbollah's main activities don't extend to the US or Europe, unlike the SA covertly-supported AQ & IS.

 

They are partially funded and supported by Iran.  So yes, it's inappropriate for them to be in politics in Lebanon, and they are also a militia with a military force that could be larger than the Lebanese army!  If Iran backed out, then it'd be fine.  But that's not the case.  Hezbollah is a proxy political party for Iran.

 

Hezbollah was setup, funded, initially trained and supported by Iran to go after Israel.  During my trip to Lebanon, many there are NOT happy with what they are doing.  They are one of the big problems there and huge parts of the country are like war zones.  It's insane.  They assassinated Hariri's father in 2008, helped bring down the coalition government, and seem to be at it again.

 

Iran needs to leave.  And so does SA.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

Quote

Hizballah is dedicated to liberating Jerusalem and eliminating Israel, and has formally advocated ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon. Nonetheless, Hizballah has actively participated in Lebanon's political system since 1992. This radical Shia is dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from area. It is strongly anti-Western and anti-Israeli.

 

This is not an organization Lebanon needs. 

 

As I've said before, Iran and SA are the biggest problem in the ME.

[DaddyWarbucks]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm quite familiar with Robert Fisk's views, thanks. And if may add a quote (from memory) - there's a misconception involving journalist and objectivity.  ere is a misconception that journalists can be objective. Of course, he said quite the opposite on other occasions, and apparently doesn't seem to think this applies to his good self. Sorry if I'm not a fan - think we did the Fisk idolization issue on previous topics. May want to look up "fisking". I don't know that he made the exact same point as you do, and don't know in which context - so kinda hard to respond to that.

 

Saudi Arabia buys arms from the USA, and pays top dollar for that, so not quite the same thing at all. The USA does have some clout with Saudi Arabia, but this goes just so far. As for Israel, the USA does have more leverage - given it's support more than business. This seems to be in line with what I posted earlier. The gap between Hezbollah, as being a non-government agent and Iran as it's patron would be even greater, and appropriately so would the Iranian level of leverage. As for the religious direction, it doesn't apply to the two other countries and the USA. And many, if not most senior Lebanese mullahs had religious training and indoctrination in Iran, or by Iranians. There is no equivalence.

 

AIPAC does not represent a country providing massive military and financial support to the USA, nor is it of any religious significance as far as USA administrations go. I understand the need to muddy the waters by bringing off topic examples, but there's no need to get nonsensical.

 

This topic is about Lebanon, and as you say, the Saudis do not have anything matching Iran's client, Hezbollah. What Saudi Arabia might have had in Syria (and you're either confusing outfits or engaging in conspiracy theories) is not quite relevant. I don't think that you can demonstrate that Islamic organizations in Syria attacked Lebanon on Saudi Arabia's request or direction.

 

You haven't "dealt" with anything, unless that stands for obfuscating and deflecting. The point raised was with regard to Hezbollah's actions outside of Lebanon. But even what you refer to isn't quite so - considering the Hezbollah being Iran's client. I don't think that there's any other faction in Lebanon getting a similar level of support from an outside source based on sectarianism. So by all means - if the Hezbollah doesn't mess with other countries, and does not play to Iran's tune - no issues. As this isn't the case, problems arise.

 

8 hours ago, khunken said:

'Kinda hard to respond to that' but you did anyway, quite at length and I doubt that he said any 'opposite'. 'Doesn't apply to his good self' - not a clue what that means, but Im sure it's a playing the man not the ball tactic which you use quite often.

 

No equivalence you say - rubbish I say. Do you have any evidence that Hezbollah doesn't pay for the arms they get from Iran? Receiving religious instruction in Iran is not any different to Catholics all over the world receiving religious instructions from the Pope. In any case religious indoctrination is nothing like control - it's a take it or leave it activity. All the examples I give you dismiss out of hand - not worth going any further with this as your biased mind is obviously closed.

