Hezbollah urges supporters to stand firm in face of U.S. sanctions

[rooster59]

Hezbollah urges supporters to stand firm in face of U.S. sanctions

 

Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is seen on a video screen as he addresses his supporters in Beirut, Lebanon May 14, 2018. REUTERS/Aziz Taher

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah urged supporters on Friday to stand firm in the face of U.S. sanctions targeting the Iran-backed Shi'ite movement and brace for more pressure.

 

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah also vowed to mount a campaign against corruption in the Lebanese state and warned it would face financial collapse if it did not tackle waste.

 

In elections this month, Hezbollah along with parties and politicians that endorse its possession of arms gained sway in parliament.

Western-backed Sunni leader Saad al-Hariri will now form Lebanon's next coalition government to contain the main parties including Hezbollah.

 

Washington has sought to choke off Hezbollah funding, with sanctions among a slew of fresh measures against Tehran since U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.

 

The United States imposed sanctions last week on Hezbollah's representative to Iran, as well as a financier and five companies in Europe, West Africa and the Middle East. Washington and Gulf partners also announced more sanctions on Hezbollah leadership, including its top two officials, Nasrallah and Naim Qassem.

 

Nasrallah called the sanctions "part of the battle" and said they would not impact its leadership but could harm its backers.

 

"When they (sanction) Lebanese companies or organizations ... of course, this is very harmful, and so nobody should underestimate it," Nasrallah said in a televised speech marking the anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from occupied parts of south Lebanon in 2000.

 

He said the Lebanese government was responsible for citizens hit by the sanctions and must not turn its back on them.

 

Nasrallah warned of the United States and its allies ramping up pressure in the future, but said such steps would yield no result. He described harm that supporters and financiers may face as "a sacrifice".

 

He said the sanctions would not affect the formation of a new government set to start next week.

 

After Lebanon's first legislative vote in nine years, the dire economic situation and unsustainable public debt levels are top priorities for the next government.

 

Lebanon is the world's third-most indebted nation with a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 150 percent.

 

Nasrallah pledged that Hezbollah would launch a "serious, strategic, and major" campaign to fight corruption. "We did not offer blood and liberate lands...for our country to go bankrupt and collapse."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-26

[ezzra]

36 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

Washington has sought to choke off Hezbollah funding, with sanctions among a slew of fresh measures against Tehran since U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.

This is a terrorist outfit that has morphed to become an army with the help and aid of Iran, all the while it's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah hide and lives in a bunker for the last 18 years fearing for his life, so now the terrorist has become a politician as often tyrants do...

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

This is a terrorist outfit that has morphed to become an army with the help and aid of Iran, all the while it's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah hide and lives in a bunker for the last 18 years fearing for his life, so now the terrorist has become a politician as often tyrants do...

It's very easy to unthinkingly put labels on people or groups.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and tomorrow's head of state feted by the west.

Just this week Turkey labelled Hezbollah's enemies to the south a terrorist state...see how easy it is.

 

If Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has been fearing for his life for the last 18 years, I am not surprised with Israel's record of assassinations. Only a dope would wander around wearing a Target T shirt ... I suspect he is smarter than that.

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[tonbridgebrit]

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/middleeast/hezbollah-isis/index.html

Okay, the above article from CNN says  "Lebanon's campaign against ISIS in its border region has been declared "mission accomplished" by the armed group Hezbollah shortly after it announced a pause in the fight against the militant group.".

Basically, Hezbollah has been fighting against ISIS. I think it's absurd that the media has decided to demonize Hezbollah, when Hezbollah are actually fighting against ISIS in the Middle East.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

It's very easy to unthinkingly put labels on people or groups.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and tomorrow's head of state feted by the west.

Just this week Turkey labelled Hezbollah's enemies to the south a terrorist state...see how easy it is.

 

If Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has been fearing for his life for the last 18 years, I am not surprised with Israel's record of assassinations. Only a dope would wander around wearing a Target T shirt ... I suspect he is smarter than that.

 

It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization. And to assert such labels were applied "unthinkingly" is both incorrect and presumptuous. Terrorist do not usually become acceptable political partners prior to disavowing violence and laying down arms.

 

Here's a list of of some designating Hezbollah (or various parts of it) as a terrorist organization: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Netherlands, Japan, UK, US, EU, Arab League, GCC. So while you try to spin it as posters' personal takes, reality is quite different.

 

As for assassinations: "those who live in glass houses" and all that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Rafic_Hariri

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/middleeast/hezbollah-isis/index.html

Okay, the above article from CNN says  "Lebanon's campaign against ISIS in its border region has been declared "mission accomplished" by the armed group Hezbollah shortly after it announced a pause in the fight against the militant group.".

