Saudi foreign minister tells Iran: "enough is enough"

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, khunken said:

Yes - impossible for you to keep up which is why you post ridiculous items like Hezbollah should leave Lebanon in anothe thread.

 

The US were NEVER critical of Saudi intervention in Yemen. Even before Trump the US bombed the Houthis on occasion from warships in the gulf. Silence about hospitals & schools being bombed by the Saudis (both before & after Trump) is not criticism.

Ridiculous?  Asking for a terrorist organization to leave well enough alone?  Seriously? Too funny.  Yes, every country needs an armed militia bigger than their official army. LOL

 

Never say never.  It always comes back to bite you in the .....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/31/us-calls-for-end-to-saudi-airstrikes-in-yemen

 

Quote

 

US calls for end to Saudi airstrikes in Yemen

Ambassador tells UN security council meeting it should be clear there is no military solution to conflict

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/28/lawmakers-demand-u-s-withdrawal-from-saudi-led-war-in-yemen/

 

Quote

 

Lawmakers Demand U.S. Withdrawal From Saudi-Led War in Yemen

Bipartisan bill proposes halting military assistance to air war in Yemen unless Congress votes on U.S. role.

 

 

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, punchjudy said:

The US supported dangerous islamists to further it's own interests/influence in the region

They sure did.  They supported them to help stop the massacre of innocent civilians.  A great interest to try to influence in that region. LOL

[khunken]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your take on things seems to disregard that people's support is conditional. Hezbollah does not get anything that resembles "majority support" with regard to all current events and issues. Even it's supposed self proclaimed role vs. Israel is debated, considering the cost paid by the country as a whole, without it having a say in it. In the same vein, Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war was not as widely supported by the Lebanese as you seem to suggest. Hezbollah's acting on behalf of Syrian and Iranian interests is not something "the majority" of Lebanese are all that happy about.

 

Those in Yemen not opposed to Saudi Arabia, are probably not Hezbollah fans. Among those that are, guess you'll find more than one opinion, things are usually like that, rather than the placard versions often offered. Not exactly sure what you meant by a lie - Saudi claims of Hezbollah presence and involvement? Seriously doubt it's not true, if perhaps not to the extent suggested by Saudi Arabia. A while back, there was some public discontent in Iran over the cost and casualties (Iranian, that is) related to the Syrian civil war. The way to address this sentiment was by using various Shia militias, mostly foreign (whereas in Iraq, due to numbers, these were mostly locals). So Iran using the same paradigm in Yemen is quite likely. Direct involvement runs the risk of generating an unavoidable crisis with Saudi Arabia.

 

Still not sure what your last bit was about or how it relates to my post. That both Iran and Saudi Arabia engage each other by dodgy proxies, and both denying such actions or their extent is a given.

I didn't say that Hezbollah gets majority support in Lebanon for everything it does. As the Shia-Christian alliance are in the majority in the Lebenese parliament & control the PM & speaker's positions and as they broadly support Hezbollah, yes Hezbollah has majority support. Whether they have majority support among the citizens is moot as they elected the politicians.

 

My opinion says they do, yours says they don't so stalemate there.

I also disagree with your pro-Saudi take on Yemen and as this again is nothing more that your opinion against mine, it's another stalemate.

 

The last bit was a response to your effort to make it outside the topic. I can't see any point in carrying on repetitively, so ma'a salama.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

They sure did.  They supported them to help stop the massacre of innocent civilians.  A great interest to try to influence in that region. LOL

 

Eh?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, khunken said:

I didn't say that Hezbollah gets majority support in Lebanon for everything it does. As the Shia-Christian alliance are in the majority in the Lebenese parliament & control the PM & speaker's positions and as they broadly support Hezbollah, yes Hezbollah has majority support. Whether they have majority support among the citizens is moot as they elected the politicians.

 

My opinion says they do, yours says they don't so stalemate there.

