Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

[ilostmypassword]

15 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

It's clear that all the major faction prefer the status quo to what Saudi Arabia has in mind. And was there much likelihood that the various political disputes among the factions in Lebanon would degenerate back into war? And the economy is growing. And given the importance of Syrian trade with Lebanon, the end of the war promises more growth. An improved relationship with Syria is the Saudis' real gravamen. (finally I get to use that word in a sentence!)

And are Americans happy with the status quo in the USA? Not a good criterion to use.

Edited November 10, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's clear that all the major faction prefer the status quo to what Saudi Arabia has in mind. And was there much likelihood that the various political disputes among the factions in Lebanon would degenerate back into war? And the economy is growing. And given the importance of Syrian trade with Lebanon, the end of the war promises more growth. An improved relationship with Syria is the Saudis' real gravamen. (finally I get to use that word in a sentence!)

Only clear to you.  There is no major faction.  The country is in a mess.  Roads are terrible, security checkpoints are everywhere, suicide bombings, lack of public transport, the border area with Syria is insane with thousands and thousands of refugees....surrounded by all sorts of military equipment.

 

Right...doing great.

 

Again, as in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc, a proxy war between Iran and SA.  #1 problem in the ME.  Take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/world/middleeast/iran-saudi-proxy-war.html?_r=0

 

Quote

 

Lebanon provided the perfect opening: a frail democracy recovering from civil war, with parties and lingering militias primarily organized by religion.

Iran and Saudi Arabia exploited those dynamics, waging a new kind of proxy struggle “not on conventional military battlefields,” Dr. Gause said, but “within the domestic politics of weakened institutional structures.”

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Only clear to you.  There is no major faction.  The country is in a mess.  Roads are terrible, security checkpoints are everywhere, suicide bombings, lack of public transport, the border area with Syria is insane with thousands and thousands of refugees....surrounded by all sorts of military equipment.

 

Right...doing great.

 

Again, as in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc, a proxy war between Iran and SA.  #1 problem in the ME.  Take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/world/middleeast/iran-saudi-proxy-war.html?_r=0

 

 

I left of the "s" in factions. Still given that it was paired with "all the" that it was a plural should have been clear.

Nowhere did I say it was doing great. I said it was doing better. I said that none of the major factions are happy with the Saudis latest salvo. I said that the Saudis don't want things to improve in Lebanon. That they want to disrupt its relations with Syria.

I did say that the economy is doing better and with the end of the war, promised to improve even more. I've got the World Bank backing me on that.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I left of the "s" in factions. Still given that it was paired with "all the" that it was a plural should have been clear.

Nowhere did I say it was doing great. I said it was doing better. I said that none of the major factions are happy with the Saudis latest salvo. I said that the Saudis don't want things to improve in Lebanon. That they want to disrupt its relations with Syria.

I did say that the economy is doing better and with the end of the war, promised to improve even more. I've got the World Bank backing me on that.

The Iranians don't want to improve Lebanon either.  If they did, why give weapons to a terrorist organization?  Iran and SA need to leave Lebanon alone.  It'd be much better off without them.  Under Syrian control for years wasn't good.  Going backwards to a society like what Hezbollah wants isn't what Lebanon wants.  Nor does the rest of the world.  Except the extreme religious zealots.

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The Iranians don't want to improve Lebanon either.  If they did, why give weapons to a terrorist organization?  Iran and SA need to leave Lebanon alone.  It'd be much better off without them.  Under Syrian control for years wasn't good.  Going backwards to a society like what Hezbollah wants isn't what Lebanon wants.  Nor does the rest of the world.  Except the extreme religious zealots.

Nonsense. Iranians don't need another war to bleed their resources. And characterizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is massively oversimplifying. Only a very small portion of Hezbollah's activities can be classified as terrorism It is a militia and it is a massive social welfare organization. Hezbollah is sitting pretty now in Lebanon.  They don't want another war. What would it gain them?

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nonsense. Iranians don't need another war to bleed their resources. And characterizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is massively oversimplifying. Only a very small portion of Hezbollah's activities can be classified as terrorism It is a militia and it is a massive social welfare organization. Hezbollah is sitting pretty now in Lebanon.  They don't want another war. What would it gain them?

Another war?  You're right!  They're involved in so many right now. LOL

 

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  No denying that.  You're saying you want another country shaped after Iran?  Religious extremists running a country?  Seriously?