 

No I'm not dealing with conspiracy theories - there's no conspiracy (outside a Saudi-influenced one) that its proxies still operate in Syria. To you that seems ok, but Hezbollah operating their is not. There is no Lebanese government mandate preventing Hezbollah operating there, as well as inside Lebanon (& in Iraq too) and there is no opposition from either the Syrian or Iraqi governments to having them in their country. And again Iran is NOT Hezbollah's patron - your underhand attempt to continue the control lie.

 

Not a single attempt from you to address all the regimes and militant groups currently being influenced, if not supported & controlled by Saudi Arabia. Apart from the groups in Syria (including Al-Qaeda renamed) there are quite a few: UAE, Bahrain, the Sunnis in Yemen, the Taliban - all except the latter under a form of US patronage.

 

Shias in the Middle East and parts of Asia are currently being killed all over the place by Wahhabi-influenced Sunni militants, not under direct Saudi control but quite often getting their poisonous doctrine from Saudi madrassas. Hezbollah is a bit player in Lebanon, Syria & Iraq - it's not hard to see  which are the real horribly-influenced groups - unless you're an Israeli propagandist.

 

 

Thanks for an excellent reply to that verbose, agenda-driven nonsense.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, khunken said:

'Kinda hard to respond to that' but you did anyway, quite at length and I doubt that he said any 'opposite'. 'Doesn't apply to his good self' - not a clue what that means, but Im sure it's a playing the man not the ball tactic which you use quite often.

 

No equivalence you say - rubbish I say. Do you have any evidence that Hezbollah doesn't pay for the arms they get from Iran? Receiving religious instruction in Iran is not any different to Catholics all over the world receiving religious instructions from the Pope. In any case religious indoctrination is nothing like control - it's a take it or leave it activity. All the examples I give you dismiss out of hand - not worth going any further with this as your biased mind is obviously closed.

 

No I'm not dealing with conspiracy theories - there's no conspiracy (outside a Saudi-influenced one) that its proxies still operate in Syria. To you that seems ok, but Hezbollah operating their is not. There is no Lebanese government mandate preventing Hezbollah operating there, as well as inside Lebanon (& in Iraq too) and there is no opposition from either the Syrian or Iraqi governments to having them in their country. And again Iran is NOT Hezbollah's patron - your underhand attempt to continue the control lie.

 

Not a single attempt from you to address all the regimes and militant groups currently being influenced, if not supported & controlled by Saudi Arabia. Apart from the groups in Syria (including Al-Qaeda renamed) there are quite a few: UAE, Bahrain, the Sunnis in Yemen, the Taliban - all except the latter under a form of US patronage.

 

Shias in the Middle East and parts of Asia are currently being killed all over the place by Wahhabi-influenced Sunni militants, not under direct Saudi control but quite often getting their poisonous doctrine from Saudi madrassas. Hezbollah is a bit player in Lebanon, Syria & Iraq - it's not hard to see  which are the real horribly-influenced groups - unless you're an Israeli propagandist.

 

 

 

My response was not specifically about Fisk's alleged opinion, which you claimed was supporting the exact point you are failing to make. No clear reference was provided, and the same goes for the context in which things were said. Hence, it is hard to specifically address such a claim as you made. Since you've also went on praising Fisk, I have added a comment regarding my take of his views and an anecdote. Doubt you did not understand it, but to make it clearer - on one occasion, Fisk opined that reporters cannot be (or cannot be expected to be) objective, while on other occasions he makes opposite statements. This usually takes the form of preaching, rather than applied to his own work. I guess that going on about the man is acceptable only when it suits you, but not otherwise.

 

That you say something is rubbish, doesn't make your argument. Legitimate arms deals are usually reported, and I do not recall any report mentioning Hezbollah payments for arms received from Iran. Considering the amount and level of arms supplied, your comment doesn't even begin to make sense. Additionally, it still runs counter to your supposed position regarding foreign intervention in Lebanon and fails to address Hezbollah's role vs. Lebanese sovereignty.