I also disagree with your pro-Saudi take on Yemen and as this again is nothing more that your opinion against mine, it's another stalemate.

 

The last bit was a response to your effort to make it outside the topic. I can't see any point in carrying on repetitively, so ma'a salama.

 

That's conflating a political alliance of convenience with popular support. If it helps, think about parties, coalitions and politicians in your own country - and how you and others feel about them. Hezbollah's involvement in Syria, the ties with Iran, the damage wrought on Lebanon as a result of Hezbollah's confrontation with Israel, the involvement in Hariri's murder - are not cookie point scorers, to put it mildly.

 

I do not have any "pro-Saudi take on Yemen". My point was with regard to the plausibility of Hezbollah's involvement - which I consider likely. As said, I don't know that it's of the depth and scale alleged by Saudi Arabia.

[khunken]

59 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Ridiculous?  Asking for a terrorist organization to leave well enough alone?  Seriously? Too funny.  Yes, every country needs an armed militia bigger than their official army. LOL

 

Never say never.  It always comes back to bite you in the .....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/31/us-calls-for-end-to-saudi-airstrikes-in-yemen

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/28/lawmakers-demand-u-s-withdrawal-from-saudi-led-war-in-yemen/

 

 

You didn't say that a 'terrorist organisation' should leave well alone. You said that Hezbollah should leave Lebanon & I'll copy & re-post what you said if you cannot be honest.

 

Here's what Wikipedia (one of your favourites) says about the war in Yemen:

Fighter jets and ground forces from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Academi mercenaries also took part in the operation. Djibouti, Eritrea and Somalia made their airspace, territorial waters and military bases available to the coalition.^[19] The United States provided intelligence and logistical support, including aerial refueling and search-and-rescue for downed coalition pilots.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

 

And there's lots more including billions of dollars worth of weapons for Saudi to attack the Houthis. As usual the US was talking out of both sides of its mouth in its support of the Saudis - long before Trump.

Edited November 17, 2017 by khunken
clarity

[boomerangutang]

To be most effective - toward formulating a type of peace, the US should not take sides.  But that's difficult for the US.  Currently, Trumpsters are taking sides with the Saudis.  

 

In the best of times, in the M.East, there are internecine wars, and these aren't the best of times.

 

Yemenis are suffering majorly.  NPR report from today

 

excerpt:  "This horror is caused in part by our decision to facilitate a bombing campaign that is murdering children," Senator Murphy said, "and to endorse a Saudi strategy inside Yemen that is deliberately using disease and starvation and the withdrawal of humanitarian support as a tactic."

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, nasanews said:

No wonder to know American administration is double faced, they pretend to be democratic on issues while interest is their lust.

 

Democratic countries got interests too. There is no contradiction.

And going on about the USA being "double faced"...most governments are, at least on some issues.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

To be most effective - toward formulating a type of peace, the US should not take sides.  But that's difficult for the US.  Currently, Trumpsters are taking sides with the Saudis.  

 

In the best of times, in the M.East, there are internecine wars, and these aren't the best of times.

 

Yemenis are suffering majorly.  NPR report from today

 

excerpt:  "This horror is caused in part by our decision to facilitate a bombing campaign that is murdering children," Senator Murphy said, "and to endorse a Saudi strategy inside Yemen that is deliberately using disease and starvation and the withdrawal of humanitarian support as a tactic."

 

 

Currently how?

 

The USA held a generally pro-Saudi, anti-Iran stance for decades now. It is not something of Trump's making. Nor is it about "Trumpsters" taking sides with the Saudis, that's just more of your built in bias talking. As for the Yemen war and supplying arms to Saudi Arabia - some of them big contracts Trump capitalized on were on the table, or under discussion during Obama's term.

 

Quote

A bill to block a huge American arms deal to Saudi Arabia failed to pass in the Senate on Wednesday. Lawmakers voted 71-27 to table Senate Joint Resolution 39.