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Another war?  You're right!  They're involved in so many right now. LOL

 

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  No denying that.  You're saying you want another country shaped after Iran?  Religious extremists running a country?  Seriously?

Whether or not Iran is invovled in other wars, they do so to benefit themselves. There is no benefit for Iran in having another war in Lebanon. Their strategic position is excellent there now. why mess  itu.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did deny that Hezbollah does carry out terrorist activities. But apparently being in Lebanon wasn't enough to acquaint you with the overwhelming fact that it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia.  And their position is good right now. Why would they want another war. They need time to recover their strength from the Syrian war.

And you seem particularly callous when it comes to what the Lebanese want. And overwhelmingly what they don't want is what Saudi Arabia is proposing.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for the Saudis even when their actions endanger the lives of millions. 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whether or not Iran is invovled in other wars, they do so to benefit themselves. There is no benefit for Iran in having another war in Lebanon. Their strategic position is excellent there now. why mess  itu.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did deny that Hezbollah does carry out terrorist activities. But apparently being in Lebanon wasn't enough to acquaint you with the overwhelming fact that it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia.  And their position is good right now. Why would they want another war. They need time to recover their strength from the Syrian war.

And you seem particularly callous when it comes to what the Lebanese want. And overwhelmingly what they don't want is what Saudi Arabia is proposing.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for the Saudis even when their actions endanger the lives of millions. 

Stunning.  You are so against anything "Washington" does in the area, but seem to be supportive of Iran's meddling.  Very strange.

 

Hezbollah primarily a humanitarian organization?    The Arab League and many others label them a terrorist organization.  The only countries that don't are ones like Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea. LOL

 

You should read this.  They are involved in conflicts in many places.  Potentially even in Bulgaria.  Hardly charitable events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Military_activities

 

I've got no soft spot for SA.  Nothing like the one you have for Iran. LOL.

 

A majority of Sunni's disapprove of Hezbollah. 

 

I guess they are kinda like Pablo Escobar.  He funded a lot of community projects in Colombia.  All the while killing many and selling drugs all around the world.  But hey, they were a charitable organization, right! LOL

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Stunning.  You are so against anything "Washington" does in the area, but seem to be supportive of Iran's meddling.  Very strange.

 

Hezbollah primarily a humanitarian organization?    The Arab League and many others label them a terrorist organization.  The only countries that don't are ones like Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea. LOL

 

 

Where have I said I'm supportive of Iran's meddling? Stop lying.

Where have I said that Hezbollah is primarily a humanitarian organization. Stop lying.

 

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whether or not Iran is invovled in other wars, they do so to benefit themselves. There is no benefit for Iran in having another war in Lebanon. Their strategic position is excellent there now. why mess  itu.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did deny that Hezbollah does carry out terrorist activities. But apparently being in Lebanon wasn't enough to acquaint you with the overwhelming fact that it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia.  And their position is good right now. Why would they want another war. They need time to recover their strength from the Syrian war.

And you seem particularly callous when it comes to what the Lebanese want. And overwhelmingly what they don't want is what Saudi Arabia is proposing.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for the Saudis even when their actions endanger the lives of millions. 

Your post.  You deny Hezbollah carries out terrorist activities and say they are primarily a social welfare organization!  LOL.  Well, at least China, Syria, North Korea and Russia agree with you.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's clear that all the major faction prefer the status quo to what Saudi Arabia has in mind. And was there much likelihood that the various political disputes among the factions in Lebanon would degenerate back into war? And the economy is growing. And given the importance of Syrian trade with Lebanon, the end of the war promises more growth. An improved relationship with Syria is the Saudis' real gravamen. (finally I get to use that word in a sentence!)

And are Americans happy with the status quo in the USA? Not a good criterion to use.

 

There was never an illusion regarding which faction's interests were best supported under the status quo. There were also no illusions that the status quo could be maintained for long. Rather, it was a temporary arrangement, with the unofficial expiry date linked to developments in neighboring Syria. As the civil war in Syria comes to a close, things in Lebanon were expected to get heated once more. The surprise element is not the crisis itself, but more to do with the drama.

 

The prospect of "various political disputes among the factions" degenerating back into war (or if not that, political violence), is a standing possibility in Lebanon. Granted, given the military support Hezbollah enjoys from both Syria and Iran, other parties may be more hesitant forcing some issues on this level. Somehow, you don't seem to have much of an issue with this sort of foreign intervention, though.