Basically, Hezbollah has been fighting against ISIS. I think it's absurd that the media has decided to demonize Hezbollah, when Hezbollah are actually fighting against ISIS in the Middle East.

 

Absurd would be an apt description of your post.

One terrorist organization fighting another is not uncommon.

And the media hasn't "decided to demonize Hezbollah", other than in your imagination.

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/middleeast/hezbollah-isis/index.html

Okay, the above article from CNN says  "Lebanon's campaign against ISIS in its border region has been declared "mission accomplished" by the armed group Hezbollah shortly after it announced a pause in the fight against the militant group.".

Basically, Hezbollah has been fighting against ISIS. I think it's absurd that the media has decided to demonize Hezbollah, when Hezbollah are actually fighting against ISIS in the Middle East.

You are taking a turf war out of context. Hizbollah is not some guardian of virtue as there is not much difference between the two groups in Lebanon when it comes to radical violence. The key difference is that Hizbollah is a state within a state. One group wanted to take over another violent group's turf. Back in the day, Hizbollah wiped out other factions when it took control of south Lebanon.

Hizbollah would like to install another religious dominated dictatorship in Lebanon.

[Morch]

Got to just love leaders preaching others' sacrifice. Or those deflecting responsibility when the country as a whole suffers the consequences of their partisan, sectarian actions and policies. Never mind when following dictated from foreign powers. Of course, it is the Lebanese government that ought to address this - not, heaven forbid, the Hezbollah or its leadership. Fighting corruption is great, perhaps his organization should lead by example, though.

[bristolboy]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization. And to assert such labels were applied "unthinkingly" is both incorrect and presumptuous. Terrorist do not usually become acceptable political partners prior to disavowing violence and laying down arms.

 

Here's a list of of some designating Hezbollah (or various parts of it) as a terrorist organization: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Netherlands, Japan, UK, US, EU, Arab League, GCC. So while you try to spin it as posters' personal takes, reality is quite different.

 

As for assassinations: "those who live in glass houses" and all that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Rafic_Hariri

 

 

A terrorist organization that hasn't committed any terrorist attacks in almost 6 years? How many years does it take for that label to expire? 10? 20? 30? 50?

And of course Hezbollah is a huge organization.It consists of a militia, a social services provider, and it's the biggest political party in Lebanon. To designate it a terrorist organization would be a ludicrous oversimplification even if Hesbollah were still committing terrorist acts.

This designation was applied a long time ago by various nations. What parts of Hesbollah would they be calling "terrorist" now? Apparently parts that haven't worked for almost 6 years. Of course, Hezbollah hasn changed massively from it's early days. Organizations born in revolutionary violence often change their character over time. As they become invested in the status quo, they tend to eschew unorthodox paths of violence. Out of policy reasons and an abundance of caution it's understandable why some nations would be reluctant to change the designation. For others, it's because Hesbollah stands in the way of their goals.

And the assassination of Rafic Hariri took place about 13 years ago in very different times. As you well know. And as you also well know, Hesbollah is currently working with his son. The year is 2018 not 2005.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization. And to assert such labels were applied "unthinkingly" is both incorrect and presumptuous. Terrorist do not usually become acceptable political partners prior to disavowing violence and laying down arms.

 

Here's a list of of some designating Hezbollah (or various parts of it) as a terrorist organization: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Netherlands, Japan, UK, US, EU, Arab League, GCC. So while you try to spin it as posters' personal takes, reality is quite different.

 

As for assassinations: "those who live in glass houses" and all that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Rafic_Hariri

 

 

>>It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization.
...oh yes it is. Turkey and many other states labelled Israel a terrorist state last week. No doubt you would question Turkey's right to do so. I would say the label applies to states, groups or individuals who kill and terrorize innocent civilians wantonly. Plenty qualify for that epithet.
 
I am pointing out how when history unfolds and yesterday's terrorists are revamped as freedom fighters or resistance leaders, history is somehow rewritten. And yesterdays politicians erstwhile parroting the terrorist slogan are exposed as hypocrites.

 

Some ex-leaders such as Mugabe once labled terrorist even got invited to a royal state visit and to dine with the Queen, then continued his murderous terrorist activities, only to be relabelled "terrorist". Others such as once labled terrorist Mandela saved South Africa from a bloodbath and was rightfully feted.  It's a very fickle and flexible process this terrorist labelling business when applied by governments. Depends on which follow my leader stereotyping they are following at the time.