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/21/senate-rejects-bill-blocking-u-s-saudi-arms-deal-rights-groups-applaud-growing-dissent-against-yemen-war-crimes/

 

Rights group blasts U.S. “hypocrisy” in “vast flood of weapons” to Saudi Arabia, despite war crimes

https://www.salon.com/2016/08/30/rights-group-blasts-u-s-hypocrisy-in-vast-flood-of-weapons-to-saudi-arabia-despite-war-crimes/

 

Quote

But the White House announced late Wednesday that President Obama had authorized U.S. forces­ to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation. American forces were establishing a “Joint Planning Cell” with Saudi Arabia to coordinate military and intelligence assistance, the statement said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-yemens-embattled-president-flees-stronghold-as-rebels-advance/2015/03/25/e0913ae2-d2d5-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html?utm_term=.fffa2d53de77

 

America Is Complicit in the Carnage in Yemen

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/opinion/stop-saudi-arms-sales-until-carnage-in-yemen-ends.html?_r=1

 

 

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#United_States

On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama issued a written statement echoed by the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany, that inter alia said: “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people.

 

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, khunken said:

You didn't say that a 'terrorist organisation' should leave well alone. You said that Hezbollah should leave Lebanon & I'll copy & re-post what you said if you cannot be honest.

 

Here's what Wikipedia (one of your favourites) says about the war in Yemen:

Fighter jets and ground forces from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Academi mercenaries also took part in the operation. Djibouti, Eritrea and Somalia made their airspace, territorial waters and military bases available to the coalition.^[19] The United States provided intelligence and logistical support, including aerial refueling and search-and-rescue for downed coalition pilots.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

 

And there's lots more including billions of dollars worth of weapons for Saudi to attack the Houthis. As usual the US was talking out of both sides of its mouth in its support of the Saudis - long before Trump.

No arguments.  But I've got no idea where you are going with that.  Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Hezbollah.  Impossible.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#United_States

On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama issued a written statement echoed by the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany, that inter alia said: “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people.

 

 

Doubt that the diplomatic-speak outweighs any non-human-rights-related interests involved. More often, these sort of statements are the veneer, rather than the substance. The level of support afforded by the USA was not of a magnitude which was enough to decide things, certainly not swiftly enough. If civilian casualties were the main concern, a whole lot more could have been done.

[khunken]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

No arguments.  But I've got no idea where you are going with that.  Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Hezbollah.  Impossible.

Where am I going? Nowhere except showing that, contrary to what you posted, the US has had a definite role in supporting Saudi in Yemen, right from the start.

 

Yes, Saudi has a far worse record, both in the Middle East and worldwide.

Saudi's rrecord in recent times:

A murderous put-down of an attempted uprising (Arab Spring-like) in Bahrain

An even worse campaign in Yemen

A stupid divide-and-rule effort to isolate Qatar

Execution of a Saudi Shia Imam for organising an uprising by Shias in east-Saudi

Paying for and installing preachers (in Mosques) of its poisonous Wahhabi doctrine in a numner of countries.

Similarly with madrassas, the latter two being a recruitment ground for AQ & IS & other allied extremists.

The only country, along with the UAE that recognised the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Hezbollah's record:

Supporting Assad and playing a strong role in eliminating IS from Syria.

Playing a similar but much smaller role in Iraq

Being the main force preventing any more Israeli interference in Lebanon - so far

Yes, they have been involved in incidents outside Lebanon - in Thailand and one South American country that I haven't researched. (not as much as Israel or the clear worst: the US).

 

So, yes, there is no comparison, especially when one cannot even count the atrocities carried out by Sunni extremists all over the world.

Edited November 18, 2017 by khunken

[Morch]

What are you two comparing Saudi Arabia and Hezbollah for? Apples and oranges.

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, khunken said:

Where am I going? Nowhere except showing that, contrary to what you posted, the US has had a definite role in supporting Saudi in Yemen, right from the start.