 

The economic situation, despite your spins, is a function of political circumstances. That you seem to imagine these are constant or that it's possible to maintain them for long, doesn't make them so. The future of relations with Syria, handling the refugee crisis, Saudi and Gulf countries' economic investment and support, possible wider sanctions on Hezbollah, and the possibility of Hezbollah dragging the country into another war - all these seem to be non-issues in your "informed" analysis. Somehow, it's all about Saudi Arabia.

 

Going on about relations with Syria, without any reference to the complexities this gives rise to, is either clueless or disingenuous. Whether one wishes to see various Lebanese political leaders getting in bed with Syria as pragmatism, opportunism, realism, lack of moral fiber or a product of coercion, is a choice. What is not disputable is that many of them are far from joyous with the proposition. Other than Hezbollah, pretty much all others been shafted at one point or another by Syria (and Hezbollah).  

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

There was never an illusion regarding which faction's interests were best supported under the status quo. There were also no illusions that the status quo could be maintained for long. Rather, it was a temporary arrangement, with the unofficial expiry date linked to developments in neighboring Syria. As the civil war in Syria comes to a close, things in Lebanon were expected to get heated once more. The surprise element is not the crisis itself, but more to do with the drama.

 

The prospect of "various political disputes among the factions" degenerating back into war (or if not that, political violence), is a standing possibility in Lebanon. Granted, given the military support Hezbollah enjoys from both Syria and Iran, other parties may be more hesitant forcing some issues on this level. Somehow, you don't seem to have much of an issue with this sort of foreign intervention, though.

 

The economic situation, despite your spins, is a function of political circumstances. That you seem to imagine these are constant or that it's possible to maintain them for long, doesn't make them so. The future of relations with Syria, handling the refugee crisis, Saudi and Gulf countries' economic investment and support, possible wider sanctions on Hezbollah, and the possibility of Hezbollah dragging the country into another war - all these seem to be non-issues in your "informed" analysis. Somehow, it's all about Saudi Arabia.

 

Going on about relations with Syria, without any reference to the complexities this gives rise to, is either clueless or disingenuous. Whether one wishes to see various Lebanese political leaders getting in bed with Syria as pragmatism, opportunism, realism, lack of moral fiber or a product of coercion, is a choice. What is not disputable is that many of them are far from joyous with the proposition. Other than Hezbollah, pretty much all others been shafted at one point or another by Syria (and Hezbollah).  

Can you imagine his post if it was "Washington" behind Hezbollah?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I left of the "s" in factions. Still given that it was paired with "all the" that it was a plural should have been clear.

Nowhere did I say it was doing great. I said it was doing better. I said that none of the major factions are happy with the Saudis latest salvo. I said that the Saudis don't want things to improve in Lebanon. That they want to disrupt its relations with Syria.

I did say that the economy is doing better and with the end of the war, promised to improve even more. I've got the World Bank backing me on that.

 

"I said that the Saudis don't want things to improve in Lebanon. That they want to disrupt its relations with Syria."

 

That reads like simplistic, and childish propaganda. For starters, things improving in Lebanon is not solely contingent on relations with Syria, or on relations with Syria being worked out the way Iran, Syria and Hezbollah would have them. And of course, there isn't much of an official "relations with Syria" to disrupt at the moment.

 

Saying that Saudi Arabia does not wish things to improve in Lebanon is bogus. Like Iran, it wishes them to improve in a way promoting its own regional interests. You, on the other hand, seem to push forward some notion that there is some general consensus in Lebanon, which Iran's and Hezbollah's views simply happen to coincide with.

 

What you said about the economy is incorrect or at the very least, not nearly qualified enough. It fails to address the standing issues, both political and economic - and twists the World Bank view cited while at it.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Can you imagine his post if it was "Washington" behind Hezbollah?

 

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Can you imagine his post if it was "Washington" behind Hezbollah?

We can only imagine what I would say. But we don't need imagination to see your lies on these pages:

 

You are so against anything "Washington" does in the area, but seem to be supportive of Iran's meddling.  Very strange.

 

Hezbollah primarily a humanitarian organization?  

[craigt3365]

Here's a report on their economy.  ILMP should read this.  Seems he doesn't have a clue what's really going on there.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-economy/lebanon-gets-a-new-government-now-it-needs-a-new-economy-idUSKBN1530KW

 

Quote

 

Battered by war in neighboring Syria, neglected by wrangling politicians and caught in rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the pillars of the economy - remittances from overseas workers, tourism and real estate - are not what they were.