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A terrorist organization that hasn't committed any terrorist attacks in almost 6 years? How many years does it take for that label to expire? 10? 20? 30? 50?

And of course Hezbollah is a huge organization.It consists of a militia, a social services provider, and it's the biggest political party in Lebanon. To designate it a terrorist organization would be a ludicrous oversimplification even if Hesbollah were still committing terrorist acts.

This designation was applied a long time ago by various nations. What parts of Hesbollah would they be calling "terrorist" now? Apparently parts that haven't worked for almost 6 years. Of course, Hezbollah hasn changed massively from it's early days. Organizations born in revolutionary violence often change their character over time. As they become invested in the status quo, they tend to eschew unorthodox paths of violence. Out of policy reasons and an abundance of caution it's understandable why some nations would be reluctant to change the designation. For others, it's because Hesbollah stands in the way of their goals.

And the assassination of Rafic Hariri took place about 13 years ago in very different times. As you well know. And as you also well know, Hesbollah is currently working with his son. The year is 2018 not 2005.

 

Yawn.

 

All of your nothing "points" were previously addressed on a recent topic. But since you insist of feigning ignorance and playing obtuse...

 

As to when the designation expires - probably when such organizations lay down their arms, and drop certain items from their agenda. Other than that, at the designating countries' pleasure and in accordance with their legal systems.

 

Hezbollah was called upon by Iran to support Assad's regime in Syria. The Syrian Civil War been going on for several years now, and so does Hezbollah's involvement. This takes its toll on the organization's resources, ability and motivation to engage in other military activities.

 

While you may consider it acceptable or normal for a political party etc. to support (or vice versa, whatever) a "military wing", and expect it to be treated as any other civilian body, I doubt you've got much of a case there. It ought to be noted that some of those designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization do apply this to only to its military wing (or other unsavory parts).

 

The designation was applied by different nations at different times. For example, unless mistaken, France's stance on this is relatively recent.

 

For Hezbollah to "eschew unorthodox paths of violence" it will need to disarm, cease maintaining an independent (at least from Lebanon's government) foreign policy, and morph into a fully civilian organization. Until then, all your waffle is meaningless. Being the only political party with an army to back it up may make actual use of violence somewhat redundant.

 

Unless you missed, which I'm sure you haven't, the context of bringing up Hariri's assassination was a nothing comment by another Hezbollah fan. That Hariri Junior doesn't have a whole lot of a backbone is nothing new. Lebanese politics are often like that.

 

If you want to rile against and whine about Hezbollah being designated a terrorist organization, that's fine. Whatever gets you off. That still doesn't change the facts though - and the facts are that there's a rather wide agreement on this score.

 

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization.
...oh yes it is. Turkey and many other states labelled Israel a terrorist state last week. No doubt you would question Turkey's right to do so. I would say the label applies to states, groups or individuals who kill and terrorize innocent civilians wantonly. Plenty qualify for that epithet.
 
I am pointing out how when history unfolds and yesterday's terrorists are revamped as freedom fighters or resistance leaders, history is somehow rewritten. And yesterdays politicians erstwhile parroting the terrorist slogan are exposed as hypocrites.

 

Some ex-leaders such as Mugabe once labled terrorist even got invited to a royal state visit and to dine with the Queen, then continued his murderous terrorist activities, only to be relabelled "terrorist". Others such as once labled terrorist Mandela saved South Africa from a bloodbath and was rightfully feted.  It's a very fickle and flexible process this terrorist labelling business when applied by governments. Depends on which follow my leader stereotyping they are following at the time.

 

If you actually believe the nonsense you posted, that's rather "sad".

 

It is easy to call another country, or an organization "terrorist". There are no legal requirements or process involved, and there are no actual implications. Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.

 

The same applies to your often vehement pronunciations, and what you "would say". It carries no weight, essentially meaningless. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not doesn't change facts.

 

Your tired slogans notwithstanding, terrorists are not usually acceptable and "normalized" until they lay down their arms, renounce violence and choose diplomacy instead. If they relapse, the designation (or label) may be reapplied. And you really need to be more informed about Mandela's life and positions, before trying to market the particular bit of nonsense touted.

 

The fact stands that a whole lot of countries designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You don't like it, for obvious political reasons. That's fine, but still doesn't change facts.

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Morch

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

All of your nothing "points" were previously addressed on a recent topic. But since you insist of feigning ignorance and playing obtuse...

 

As to when the designation expires - probably when such organizations lay down their arms, and drop certain items from their agenda. Other than that, at the designating countries' pleasure and in accordance with their legal systems.