 

Yes, Saudi has a far worse record, both in the Middle East and worldwide.

Saudi's rrecord in recent times:

A murderous put-down of an attempted uprising (Arab Spring-like) in Bahrain

An even worse campaign in Yemen

A stupid divide-and-rule effort to isolate Qatar

Execution of a Saudi Shia Imam for organising an uprising by Shias in east-Saudi

Paying for and installing preachers (in Mosques) of its poisonous Wahhabi doctrine in a numner of countries.

Similarly with madrassas, the latter two being a recruitment ground for AQ & IS & other allied extremists.

The only country, along with the UAE that recognised the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Hezbollah's record:

Supporting Assad and playing a strong role in eliminating IS from Syria.

Playing a similar but much smaller role in Iraq

Being the main force preventing any more Israeli interference in Lebanon - so far

Yes, they have been involved in incidents outside Lebanon - in Thailand and one South American country that I haven't researched. (not as much as Israel or the clear worst: the US).

 

So, yes, there is no comparison, especially when one cannot even count the atrocities carried out by Sunni extremists all over the world.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Saudi does not have a good record and indeed does contribute to problems in the ME.  But Iran is worse.  You seem to only focus on the positive things from Hezbollah and not their terrorist activities.  Not sure why you are doing that.

 

Apples and oranges.  Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  Started by Iran to harass Israel.  Saudi Arabia is a nation, like Iran.  Apples and Oranges.

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, khunken said:

Where am I going? Nowhere except showing that, contrary to what you posted, the US has had a definite role in supporting Saudi in Yemen, right from the start.

 

Yes, Saudi has a far worse record, both in the Middle East and worldwide.

Saudi's rrecord in recent times:

A murderous put-down of an attempted uprising (Arab Spring-like) in Bahrain

An even worse campaign in Yemen

A stupid divide-and-rule effort to isolate Qatar

Execution of a Saudi Shia Imam for organising an uprising by Shias in east-Saudi

Paying for and installing preachers (in Mosques) of its poisonous Wahhabi doctrine in a numner of countries.

Similarly with madrassas, the latter two being a recruitment ground for AQ & IS & other allied extremists.

The only country, along with the UAE that recognised the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Hezbollah's record:

Supporting Assad and playing a strong role in eliminating IS from Syria.

Playing a similar but much smaller role in Iraq

Being the main force preventing any more Israeli interference in Lebanon - so far

Yes, they have been involved in incidents outside Lebanon - in Thailand and one South American country that I haven't researched. (not as much as Israel or the clear worst: the US).

 

So, yes, there is no comparison, especially when one cannot even count the atrocities carried out by Sunni extremists all over the world.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Saudi does not have a good record and indeed does contribute to problems in the ME.  But Iran is worse.  You seem to only focus on the positive things from Hezbollah and not their terrorist activities.  Not sure why you are doing that.

 

Apples and oranges.  Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  Started by Iran to harass Israel.  Saudi Arabia is a nation, like Iran.  Apples and Oranges.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

What are you two comparing Saudi Arabia and Hezbollah for? Apples and oranges.

He's trying to compare a terrorist organization to a nation.  A better example would be to compare Saudi Arabia to Iran.  Even then, Iran will lose out.  Developing nuclear weapons come to mind?

[Ron19]

A troll post and a number of replies to it have been removed.

[khunken]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Saudi does not have a good record and indeed does contribute to problems in the ME.  But Iran is worse.  You seem to only focus on the positive things from Hezbollah and not their terrorist activities.  Not sure why you are doing that.

 

Apples and oranges.  Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.  Started by Iran to harass Israel.  Saudi Arabia is a nation, like Iran.  Apples and Oranges.

I see using another posters version. First you get Hezbollah's country wrong, then you get US involvement in Yemen wrong. Now you get Iran, Hezbollah & Saudi all wrong.