 

As for the odd comparison to the Pope's role - which does not include messing with politics or inducing involvement in military operations in other countries. On top of which, the Pope does not represent, nor is part of, a country aiming to achieve regional ascendancy or which is at political odds with other regional powers. The original Hezbollah manifesto made this allegiance pretty clear with regard to Iran's supreme leader's role - both political and spiritual. Religious indoctrination being a "take it or leave it activity" is, to put it mildly, not much of a compelling statement in the context discussed. Attempting to minimize religious authority and role in this cannot even be called misinformed.

 

You are dealing with conspiracy theories, by conflating supposed allegiances of different extremist Islamic groups in Syria. You also fail to demonstrate Saudi Arabia's ability to harness them into direct action against Lebanon or that such happened under Saudi instruction. I made no comment in this discussion, which could be construed as approval for whatever regional power operating in other countries via non-state agents and organizations. The claim that it "seems ok" to me, is based on nothing but your imagination.

 

Other than Hezbollah, there are no major factions in Lebanon which are supportive of Lebanese direct involvement in the civil war. Saying that the Lebanese government does not have a mandate to prevent the Hezbollah from doing so may be contested, but even if this wasn't - that's pretty much the point made: that a non-state organization conducts a foreign and security policy which is not consensual nor necessarily in line with the country's interests. The same goes for Hezbollah's actions and involvement with regard to other conflict and countries. Whether it is operating from within Lebanon or outside it's borders is immaterial - the point stands that such actions are not mandated by Lebanon as a whole. Whether or not other countries condone this is irrelevant. That you insist on Iran not being Hezbollah's patron is amusing, at best. But again, even if Hezbollah was an independent player as you seem to imagine, it still wouldn't address the issues raised above.

 

Was I required to address "all the regimes and militant groups currently being influenced, if not supported & controlled  by Saudi Arabia"? Where did this come from? The current topic deals with Hezbollah and Lebanon. As far as I am aware, Saudi Arabia does not maintain a proxy military organization resembling the Hezbollah within Lebanon. What support, influence or control it provides and bears is more on the economic and political side. If you wish to go on off topic deflections, may want to consider that such activities are carried out by both Saudi Arabia and Iran...not sure where you're going with this. Guess you don't either. I don't think that there was anything said about who's more "horrible", other than in your mind, and frankly, your repetitive attempts to harp on such irrelevant (and incorrect) nonsense such as "Israeli propagandist" are pathetic.

 

[khunken]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

They are partially funded and supported by Iran.  So yes, it's inappropriate for them to be in politics in Lebanon, and they are also a militia with a military force that could be larger than the Lebanese army!  If Iran backed out, then it'd be fine.  But that's not the case.  Hezbollah is a proxy political party for Iran.

 

Hezbollah was setup, funded, initially trained and supported by Iran to go after Israel.  During my trip to Lebanon, many there are NOT happy with what they are doing.  They are one of the big problems there and huge parts of the country are like war zones.  It's insane.  They assassinated Hariri's father in 2008, helped bring down the coalition government, and seem to be at it again.

 

Iran needs to leave.  And so does SA.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

 

This is not an organization Lebanon needs. 

 

As I've said before, Iran and SA are the biggest problem in the ME.

Are you taking over from Morch?

 

You've said far more times that Iran is the biggest problem as well as Russia. Neither of these are the cause of major conflict & hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East, Afghanistan & Libya. It's the US and the disastrous US (patronised by AIPAC) foreign policy to cherry pick which murderous autocracy to support. As Naam said : they're all bastards but some are our bastards.

 

Yes Iran has influence in Lebanon via Hezbollah who Iran helped to set up as a Lebanese force to defend against Israel, but they do not control Hezbollah, despite the lies put out by Israel and supporters of its propaganda.

 

The gist of the article is about Saudi control or influence over Hariri - and a stupid claim that Lebanon has declared war. It's rather similar to the (Trump influenced?) attempt by the Saudis to influence Qatar's foreign policy.

 

I agree that Saudi & Iran need to tone down their war-like attitude to each other but it's the western powers that need to get the hell out of the ME before SA or Iran.