 

Hezbollah was called upon by Iran to support Assad's regime in Syria. The Syrian Civil War been going on for several years now, and so does Hezbollah's involvement. This takes its toll on the organization's resources, ability and motivation to engage in other military activities.

 

While you may consider it acceptable or normal for a political party etc. to support (or vice versa, whatever) a "military wing", and expect it to be treated as any other civilian body, I doubt you've got much of a case there. It ought to be noted that some of those designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization do apply this to only to its military wing (or other unsavory parts).

 

The designation was applied by different nations at different times. For example, unless mistaken, France's stance on this is relatively recent.

 

For Hezbollah to "eschew unorthodox paths of violence" it will need to disarm, cease maintaining an independent (at least from Lebanon's government) foreign policy, and morph into a fully civilian organization. Until then, all your waffle is meaningless. Being the only political party with an army to back it up may make actual use of violence somewhat redundant.

 

Unless you missed, which I'm sure you haven't, the context of bringing up Hariri's assassination was a nothing comment by another Hezbollah fan. That Hariri Junior doesn't have a whole lot of a backbone is nothing new. Lebanese politics are often like that.

 

If you want to rile against and whine about Hezbollah being designated a terrorist organization, that's fine. Whatever gets you off. That still doesn't change the facts though - and the facts are that there's a rather wide agreement on this score.

 

What you conveniently ignore is the years of pressure that the US put on EU members to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization And despite that pressure, it was decided that only the military branch of Hezbollah would be considered a terrorist organization. That signified European resistance to Washington’s pressure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/world/middleeast/allies-resisting-as-us-pushes-terror-label-for-hezbollah.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-hezbollah/eu-adds-hezbollahs-military-wing-to-terrorism-list-idUSBRE96K0DA20130722

 

What’s more, this happened in 2013 when Hezbollah had begun to turn the tide in favor of Assad. Remember how enthusiastic support was back then for the anti Assad rebels (and how undiscriminating.)? So there was a lot of anger at Hezbollah. And sure enough, one of the 2 grounds explicitly stated for declaring Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist organization was its support of Assad. (the other was the terrorist attack in Bulgaria) If there’s one thing wars are good for, it’s paralyzing thought. I don’t see how supporting Assad qualifies as a terroristic activity. But then I can make that judgement without being pressurized by the US government.

 
But if supporting an evil government that treat civilians ruthlessly means an organization is terroristic, then I don’t see why the US military doesn’t also qualify given its support of the ruthless and brutal slaughter of Yemenese civilians by the Saudi Government. But of course, there’s no one to put that kind of pressure on sovereign government to so declare.

As for the Arab League’s support of the designation, you must have a very high embarrassment threshold to offer that as any kind of evidence. And as for Australia or Canada, why would they oppose such a designation? To anger theirmost important ally? 
You have a remarkably convenient of being blind to Realpolitik when it suits you to.

Of course, maybe you didn't know of the enormous pressure the US brought to bear on various nations to so declare Hezbollah or its military wing terrorist. In that case, your arguments would be hollow but not dishonest.
 

[dexterm]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you actually believe the nonsense you posted, that's rather "sad".

 

It is easy to call another country, or an organization "terrorist". There are no legal requirements or process involved, and there are no actual implications. Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.

 

The same applies to your often vehement pronunciations, and what you "would say". It carries no weight, essentially meaningless. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not doesn't change facts.

 

Your tired slogans notwithstanding, terrorists are not usually acceptable and "normalized" until they lay down their arms, renounce violence and choose diplomacy instead. If they relapse, the designation (or label) may be reapplied. And you really need to be more informed about Mandela's life and positions, before trying to market the particular bit of nonsense touted.

 

The fact stands that a whole lot of countries designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You don't like it, for obvious political reasons. That's fine, but still doesn't change facts.

 

>>Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.

...what and whose legal?? requirements and what do various hypocritical countries do to unrequire yesterday's designation of a group or individual as terrorist? Nonsense. PM Thatcher at one point called Mandela a terrorist and defended apartheid.

 

[dexterm]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you actually believe the nonsense you posted, that's rather "sad".

 

It is easy to call another country, or an organization "terrorist". There are no legal requirements or process involved, and there are no actual implications. Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.

 

The same applies to your often vehement pronunciations, and what you "would say". It carries no weight, essentially meaningless. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not doesn't change facts.

 

Your tired slogans notwithstanding, terrorists are not usually acceptable and "normalized" until they lay down their arms, renounce violence and choose diplomacy instead. If they relapse, the designation (or label) may be reapplied. And you really need to be more informed about Mandela's life and positions, before trying to market the particular bit of nonsense touted.