First Hezbollah was not started to harass Israel - it was started just after an Israeli invasion of Lebanon that was responsible for a massacre of c1,700 Palestinians. It was formed, with Iranian support - not BY Iran - to confront the Israelis in Lebanon as the Lebanese army was too weak to do so. It remains the main protector of Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

 

Second Iran is nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia. It doesn't invade other countries nor does it provide support to the real terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda & IS. As I mentioned in my last post the Saudi Wahhabi extremist version of Islam has been exported to many allied terrorist groups and individuals like all the recent acts in the US & Europe. Those allied groups are active in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Bengladesh in particular, bombing and killing as many Shias 'apostates' as they can.

 

Iran does not export it's version of Islam nor does it control terrorist groups like Al-Nusra, the rebranded Al-Qaeda that Saudi (& at times the US) has supported. And of course there's the Taliban.

 

I don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (like the ones mentioned above) & the likes of those who parrot what the US says are not going to convince me otherwise.

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, khunken said:

I see using another posters version. First you get Hezbollah's country wrong, then you get US involvement in Yemen wrong. Now you get Iran, Hezbollah & Saudi all wrong.

First Hezbollah was not started to harass Israel - it was started just after an Israeli invasion of Lebanon that was responsible for a massacre of c1,700 Palestinians. It was formed, with Iranian support - not BY Iran - to confront the Israelis in Lebanon as the Lebanese army was too weak to do so. It remains the main protector of Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

 

Second Iran is nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia. It doesn't invade other countries nor does it provide support to the real terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda & IS. As I mentioned in my last post the Saudi Wahhabi extremist version of Islam has been exported to many allied terrorist groups and individuals like all the recent acts in the US & Europe. Those allied groups are active in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Bengladesh in particular, bombing and killing as many Shias 'apostates' as they can.

 

Iran does not export it's version of Islam nor does it control terrorist groups like Al-Nusra, the rebranded Al-Qaeda that Saudi (& at times the US) has supported. And of course there's the Taliban.

 

I don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (like the ones mentioned above) & the likes of those who parrot what the US says are not going to convince me otherwise.

You've lost the plot.  Please research why Hezbollah was started...then come back here.  I don't have the time.

 

Not started by Iran, but with Iranian support and troops.  I'm confused. LOL.  Not started to go after Israel, but started just after violence between Lebanon and Israel.  Me thinks you're confused.

 

Again, not sure why you are so pro Hezbollah.  Boggles my mind.  Are you also a supporter of North Korea? LOL

[khunken]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

You've lost the plot.  Please research why Hezbollah was started...then come back here.  I don't have the time.

 

Not started by Iran, but with Iranian support and troops.  I'm confused. LOL.  Not started to go after Israel, but started just after violence between Lebanon and Israel.  Me thinks you're confused.

 

Again, not sure why you are so pro Hezbollah.  Boggles my mind.  Are you also a supporter of North Korea? LOL

Yes I've researched and followed the events in Lebanon & the ME as a whole since the early '80s. It is you that hasn't a clue about half of what you write which I've already pointed out.

No obligation to tell you why I'm for or against Hezbollah. Are you a supporter of Al-Qaeda & IS? LOL

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, khunken said:

Yes I've researched and followed the events in Lebanon & the ME as a whole since the early '80s. It is you that hasn't a clue about half of what you write which I've already pointed out.

No obligation to tell you why I'm for or against Hezbollah. Are you a supporter of Al-Qaeda & IS? LOL

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

Hezbollah was founded in the early 1980s as part of an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shi'a groups under one roof. Hezbollah acts as a proxy for Iran in the ongoing Iran–Israel proxy conflict.^[19] Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass the Israeli occupation

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, khunken said:

I see using another posters version. First you get Hezbollah's country wrong, then you get US involvement in Yemen wrong. Now you get Iran, Hezbollah & Saudi all wrong.