[khunken]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My response was not specifically about Fisk's alleged opinion, which you claimed was supporting the exact point you are failing to make. No clear reference was provided, and the same goes for the context in which things were said. Hence, it is hard to specifically address such a claim as you made. Since you've also went on praising Fisk, I have added a comment regarding my take of his views and an anecdote. Doubt you did not understand it, but to make it clearer - on one occasion, Fisk opined that reporters cannot be (or cannot be expected to be) objective, while on other occasions he makes opposite statements. This usually takes the form of preaching, rather than applied to his own work. I guess that going on about the man is acceptable only when it suits you, but not otherwise.

 

That you say something is rubbish, doesn't make your argument. Legitimate arms deals are usually reported, and I do not recall any report mentioning Hezbollah payments for arms received from Iran. Considering the amount and level of arms supplied, your comment doesn't even begin to make sense. Additionally, it still runs counter to your supposed position regarding foreign intervention in Lebanon and fails to address Hezbollah's role vs. Lebanese sovereignty.

 

As for the odd comparison to the Pope's role - which does not include messing with politics or inducing involvement in military operations in other countries. On top of which, the Pope does not represent, nor is part of, a country aiming to achieve regional ascendancy or which is at political odds with other regional powers. The original Hezbollah manifesto made this allegiance pretty clear with regard to Iran's supreme leader's role - both political and spiritual. Religious indoctrination being a "take it or leave it activity" is, to put it mildly, not much of a compelling statement in the context discussed. Attempting to minimize religious authority and role in this cannot even be called misinformed.

 

You are dealing with conspiracy theories, by conflating supposed allegiances of different extremist Islamic groups in Syria. You also fail to demonstrate Saudi Arabia's ability to harness them into direct action against Lebanon or that such happened under Saudi instruction. I made no comment in this discussion, which could be construed as approval for whatever regional power operating in other countries via non-state agents and organizations. The claim that it "seems ok" to me, is based on nothing but your imagination.

 

Other than Hezbollah, there are no major factions in Lebanon which are supportive of Lebanese direct involvement in the civil war. Saying that the Lebanese government does not have a mandate to prevent the Hezbollah from doing so may be contested, but even if this wasn't - that's pretty much the point made: that a non-state organization conducts a foreign and security policy which is not consensual nor necessarily in line with the country's interests. The same goes for Hezbollah's actions and involvement with regard to other conflict and countries. Whether it is operating from within Lebanon or outside it's borders is immaterial - the point stands that such actions are not mandated by Lebanon as a whole. Whether or not other countries condone this is irrelevant. That you insist on Iran not being Hezbollah's patron is amusing, at best. But again, even if Hezbollah was an independent player as you seem to imagine, it still wouldn't address the issues raised above.

 

Was I required to address "all the regimes and militant groups currently being influenced, if not supported & controlled  by Saudi Arabia"? Where did this come from? The current topic deals with Hezbollah and Lebanon. As far as I am aware, Saudi Arabia does not maintain a proxy military organization resembling the Hezbollah within Lebanon. What support, influence or control it provides and bears is more on the economic and political side. If you wish to go on off topic deflections, may want to consider that such activities are carried out by both Saudi Arabia and Iran...not sure where you're going with this. Guess you don't either. I don't think that there was anything said about who's more "horrible", other than in your mind, and frankly, your repetitive attempts to harp on such irrelevant (and incorrect) nonsense such as "Israeli propagandist" are pathetic.

 

As a final reply to your long-winded & continual repetition of the 'Iran controls...' lie, I will make a few brief points.

It is not off topic to focus on Saudi influence, as it's part of the Op - very much so.

The use of the word horrible, despite your personal attack, was referring to the influencing of AQ & IS related groups who carry out murderous attacks on non-Wahhabi-Sunni 'non' believers around the world & I doubt that your pretence not to understand it is real. Yes, those who accept and try to influence others with the Israeli lie about Iranian control, are just spreading propaganda. If the cap fits......

Edited November 8, 2017 by khunken
clarity

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, khunken said:

Are you taking over from Morch?