 

The fact stands that a whole lot of countries designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You don't like it, for obvious political reasons. That's fine, but still doesn't change facts.

 

>>Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.
... has Lebanon's Hariri's Christian faction ever acknowledged or apologised for their affiliated Phalangist party's role in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp massacres of thousands of civilians in 1982 while Israeli forces under Ariel Sharon stood by watching. But perhaps those parties weren't accredited with the legal requirements to warrant the label "terrorists"

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

 

Total nonsense and hypocrisy.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What you conveniently ignore is the years of pressure that the US put on EU members to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization And despite that pressure, it was decided that only the military branch of Hezbollah would be considered a terrorist organization. That signified European resistance to Washington’s pressure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/world/middleeast/allies-resisting-as-us-pushes-terror-label-for-hezbollah.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-hezbollah/eu-adds-hezbollahs-military-wing-to-terrorism-list-idUSBRE96K0DA20130722

 

What’s more, this happened in 2013 when Hezbollah had begun to turn the tide in favor of Assad. Remember how enthusiastic support was back then for the anti Assad rebels (and how undiscriminating.)? So there was a lot of anger at Hezbollah. And sure enough, one of the 2 grounds explicitly stated for declaring Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist organization was its support of Assad. (the other was the terrorist attack in Bulgaria) If there’s one thing wars are good for, it’s paralyzing thought. I don’t see how supporting Assad qualifies as a terroristic activity. But then I can make that judgement without being pressurized by the US government.

 
But if supporting an evil government that treat civilians ruthlessly means an organization is terroristic, then I don’t see why the US military doesn’t also qualify given its support of the ruthless and brutal slaughter of Yemenese civilians by the Saudi Government. But of course, there’s no one to put that kind of pressure on sovereign government to so declare.

As for the Arab League’s support of the designation, you must have a very high embarrassment threshold to offer that as any kind of evidence. And as for Australia or Canada, why would they oppose such a designation? To anger theirmost important ally? 
You have a remarkably convenient of being blind to Realpolitik when it suits you to.

Of course, maybe you didn't know of the enormous pressure the US brought to bear on various nations to so declare Hezbollah or its military wing terrorist. In that case, your arguments would be hollow but not dishonest.
 

 

I haven't "ignored" anything, conveniently or otherwise. If anyone's ignoring reality it would be yourself and the other Hezbollah fan.

 

What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant.

 

As for you links - may want to actually read them before posting. Both articles paint a more complex picture than your misleading touted "European resistance". Some were for it, some weren't. And bottom line, there was some sort of a compromise reached.

 

What’s more, this also happened following the conclusion of investigations into Hariri's assassination. If you imagine this didn't effect decisions, well then. Yes, and there was a terrorist attack in Bulgaria. And a foiled one in Cyprus.

 

Assad's regime's actions during the Syrian Civil War definitely amount to war crimes, and quite possibly, crimes against humanity. How you "see" or "don't see" Hezbollah's role in this context, or what you consider to "qualify" is irrelevant.

 

If your point about Saudi Arabia was an acknowledgement that the world isn't fair, well done. Other than that, countries are not usually designated as "terrorist" (other then in politicians' speeches). Just another lame attempt at deflection and muddying the waters.

 

No blindness to realpolitik, just not buying into all of your convulsed nonsense. You disregard facts, ignore that countries involved did not actually have strong positions as you claim, and cherry pick which factors apply. That you paint something one way doesn't make it so. Seems like the one having trouble accepting reality isn't me.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied, and there are directly related, defined and actual consequences involved.

...what and whose legal?? requirements and what do various hypocritical countries do to unrequire yesterday's designation of a group or individual as terrorist? Nonsense. PM Thatcher at one point called Mandela a terrorist and defended apartheid.

 

 

Legal as determined by countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization. You wish to call all them countries "hypocritical", go ahead. It doesn't change facts. It also won't stop you from praising them the second they'll utter something you consider as supporting your agenda. Considering the many times you praise "modern western style democracies" or some-such, quite the inconsistency there.

 

Not sure why you imagine that designation cannot be changed, or reapplied. What Thatcher got to do with anything shall remain a mystery.

 

 

[dexterm]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I haven't "ignored" anything, conveniently or otherwise. If anyone's ignoring reality it would be yourself and the other Hezbollah fan.

 

What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant.

 

As for you links - may want to actually read them before posting. Both articles paint a more complex picture than your misleading touted "European resistance". Some were for it, some weren't. And bottom line, there was some sort of a compromise reached.

 

What’s more, this also happened following the conclusion of investigations into Hariri's assassination. If you imagine this didn't effect decisions, well then. Yes, and there was a terrorist attack in Bulgaria. And a foiled one in Cyprus.