First Hezbollah was not started to harass Israel - it was started just after an Israeli invasion of Lebanon that was responsible for a massacre of c1,700 Palestinians. It was formed, with Iranian support - not BY Iran - to confront the Israelis in Lebanon as the Lebanese army was too weak to do so. It remains the main protector of Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

 

Second Iran is nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia. It doesn't invade other countries nor does it provide support to the real terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda & IS. As I mentioned in my last post the Saudi Wahhabi extremist version of Islam has been exported to many allied terrorist groups and individuals like all the recent acts in the US & Europe. Those allied groups are active in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Bengladesh in particular, bombing and killing as many Shias 'apostates' as they can.

 

Iran does not export it's version of Islam nor does it control terrorist groups like Al-Nusra, the rebranded Al-Qaeda that Saudi (& at times the US) has supported. And of course there's the Taliban.

 

I don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (like the ones mentioned above) & the likes of those who parrot what the US says are not going to convince me otherwise.

 

Hezbollah's origins are tied with Iran, spin it however you like. If you're having trouble with this, consult Hezbollah's original manifest, where it's allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader is spelled out. Hezbollah would have remained just another sectarian outfit if it wasn't for massive Iranian support from the start. The aim, by the way was dual - both fighting Israeli forces, and unifying (one way or the other) the Shia factions. May want to recall how things went for the previously dominant Shia outfit, Amal.

 

To a large degree, Hezbollah's mission vs. Israel has already been accomplished. Israel by and large, withdrew from Lebanon years ago. The devastation visited upon Lebanon by later Israeli incursions is not independent (and can be said to have resulted) from Hezbollah's actions. There is no Lebanese consensus on Hezbollah's role in this regard, what you present is pretty much Hezbollah's position.

 

You do not mention that Hezbollah is also using it's military power as political leverage within Lebanon, or that other factions agreeing to disarm and place their trust in the Lebanese army. Going on about the latter being weak, without tying it Hezbollah's role and actions is disingenuous. There is no good argument for supporting the existence of an armed organizations which is not subservient to the central government, and which often operates (again, deny all you will) according to foreign agenda and interests.

 

[khunken]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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

Hezbollah was founded in the early 1980s as part of an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shi'a groups under one roof. Hezbollah acts as a proxy for Iran in the ongoing Iran–Israel proxy conflict.^[19] Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass the Israeli occupation

Another version with somewhat more accuracy:

 

Shīʿite Muslims, traditionally the weakest religious group in Lebanon, first found their voice in the moderate and largely secular Amal movement. Following the Islamic revolution in Shīʿite Iran in 1979 and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a group of Lebanese Shīʿite clerics formed Hezbollah with the goal of driving Israel from Lebanon and establishing an Islamic state there.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hezbollah

 

 

[khunken]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah's origins are tied with Iran, spin it however you like. If you're having trouble with this, consult Hezbollah's original manifest, where it's allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader is spelled out. Hezbollah would have remained just another sectarian outfit if it wasn't for massive Iranian support from the start. The aim, by the way was dual - both fighting Israeli forces, and unifying (one way or the other) the Shia factions. May want to recall how things went for the previously dominant Shia outfit, Amal.

 

To a large degree, Hezbollah's mission vs. Israel has already been accomplished. Israel by and large, withdrew from Lebanon years ago. The devastation visited upon Lebanon by later Israeli incursions is not independent (and can be said to have resulted) from Hezbollah's actions. There is no Lebanese consensus on Hezbollah's role in this regard, what you present is pretty much Hezbollah's position.

 

You do not mention that Hezbollah is also using it's military power as political leverage within Lebanon, or that other factions agreeing to disarm and place their trust in the Lebanese army. Going on about the latter being weak, without tying it Hezbollah's role and actions is disingenuous. There is no good argument for supporting the existence of an armed organizations which is not subservient to the central government, and which often operates (again, deny all you will) according to foreign agenda and interests.