 

Long-term, Lebanon is searching for new sources of growth, which fell from 8-9 percent to below 2 percent when Syria’s civil war began in 2011.

 

The country’s infrastructure has been awaiting repair since the 15-year civil war ended in 1990: roads are clogged with cars, beaches are littered with waste, internet links are slow or patchy and cuts to power and water supplies are frequent.

 

But hey!  Hezbollah is sorting everything out just fine. LOL

 

I don't see good news here either.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lebanon/publication/economic-outlook-april-2017

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Here's a report on their economy.  ILMP should read this.  Seems he doesn't have a clue what's really going on there.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-economy/lebanon-gets-a-new-government-now-it-needs-a-new-economy-idUSKBN1530KW

 

But hey!  Hezbollah is sorting everything out just fine. LOL

 

I don't see good news here either.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lebanon/publication/economic-outlook-april-2017

I guess you didn't see this:

"From the demand side, private consumption continues to be a principal driver, helped by improved security conditions and low oil prices.

The boost to confidence generated from the resumption of the political process in combination with easing of tensions with the GCC following President Aoun’s visit to the region in January 2017, are likely to translate into a pick-up in GDP growth in 2017, which we project at 2.5%. Specifically, a stronger real estate sector as well as a continued increase in tourist arrivals are expected to lead to a pickup in economic activity in 2017."

 

It's not enough to look at the link. You actually have to read the pages linked to.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The Iranians don't want to improve Lebanon either.  If they did, why give weapons to a terrorist organization?  Iran and SA need to leave Lebanon alone.  It'd be much better off without them.  Under Syrian control for years wasn't good.  Going backwards to a society like what Hezbollah wants isn't what Lebanon wants.  Nor does the rest of the world.  Except the extreme religious zealots.

 

It's not about either Iran or Saudi Arabia not wanting "to improve" conditions in Lebanon. More correctly, each wants it to happen in a way supportive of respective regional agenda.

 

Arming Hezbollah to the teeth is problematic because it undermines the concept and prospects of the central government's sovereignty. At it's core, it also assures the de facto neutering of the sectarian political system, by giving one of the factions undue power. That's even without getting into the foreign influence/control/whatever issue.

 

But on the other hand (there's always one...): If Iran was to miraculously withdraw all its direct support of Hezbollah, with the latter retaining its stockpile of weapons - what would this imply for Lebanon's stability? One aspect of Iran's control/influence/whatever of Hezbollah, is regulating the use of said stockpiles. Remove the restraints, and bets off which way it blows. The aim should be either disarmament of non-government militias, or incorporating them into the Lebanese army, while somehow dealing with the issue of sectarian allegiances.

 

As for turning Lebanon into Iran (or for that matter, Saudi Arabia) style country and society - not quite. It was, indeed, part of Hezbollah's initial vision. But as things progressed (or stalled) on the domestic front, their political program changed (with Iran's consent) to better accommodate Lebanon's realities. Relative to the norm of Iran's (or Saudi Arabia's) domestic policies, Hezbollah is miles ahead.

[Ron19]

A post flaming another member has been removed.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess you didn't see this:

"From the demand side, private consumption continues to be a principal driver, helped by improved security conditions and low oil prices.

The boost to confidence generated from the resumption of the political process in combination with easing of tensions with the GCC following President Aoun’s visit to the region in January 2017, are likely to translate into a pick-up in GDP growth in 2017, which we project at 2.5%. Specifically, a stronger real estate sector as well as a continued increase in tourist arrivals are expected to lead to a pickup in economic activity in 2017."

 

It's not enough to look at the link. You actually have to read the pages linked to.

Stunning.  You read a report critical of their economy yet spin it to be positive.  Absolutely amazing.  Projected growth might not be realized now due to the current situation.  Even then, 2.5% is hardly doing good. LOL

 

Tourist arrivals? 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Stunning.  You read a report critical of their economy yet spin it to be positive.  Absolutely amazing.  Projected growth might not be realized now due to the current situation.  Even then, 2.5% is hardly doing good. LOL

 

Tourist arrivals? 

I didn't spin anything. I cited their statements. And 2.5 percent is okay. It's not great but in that part of the world and given Lebanon's history...

And as for tourist arrivals, do you mean to say what kind of fool would visit Lebanon?

But I guess you know better than the world bank when it comes to expectations about tourist arrivals.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nonsense. Iranians don't need another war to bleed their resources. And characterizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is massively oversimplifying. Only a very small portion of Hezbollah's activities can be classified as terrorism It is a militia and it is a massive social welfare organization. Hezbollah is sitting pretty now in Lebanon.  They don't want another war. What would it gain them?