 

Assad's regime's actions during the Syrian Civil War definitely amount to war crimes, and quite possibly, crimes against humanity. How you "see" or "don't see" Hezbollah's role in this context, or what you consider to "qualify" is irrelevant.

 

If your point about Saudi Arabia was an acknowledgement that the world isn't fair, well done. Other than that, countries are not usually designated as "terrorist" (other then in politicians' speeches). Just another lame attempt at deflection and muddying the waters.

 

No blindness to realpolitik, just not buying into all of your convulsed nonsense. You disregard facts, ignore that countries involved did not actually have strong positions as you claim, and cherry pick which factors apply. That you paint something one way doesn't make it so. Seems like the one having trouble accepting reality isn't me.

>>What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant.
... I get it. The realpolitik is if a country has enough clout it is entitled to label another group or individual as terrorists while ignoring its own transgressions.
And the USA and EU have interests which are somehow sacrosanct and valid despite the death and mayhem they create in the world, whereas Iran and Hezbollah only have invalid interests.

[dexterm]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Legal as determined by countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization. You wish to call all them countries "hypocritical", go ahead. It doesn't change facts. It also won't stop you from praising them the second they'll utter something you consider as supporting your agenda. Considering the many times you praise "modern western style democracies" or some-such, quite the inconsistency there.

 

Not sure why you imagine that designation cannot be changed, or reapplied. What Thatcher got to do with anything shall remain a mystery.

 

 

>>Legal as determined by countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

..that's a ridiculous circular argument..countries can legally designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation because they are countries that designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

They make up the labels because they can.

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant.
... I get it. The realpolitik is if a country has enough clout it is entitled to label another group or individual as terrorists while ignoring its own transgressions.
And the USA and EU have interests which are somehow sacrosanct and valid despite the death and mayhem they create in the world, whereas Iran and Hezbollah only have invalid interests.

 

No, you don't "get it", and kindly stop twisting my words.

 

Countries do not need to be pure as snow in order to designate organizations as "terrorist". Nor is it a requirement to first address all of their own supposed sins. That you pretend to see the world in black and white doesn't compel anyone else to do so.

 

The US and the EU have interests. There was nothing said about them being "sacrosanct", that's something you added. It is quite possible for to all parties mentioned to have what they consider "valid" interests. Not being into religion, I doubt the existence of a a higher authority decidedly decreeing one set to be "valid". That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.

 

Once more, it is amusing how you deride these "modern western style democracies" (especially the EU) when it suits, praising them or laying high hopes in them on other topics. Oh well...

[dexterm]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, you don't "get it", and kindly stop twisting my words.

 

Countries do not need to be pure as snow in order to designate organizations as "terrorist". Nor is it a requirement to first address all of their own supposed sins. That you pretend to see the world in black and white doesn't compel anyone else to do so.

 

The US and the EU have interests. There was nothing said about them being "sacrosanct", that's something you added. It is quite possible for to all parties mentioned to have what they consider "valid" interests. Not being into religion, I doubt the existence of a a higher authority decidedly decreeing one set to be "valid". That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.

 

Once more, it is amusing how you deride these "modern western style democracies" (especially the EU) when it suits, praising them or laying high hopes in them on other topics. Oh well...

You still haven't explained how some countries can legally call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation and other than simply because they can. And justify applying sanctions because of their unilateral declaration.

 

>>That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.
... the same could be said for your position. You are positing that USA and EU  "have interests". Well so do Hezbollah and Iran. So what? Why should Iran put US interests before its own? If you don't regard US and EU  interests as somehow more valid and object to the others why are you mentioning them as support for sanctions?

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Legal as determined by countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

..that's a ridiculous circular argument..countries can legally designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation because they are countries that designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

 

No, that's you either having comprehensions issues, or pretending to have such.

 

You asked "what and whose legal requirements...". Unless you expect a thorough legal review of all legalities involved in all relevant countries, you'll have to make do with the answer above. Countries may designate organizations as "terrorist" in accordance with their own prescribed legal procedures. That you apparently object to countries being able to pass such decisions is, again, not particularly interesting or even relevant (hypocritical too, considering you routinely call for such in a different context). Countries may have positions that differ from yours, and interests that do not agree with your own political views. Such is life.

 

 

 

 

[dexterm]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, that's you either having comprehensions issues, or pretending to have such.