 

You've said far more times that Iran is the biggest problem as well as Russia. Neither of these are the cause of major conflict & hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East, Afghanistan & Libya. It's the US and the disastrous US (patronised by AIPAC) foreign policy to cherry pick which murderous autocracy to support. As Naam said : they're all bastards but some are our bastards.

 

Yes Iran has influence in Lebanon via Hezbollah who Iran helped to set up as a Lebanese force to defend against Israel, but they do not control Hezbollah, despite the lies put out by Israel and supporters of its propaganda.

 

The gist of the article is about Saudi control or influence over Hariri - and a stupid claim that Lebanon has declared war. It's rather similar to the (Trump influenced?) attempt by the Saudis to influence Qatar's foreign policy.

 

I agree that Saudi & Iran need to tone down their war-like attitude to each other but it's the western powers that need to get the hell out of the ME before SA or Iran.

 

You seem to uphold Naam's view: Iran and Hezbollah are alright because they oppose those you dislike. Not much of an argument there.

 

As for the wholesale USA-bash, with the standard-issue AIPAC canard - same old. Rant in, rant out. No issues, it seems, with Russia's or other countries' involvement - it's only them evil Westerners that are responsible.

 

Denials of Iran's power over Hezbollah are pathetic, and are not demonstrated in any meaningful way. Not even the Hezbollah makes such denials as you engage in.

 

As posted earlier, the context of Saudi Arabia's claim with regard to Lebanon references Hezbollah's actions. If, as the Saudis claim, Hezbollah is involved in Yemen (and specifically in relation to the recent missile attack), then the claim is less far fetched then it seems.

[mikebike]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Did you research that person's articles?  Read them?  I did.  As I said before, I'm not a fan of opinion pieces.

 

Agreed.  But his articles are highly critical of the US.  I detect a bias there.  That's why some like his articles. LOL

So from disparaging his credibility and challenging others to read it, you quickly backtrack to bias when it becomes obvious he is qualified to comment but you don't like his opinion. Have I got that right?

[mikebike]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and represents Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia's claim isn't far fetched. If, on the other hand, Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon, then the Lebanese government can certainly be said to be responsible for curbing such activities. Obviously easier said than done given prevailing conditions and balance of power.

 

Hezbollah's current status allows it to eat the cake and leave it whole. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor a state of things that must be accepted.

Hezbollah seems to have taken a good read of sinn fein's tactics. Not a bad model.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Hezbollah seems to have taken a good read of sinn fein's tactics. Not a bad model.

 

Not bad for whom and for what? The Lebanese people as a whole? For stability in the region?

[mikebike]

 
Not bad for whom and for what? The Lebanese people as a whole? For stability in the region?

As a model for a two pronged movement.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic personal attacks have been removed also replies

[craigt3365]

17 hours ago, khunken said:

Are you taking over from Morch?

 

You've said far more times that Iran is the biggest problem as well as Russia. Neither of these are the cause of major conflict & hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East, Afghanistan & Libya. It's the US and the disastrous US (patronised by AIPAC) foreign policy to cherry pick which murderous autocracy to support. As Naam said : they're all bastards but some are our bastards.

 

Yes Iran has influence in Lebanon via Hezbollah who Iran helped to set up as a Lebanese force to defend against Israel, but they do not control Hezbollah, despite the lies put out by Israel and supporters of its propaganda.

 

The gist of the article is about Saudi control or influence over Hariri - and a stupid claim that Lebanon has declared war. It's rather similar to the (Trump influenced?) attempt by the Saudis to influence Qatar's foreign policy.

 

I agree that Saudi & Iran need to tone down their war-like attitude to each other but it's the western powers that need to get the hell out of the ME before SA or Iran.

Iran is the biggest problem in the middle East. Never said Russia was except in reference to Syria.

 

Agree that Iran does not control Hezbollah but still funds them and probably supplies weapons also.

 

You blame the western powers for this?  Sure,  they are in the mix. Every big country in the world is. But the #1 problem in the middle East is the battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, mikebike said:

Hezbollah seems to have taken a good read of sinn fein's tactics. Not a bad model.