 

I don't know that there was an implication Iran wants an actual "war" in Lebanon (or that anyone does). Iran's obviously got the upper hand, on the ground, so it wouldn't have much of an incentive to. That doesn't mean it wants what's best for Lebanon, though, or that those opposing Iran's role in Lebanon are necessarily working to the detriment of the country.

 

Definitions of terrorism may differ, and obviously, many reflect political agendas. Spin it as much as you like, though, Hezbollah's military activities pose a problem for Lebanon as a whole, and effect the country as a whole, while being in the service of a specific sectarian agenda (if one wishes to be charitable) or also a foreign one (if one isn't clueless).

 

Your point seems to be that Hezbollah and Iran are already on top, so why risk that? While at the same time going on about foreign meddling, or how's everyone satisfied with things in Lebanon. Do go on about "oversimplifying" though.

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I didn't spin anything. I cited their statements. And 2.5 percent is okay. It's not great but in that part of the world and given Lebanon's history...

And as for tourist arrivals, do you mean to say what kind of fool would visit Lebanon?

But I guess you know better than the world bank when it comes to expectations about tourist arrivals.

2.5% is terrible.  Especially for a country that was growing at 8%.  Economics don't seem to be your strong suit. LOL

 

Be careful with your references.  No personal attacks.  You know better.

 

Lebanon is not a country most would like to visit.  It ain't easy.  But I enjoyed my trip.  Most difficult country I've ever been for driving a car.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whether or not Iran is invovled in other wars, they do so to benefit themselves. There is no benefit for Iran in having another war in Lebanon. Their strategic position is excellent there now. why mess  itu.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I did deny that Hezbollah does carry out terrorist activities. But apparently being in Lebanon wasn't enough to acquaint you with the overwhelming fact that it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia.  And their position is good right now. Why would they want another war. They need time to recover their strength from the Syrian war.

And you seem particularly callous when it comes to what the Lebanese want. And overwhelmingly what they don't want is what Saudi Arabia is proposing.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for the Saudis even when their actions endanger the lives of millions. 

 

"...it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia."

 

Sneaky. Are they a militia like a neighborhood guard? Helping elderly ladies and school children cross roads? It's ok to make the point about them being more diversified then a simple "terrorist organization", but no need to overdo the whitewash. The fact is that having a sizeable (or even stronger) militia not under the central government's control is neither normal nor a positive thing.

 

Some issues, especially those concerning relations with Syria, come up to the front now since the civil war's winding down. Hezbollah may not be looking for a new military domestic confrontation, by virtue of being able to coerce or deter other sectarian factions (especially considering their double foreign backup). They are also unlikely to accept a course of action favoring other policies than their own. Whether or not this was/is deemed worthy of getting into a fight, I do not know. That such a decision is taken by Hezbollah independently of its patrons interests, I seriously doubt.

 

Co-opting imagined Lebanese public opinion seems to be your new thing. "Overwhelming" is more appropriate of how one can go on about this, while at the same time complaining about "oversimplification".

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"...it is primarily a social welfare organization and a militia."

 

Sneaky. Are they a militia like a neighborhood guard? Helping elderly ladies and school children cross roads? It's ok to make the point about them being more diversified then a simple "terrorist organization", but no need to overdo the whitewash. The fact is that having a sizeable (or even stronger) militia not under the central government's control is neither normal nor a positive thing.

 

Some issues, especially those concerning relations with Syria, come up to the front now since the civil war's winding down. Hezbollah may not be looking for a new military domestic confrontation, by virtue of being able to coerce or deter other sectarian factions (especially considering their double foreign backup). They are also unlikely to accept a course of action favoring other policies than their own. Whether or not this was/is deemed worthy of getting into a fight, I do not know. That such a decision is taken by Hezbollah independently of its patrons interests, I seriously doubt.

 

Co-opting imagined Lebanese public opinion seems to be your new thing. "Overwhelming" is more appropriate of how one can go on about this, while at the same time complaining about "oversimplification".

Actually, quite a while ago, when I called Hezbollah an army, a certain poster said no it was a militia. Ever since then I've used the "militia" instead of "army". I'm trying to remember who that poster was. You have any idea?