 

You asked "what and whose legal requirements...". Unless you expect a thorough legal review of all legalities involved in all relevant countries, you'll have to make do with the answer above. Countries may designate organizations as "terrorist" in accordance with their own prescribed legal procedures. That you apparently object to countries being able to pass such decisions is, again, not particularly interesting or even relevant (hypocritical too, considering you routinely call for such in a different context). Countries may have positions that differ from yours, and interests that do not agree with your own political views. Such is life.

 

 

 

 

And nor is your definition relevant. It is utter nonsense. That countries can call another country terrorist because they can make up laws that allow them to. I'm sure Iran can make up laws defining other countries as terrorist. In fact Iran has. But do Iran's laws and definitions somehow not count whereas other countries' do? 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

You still haven't explained how some countries can legally call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation and other than simply because they can. And justify applying sanctions because of their unilateral declaration.

 

>>That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.
... the same could be said for your position. You are positing that USA and EU  "have interests". Well so do Hezbollah and Iran. So what? Why should Iran put US interests before its own? If you don't regard US and EU  interests as somehow more valid and object to the others why are you mentioning them as support for sanctions?

 

I think I have addressed it a couple of times. The trouble seems to be with you simply not accepting that countries may hold positions you don't like.

 

A country may decide to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization based on information, legal issues and interests. Pretty much the same as any other decision made. The "justification" isn't usually made simply on the force of "deceleration" (the "unilateral" bit is redundant). It would involve demonstrating Hezbollah qualifies, according to the legal requirements (which may vary between countries).

 

As for your second nonsense point:

 

I don't mention US and EU interests as "support" for sanctions. I'm pointing to a fact. Countries have interests and they act upon them the best they can.

 

I do regard US and EU interests as more valid than those of Iran and Hezbollah. Mainly because they more closely relate to my world view or how I feel about various issues. Also, warts and all, that's still what I consider to be an overall "better" choice. Others may disagree, and they are welcome to hold their misguided views. This is a matter of opinion, each to his own.

 

There was nothing said about Iran or Hezbollah having to put US interests first. They don't. They do need to consider the consequences of their interests clashing with those of the US. Same goes the other way. That you resent the US being mightier, is irrelevant.

 

As for the Hezbollah being designated a terrorist organizations, that's a matter of fact. That you try to paint it as a personal designation, a whimsical one, call it relevant isn't factual. That difference. Again.

 

 

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, dexterm said:

And nor is your definition relevant. It is utter nonsense. That countries can call another country terrorist because they can make up laws that allow them to. I'm sure Iran can make up laws defining other countries as terrorist. In fact Iran has. But do Iran's laws and definitions somehow not count whereas other countries' do? 

 

 

Only this isn't "my" definition. There was a whole list of countries designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you wish to claim their take is "irrelevant", good luck with that. I don't think Hezbollah sees things your way, though.

 

Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Only this isn't "my" definition. There was a whole list of countries designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you wish to claim their take is "irrelevant", good luck with that. I don't think Hezbollah sees things your way, though.

 

Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

>>Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

Which is exactly what I said a page of posts ago: "It's a very fickle and flexible process this terrorist labelling business when applied by governments. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Israel calls Iran terrorist; Iran calls Israel terrorist.

 

The US, EU, Israel's etc labelling of Hezbollah and Iran as terrorists does not resonate much with me at all, when I examine the number and nature of Hezbollah's so called terrorist acts, the string pulling and special "interests" behind that labelling and the hypocrisy of the finger pointing countries themselves who have sent weapons and forces to kill and terrorize entire populations. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in recent wars being liberated by the terrorist labelling countries that you list?

 

Hezbollah and their supporters Iran are labelled as terrorists simply because it's a convenient pretext to impose sanctions. I have no doubt that the sanctions will have an impact. It's the faux justification for those sanctions that I am questioning.

Edited May 27, 2018 by dexterm

[bristolboy]

"What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant"

 

Such nonsense. I don't object to nations having interests. But I do think it vitiates the conclusions that other nations come to if they are being strongly and persistently pressurized. "Thumb on the scale"' mean anything to you? But if in fact, the conclusions of those nations that are either anti-Shia or subject to pressure are legitimate, then what of nations that have not come to that conclusion? In fact, a majority of the nations of the world have not deemed Hezbollah in total or in part to be a terrorist organization. So get back to me when they do,

 

And nowhere did I defend Hezbollah's support of Assad (although from their point of view self preservation is a pretty strong argument for their stance). I simply noted that supporting a government committing massively evil acts does not qualify as terrorism. If it did, then the military arm of United States should so qualify for its support of the brutal war Saudi Arabia has waged against Yemen. Even refusing access to let health workers and aid to battle the biggest cholera epidemic on record ever.  If the Saudis' conduct both in its indiscriminate bombing of civilians and its fostering of a cholera epidemic don't  qualify as a crime against humanity, what does? But of course, there is no heavy hand pushing other nations to come to that conclusion.