And how many died due to sinn fein's tactics? Hezbollah wants to turn Lebanon into a country like Iran. Not a good thing.

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And how many died due to sinn fein's tactics? Hezbollah wants to turn Lebanon into a country like Iran. Not a good thing.

Change is rarely a walk in the park. Better than a country like SA...

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Change is rarely a walk in the park. Better than a country like SA...

Lebanon was starting to function ok. After years of problems with interfere from Syria. Hezbollahs militia is bigger than the Lebanese army. Not a good thing. Get rid of the militia and stick to politics and taking care  of the people.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Lebanon was starting to function ok. After years of problems with interfere from Syria. Hezbollahs militia is bigger than the Lebanese army. Not a good thing. Get rid of the militia and stick to politics and taking care  of the people.

Lebanon was starting to functin okay. Now Saudi Arabia has decided to throw a spanner into the works. Here's an article that explains the situation astonishingly well. What gives it strong credence is that it was written well before this latest development.

Lebanon has remained stable despite the war in Syria, but once it winds down will the Lebanese situation worsen?

http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/73439?lang=en

[Morch]

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

Change is rarely a walk in the park. Better than a country like SA...

 

Hezbollah represents one of the factions in Lebanon, not Lebanon as a whole. There is nothing which grants Hezbollah the authority or the mandate to decide the country's course. Doubt there's a wide support among Lebanese for anything that isn't a "walk in the park", these days. Country been through enough turmoil for most people's taste. Not quite sure what "change" you imagine to be associated with Hezbollah's actions, and it is not quite the case that the alternative is a SA like country.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Lebanon was starting to function ok. After years of problems with interfere from Syria. Hezbollahs militia is bigger than the Lebanese army. Not a good thing. Get rid of the militia and stick to politics and taking care  of the people.

 

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Lebanon was starting to functin okay. Now Saudi Arabia has decided to throw a spanner into the works. Here's an article that explains the situation astonishingly well. What gives it strong credence is that it was written well before this latest development.

Lebanon has remained stable despite the war in Syria, but once it winds down will the Lebanese situation worsen?

http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/73439?lang=en

 

In what sense was "Lebanon starting to function ok"? The deal struck after the last political impasse did not exactly put the country back on track, but rather put some standing contested issues on hold. Better than a civil war? Sure. Better than having neighboring armies stepping in? Sure. But doubt anyone had any illusions about the agreement reached hailing a rosy future.

 

The interference from Syria did not cease, even if it became less direct. And obviously, other countries did not stop their meddling as well.

 

The "spanner into the works" seems to imply that things were running smoothly, and ignores them standing issues (which are even partially addressed in the linked article). Once more, a simplified presentation which disregards the context.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

In what sense was "Lebanon starting to function ok"? The deal struck after the last political impasse did not exactly put the country back on track, but rather put some standing contested issues on hold. Better than a civil war? Sure. Better than having neighboring armies stepping in? Sure. But doubt anyone had any illusions about the agreement reached hailing a rosy future.

 

The interference from Syria did not cease, even if it became less direct. And obviously, other countries did not stop their meddling as well.

 

The "spanner into the works" seems to imply that things were running smoothly, and ignores them standing issues (which are even partially addressed in the linked article). Once more, a simplified presentation which disregards the context.

Such nitpicking. Or is it quibbling?  Ok, it was functioning better with actual economic growth accelerating. That's a pretty good objective indicator.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lebanon/publication/economic-outlook-april-2017

And what is just as significant is that even his own political party, the Future Movement, has not expressed support for his resignation. No major Lebanese political party is backing Hariri on this. They are all clearly unhappy about it.

The Saudis would rather plunge Lebanon back into misery rather than support the present dispensation. As 

"Regionally, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are now seeking ways to compensate for the loss of Syria as a place where they could defy and bleed Iran. A renewed desire to reverse their regional fortunes could lead them to try regaining a foothold in Lebanon...If ever they seek to rebalance the regional relationship with Tehran in the Levant, the only place to do so would be Lebanon, despite the many risks that would accompany such an effort."

http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/73439?lang=en

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Such nitpicking. Or is it quibbling?  Ok, it was functioning better with actual economic growth accelerating. That's a pretty good objective indicator.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lebanon/publication/economic-outlook-april-2017

And what is just as significant is that even his own political party, the Future Movement, has not expressed support for his resignation. No major Lebanese political party is backing Hariri on this. They are all clearly unhappy about it.