As for public opinion, I noted that Hariri is getting little support for his decision to resign, not even from his own party. That's a pretty good indication. And there was an article in the NY Times reporting from a Sunni neighborhood that said the same thing.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Stunning.  You are so against anything "Washington" does in the area, but seem to be supportive of Iran's meddling.  Very strange.

 

Hezbollah primarily a humanitarian organization?    The Arab League and many others label them a terrorist organization.  The only countries that don't are ones like Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea. LOL

 

You should read this.  They are involved in conflicts in many places.  Potentially even in Bulgaria.  Hardly charitable events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Military_activities

 

I've got no soft spot for SA.  Nothing like the one you have for Iran. LOL.

 

A majority of Sunni's disapprove of Hezbollah. 

 

I guess they are kinda like Pablo Escobar.  He funded a lot of community projects in Colombia.  All the while killing many and selling drugs all around the world.  But hey, they were a charitable organization, right! LOL

 

Hezbollah's does wear a few hats, not all of them military, terrorist or criminal. It does participate in the political system, and it does engage widely in social projects. One doesn't cancel out the other, though. And while the latter sort of activities (or hats) aren't an issue, the former definitely are. The problem is compounded by this multiple roles.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where have I said I'm supportive of Iran's meddling? Stop lying.

Where have I said that Hezbollah is primarily a humanitarian organization. Stop lying.

 

 

You go on, and on, and on and then some about Saudi Arabia's meddling. You fail to address Iran's meddling, in any meaningful way. You keep painting Hezbollah as independent of representing Iran's interests. Whether supportive of Iran's meddling or minimizing it in order to highlight Saudi Arabia's, the presentation is contrived.

 

As for the second bit - here's are your own words: "Only a very small portion of Hezbollah's activities can be classified as terrorism It is a militia and it is a massive social welfare organization." Not about to get into your nitpicking games, but the assertion made previously is not unreasonable given the quote.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, quite a while ago, when I called Hezbollah an army, a certain poster said no it was a militia. Ever since then I've used the "militia" instead of "army". I'm trying to remember who that poster was. You have any idea?

As for public opinion, I noted that Hariri is getting little support for his decision to resign, not even from his own party. That's a pretty good indication. And there was an article in the NY Times reporting from a Sunni neighborhood that said the same thing.

 

Actually, you are deflecting and obfuscating, as you do.

 

As for public opinion, what you "noted" was addressed in previous posts, with the context lacking in your oversimplified accounts added in. The same goes for the NYT article - your spins and inaccuracies were addressed on this on too.

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah's does wear a few hats, not all of them military, terrorist or criminal. It does participate in the political system, and it does engage widely in social projects. One doesn't cancel out the other, though. And while the latter sort of activities (or hats) aren't an issue, the former definitely are. The problem is compounded by this multiple roles.

A bit similar to Escobar! LOL.  The locals loved him.  He even ran for political office. 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You go on, and on, and on and then some about Saudi Arabia's meddling. You fail to address Iran's meddling, in any meaningful way. You keep painting Hezbollah as independent of representing Iran's interests. Whether supportive of Iran's meddling or minimizing it in order to highlight Saudi Arabia's, the presentation is contrived.

 

As for the second bit - here's are your own words: "Only a very small portion of Hezbollah's activities can be classified as terrorism It is a militia and it is a massive social welfare organization." Not about to get into your nitpicking games, but the assertion made previously is not unreasonable given the quote.

But, but, but, it's an army.  Wait, no, a militia. Wait, somebody else made me say that.  Oops...now I'm confused.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess you didn't see this:

"From the demand side, private consumption continues to be a principal driver, helped by improved security conditions and low oil prices.

The boost to confidence generated from the resumption of the political process in combination with easing of tensions with the GCC following President Aoun’s visit to the region in January 2017, are likely to translate into a pick-up in GDP growth in 2017, which we project at 2.5%. Specifically, a stronger real estate sector as well as a continued increase in tourist arrivals are expected to lead to a pickup in economic activity in 2017."

 

It's not enough to look at the link. You actually have to read the pages linked to.

 

It's not enough to read specific links, much better to have a wider handle on things, and not be blinded by partisanship.

 

Them supposed improved security conditions, and GCC relations are contingent on political developments. That is, if Hezbollah (and Iran) pushes forth its agenda - GCC goodwill may change, thus effecting the economic outlook. If the refugee issue fails to be addressed, the outlook is meaningless. If Hezbollah gets hit with further sanctions, it may carry a wider effect with regard to Lebanese economy. And so on and so forth....