 

As you deliberately ignored that I did attribute Iranian assistance to Hezbollah's formation and your continuing efforts to continue the old 'control' argument (lie) which has been done to death, that's all I have to say about your regurgitation of your efforts to paint Hezbollah as the sole problem in Lebanon.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, khunken said:

As you deliberately ignored that I did attribute Iranian assistance to Hezbollah's formation and your continuing efforts to continue the old 'control' argument (lie) which has been done to death, that's all I have to say about your regurgitation of your efforts to paint Hezbollah as the sole problem in Lebanon.

 

I did not "ignore" anything. I think that you intentionally downplay Iran's role and position with regard to anything related to Hezbollah. That you call something "old school" or "lie" doesn't really carry much weight, nor changes facts.

 

And nowhere did I made Hezbollah to be the "sole problem" in Lebanon. That Hezbollah's role and affiliation represent several major problems for Lebanon, is a fact. The same would apply if it was a Saudi supported Sunni organization, operating outside of central government authority, and according to foreign agenda and interests.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

Another version with somewhat more accuracy:

 

Shīʿite Muslims, traditionally the weakest religious group in Lebanon, first found their voice in the moderate and largely secular Amal movement. Following the Islamic revolution in Shīʿite Iran in 1979 and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a group of Lebanese Shīʿite clerics formed Hezbollah with the goal of driving Israel from Lebanon and establishing an Islamic state there.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hezbollah

 

 

 

Sorta shot your foot with that one.

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sorta shot your foot with that one.

Incredible that he doesn't get it.  Kinda like those that support North Korea.  "They are just trying to survive."  Right....

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 11/17/2017 at 3:03 PM, Morch said:

 

What is included under "Iran will never back down"? I don't think there's any serious intentions of invading Iran or subjugating it. Most of the political (as distinctive from religious differences) issues raised relate to Iran's ambitions regarding the scope of its regional influence. What the Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region fear is not a wholesale takeover by Iran - but the disruption of their countries and rule, by Iranian support for various dissenting elements (usually Shia). There's a good case for such groups being discriminated against, but being the ME, casting stones is tricky.

 

I think it would take a whole lot more than what we're seeing up to now, in order for Saudi Arabia and Iran to actually come to blows. For Saudi Arabia's part - all that hardware bought form the USA is no substitute for numbers, battle experience and fighting spirit. Going directly against Iran, without massive backup is bound to end in tears. For Iran, there's no particular incentive to change its ongoing successful strategy, which relies on avoiding a confrontation, plus direct attacks on Saudi Arabia are still likely to be taken negatively by Muslims countries.

 

The USA is unable to play a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its stance vs. Iran hasn't been neutral for decades, so the best one may expect are efforts to prevent an escalation by leveraging Saudi Arabia. Whether or not the USA still possess enough clout to do so, is a good question. That USA regional foreign policy (which wasn't clear or much of a success) is even more messed up under Trump's administration, makes it less likely that the USA will play a constructive, positive role on this front.

 

The peacemaker role the USA may (or may not) play is more related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To a certain degree, this involves Saudi Arabia's participation and goodwill. I would be surprised if some of the discussions held do not tie future peace prospects with one or the other sort of mutual support.

 

I don't know that Israel, as a whole, is "pushing for a confrontation with Iran be any means possible". It may describe Israel's Prime Minister's (and some of his right wing cronies) point of view, but not something unanimously supported by Israel's military and security chiefs. That many recognize such a confrontation might emerge is not quite the same as seeking it.

Very good post. What role do you think China could play? They seem to be getting more and more involved in the region.

[khunken]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Incredible that he doesn't get it.  Kinda like those that support North Korea.  "They are just trying to survive."  Right....

Incredible that you keep posting incorrect (fake news?) views on subjects that you don't seem to have a clue about.

 

The EB link clearly showed that it was Israel's invasion of Lebanon that triggered Hezbollah's formation - by Lebanese Shi'ites not Iran as you keep falsely claiming.

Kinda like those who keep trying to support invasions as 'it's for the good of the invaded country'. Yemen - right....