The Saudis would rather plunge Lebanon back into misery rather than support the present dispensation. As 

"Regionally, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are now seeking ways to compensate for the loss of Syria as a place where they could defy and bleed Iran. A renewed desire to reverse their regional fortunes could lead them to try regaining a foothold in Lebanon...If ever they seek to rebalance the regional relationship with Tehran in the Levant, the only place to do so would be Lebanon, despite the many risks that would accompany such an effort."

http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/73439?lang=en

 

 

Nitpicking how? Even the World Bank link doesn't express quite the same optimism with regard to Lebanon's economic outlook, and rightly so. You'll be hard pressed to find a serious assessment which does not heavily qualify such predictions.

 

Obviously, no one in Lebanon's political system is happy about the abrupt and unusual manner of Hariri's resignation. It threatens to reinstate the former stalemate, which may carry the risk of outright political/sectarian violence. Unlike Hezbollah, Hariri's side is less prepared (and frankly, doesn't have the stomach) for such an eventuality. They weren't in the know, they still aren't, and like most politicians - they do not like uncertainty. Even more so In Lebanon's political ecosystem.

 

The current status quo favors Hezbollah, rather than the country as a whole. That various sectarian and political elements went along with things is more to do with coercion and cutting political losses. As the article you now linked twice points out - the issues were not sorted, but put off. It was rather obvious they would come up again once the Syrian civil war ends.

 

There is no denial offered of Saudi Arabia's meddling, just a suggestion that ignoring the context in which it manifests itself, or cherry picking only them bits aligning with your position is misguided. Presenting a simplified version, which features one-dimensional account of events, factors and motives is not very helpful nor accurate.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Nitpicking how? Even the World Bank link doesn't express quite the same optimism with regard to Lebanon's economic outlook, and rightly so. You'll be hard pressed to find a serious assessment which does not heavily qualify such predictions.

 

Obviously, no one in Lebanon's political system is happy about the abrupt and unusual manner of Hariri's resignation. It threatens to reinstate the former stalemate, which may carry the risk of outright political/sectarian violence. Unlike Hezbollah, Hariri's side is less prepared (and frankly, doesn't have the stomach) for such an eventuality. They weren't in the know, they still aren't, and like most politicians - they do not like uncertainty. Even more so In Lebanon's political ecosystem.

 

The current status quo favors Hezbollah, rather than the country as a whole. That various sectarian and political elements went along with things is more to do with coercion and cutting political losses. As the article you now linked twice points out - the issues were not sorted, but put off. It was rather obvious they would come up again once the Syrian civil war ends.

 

There is no denial offered of Saudi Arabia's meddling, just a suggestion that ignoring the context in which it manifests itself, or cherry picking only them bits aligning with your position is misguided. Presenting a simplified version, which features one-dimensional account of events, factors and motives is not very helpful nor accurate.

From all indications, the people of Lebanon overwhelmingly prefer the status quo to what the Saudis have effectuated. And I daresay they're even more opposed to what the Saudi behavior promises for the future. As that article points out, the Saudis tried to overthrow Assad, and now that that has failed, they are rashly trying to promote conflict in Lebanon. Rashness seems to be the operative condition for Saudi decision making nowadays.

And as for my alleged misrepresentation of the report here is how they qualified their predictions:

 "Lebanon’s economic prospects over the medium term are highly affected by geopolitical and security conditions, and those remain volatile. Projections assume that the Syrian war persists and that spillovers into Lebanon, while significant, remain contained. Based on this, we forecast growth over the medium term to remain around 2.5% annually."

Actually, since the Syrian war seems to be effectively over, contrary to World Bank  expectations, if anything their report is too pessimistic. Or would be, if it weren't for the Saudis trying to destabilize conditions there.

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

From all indications, the people of Lebanon overwhelmingly prefer the status quo to what the Saudis have effectuated. And I daresay they're even more opposed to what the Saudi behavior promises for the future. As that article points out, the Saudis tried to overthrow Assad, and now that that has failed, they are rashly trying to promote conflict in Lebanon. Rashness seems to be the operative condition for Saudi decision making nowadays.

And as for my alleged misrepresentation of the report here is how they qualified their predictions:

 "Lebanon’s economic prospects over the medium term are highly affected by geopolitical and security conditions, and those remain volatile. Projections assume that the Syrian war persists and that spillovers into Lebanon, while significant, remain contained. Based on this, we forecast growth over the medium term to remain around 2.5% annually."

Actually, since the Syrian war seems to be effectively over, contrary to World Bank  expectations, if anything their report is too pessimistic. Or would be, if it weren't for the Saudis trying to destabilize conditions there.

 

People may prefer an uneasy and uncertain status quo to outright instability. The point made (and repeatedly ignored) is that the status quo of-sorts achieved was destined to be disrupted, one way or another, once the outcome of the civil war was decided. Issues which were put off, will need to be faced and ironed out. As during the time of the status quo no agreement was reached on how to go forward, it was obvious things would come to a head sooner or later.

 

What you "daresay" is a bit more questionable than the first assertion, and for the same reasons. I don't know that there such a wide public support for getting in bed with Assad again, or for Hezbollah's actions effecting the country as a whole, or how to address the refugee crisis. Co opting is all very nice, but not a replacement for acknowledging standing issues and realities.

 

That the Saudis are trying to regain lost ground and keep up the proxy war, is not disputed. Just that there's another side in this war, which engages in similar activities throughout the region, and hence things should be considered in context, rather than be presented according to a simplistic partisan position.

 

taken in context. getting the country involved in because From all indications, the people of Lebanon overwhelmingly prefer the status quo to what the Saudis have effectuated. And I daresay they're even more opposed to what the Saudi behavior promises for the future. As that article points out, the Saudis tried to overthrow Assad, and now that that has failed, they are rashly trying to promote conflict in Lebanon. Rashness seems to be the operative condition for Saudi decision making nowadays.

 

As for "misrepresentation" I'd point out that while the fighting in Syria is petering out, Lebanon is still saddled with a huge number of refugees, is divided on dealing with Assad's regime, and is potentially facing further economic hardship due to sanctions placed on Hezbollah. So spillovers, in a wider application of the term, do exist, and them volatile geopolitical and security considerations never went away to begin with, just put on hold.

 

It is hard to determine if you are actually not familiar with some of the issues pointed at or intentionally ignoring them. The writing on the wall was there, and cracks (along expected lines) in the status quo appeared prior to Hariri's surprise resignation. These had to do exactly with the issues raised above. Obviously, things moved up a notch, but it isn't as if it was anywhere near smooth sailing up to this point.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

From all indications, the people of Lebanon overwhelmingly prefer the status quo to what the Saudis have effectuated. And I daresay they're even more opposed to what the Saudi behavior promises for the future. As that article points out, the Saudis tried to overthrow Assad, and now that that has failed, they are rashly trying to promote conflict in Lebanon. Rashness seems to be the operative condition for Saudi decision making nowadays.

And as for my alleged misrepresentation of the report here is how they qualified their predictions:

 "Lebanon’s economic prospects over the medium term are highly affected by geopolitical and security conditions, and those remain volatile. Projections assume that the Syrian war persists and that spillovers into Lebanon, while significant, remain contained. Based on this, we forecast growth over the medium term to remain around 2.5% annually."

Actually, since the Syrian war seems to be effectively over, contrary to World Bank  expectations, if anything their report is too pessimistic. Or would be, if it weren't for the Saudis trying to destabilize conditions there.

Lebanon is almost evenly split between Shia, Sunni and catholic religion. So no, a majority are not happy with status quo. Assad isn't nearly as important as Syria and Hezbollahs assassination of Hariri's father.