 

And you have persistently misunderstood my point about Saudi Arabia. Nowhere did I say that Saudi Arabia was a terrorist nation. What I said was that if supporting  the Syrian government's barbarity makes Hezbollah or its military wing a terrorist organization, then the US's support of Saudi's barbarity should make it in its entirety or just its military a terrorist organization, too. Seems a simple enough formulation to me.

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

Which is exactly what I said a page of posts ago: "It's a very fickle and flexible process this terrorist labelling business when applied by governments. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Israel calls Iran terrorist; Iran calls Israel terrorist.

 

The US, EU, Israel's etc labelling of Hezbollah and Iran as terrorists does not resonate much with me at all, when I examine the number and nature of Hezbollah's so called terrorist acts, the string pulling and special "interests" behind that labelling and the hypocrisy of the finger pointing countries themselves who have sent weapons and forces to kill and terrorize entire populations. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in recent wars being liberated by the terrorist labelling countries that you list?

 

Hezbollah and their supporters Iran are labelled as terrorists simply because it's a convenient pretext to impose sanctions. I have no doubt that the sanctions will have an impact. It's the faux justification for those sanctions that I am questioning.

 

No, this isn't "exactly what you said", and certainly not what was meant and posted. That you decide the process of designating organizations terrorist is "fickle and flexible" doesn't make it a fact. It would actually involve producing enough legal arguments to make it qualify. That you do not approve, does not mean anything.

 

What resonates with you is, oddly enough, both false and meaningless as well. You are a private person, and entitled to your own opinions. But if you were to breach relevant sanctions or laws, there could be consequences - I think that answers the "resonate" part. Hence, the wider the acceptance or agreement on such  designations, the more effective they become. So, while Iran (or yourself) could decree this or that, it would have a limited scope of effect and relevance.

 

That you decide Hezbollah didn't do anything meriting the designation as a terrorist organization, doesn't make it a fact. That you consider their "cause' righteous is neither universally supported, nor carries a whole lot of significance. Hence your "questioning" of the "justification", which ignores much of the facts presented is about as bogus as the pretense of not grasping countries can make such decisions.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant"

 

Such nonsense. I don't object to nations having interests. But I do think it vitiates the conclusions that other nations come to if they are being strongly and persistently pressurized. "Thumb on the scale"' mean anything to you? But if in fact, the conclusions of those nations that are either anti-Shia or subject to pressure are legitimate, then what of nations that have not come to that conclusion? In fact, a majority of the nations of the world have not deemed Hezbollah in total or in part to be a terrorist organization. So get back to me when they do,

 

And nowhere did I defend Hezbollah's support of Assad (although from their point of view self preservation is a pretty strong argument for their stance). I simply noted that supporting a government committing massively evil acts does not qualify as terrorism. If it did, then the military arm of United States should so qualify for its support of the brutal war Saudi Arabia has waged against Yemen. Even refusing access to let health workers and aid to battle the biggest cholera epidemic on record ever.  If the Saudis' conduct both in its indiscriminate bombing of civilians and its fostering of a cholera epidemic don't  qualify as a crime against humanity, what does? But of course, there is no heavy hand pushing other nations to come to that conclusion.

 

And you have persistently misunderstood my point about Saudi Arabia. Nowhere did I say that Saudi Arabia was a terrorist nation. What I said was that if supporting  the Syrian government's barbarity makes Hezbollah or its military wing a terrorist organization, then the US's support of Saudi's barbarity should make it in its entirety or just its military a terrorist organization, too. Seems a simple enough formulation to me.

 

 

 

The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

 

Your argument is based on a false, misleading presentation. Both of the articles you linked paint a more complex picture than what your are trying to market. Some European countries were for it, some against, some partially so. Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable. Put another way - if some of the Europeans countries advocated against designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and their refusal would have swayed or prevented other nations seeing it otherwise from taking action, you'd have no issues with this.

 

There was no claim that Hezbollah's designation as a terrorist organization is universal, only that it is wide. The view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organizations is prevalent among Western countries. On the other hand, among the countries overtly upholding Hezbollah legitimacy, one can find such names as North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. Personally, I tend to prefer the world view associated with the former group. There is no requirement for a universal majority, regardless of your nonsense. And no one needs to get back to you. 

 

Your inane deflections regarding Syria and Saudi Arabia are dully noted. So is your habit of derailing topics by going off on tangent whenever you can't make a decent point.

 

To briefly answer this nonsense, and perhaps a wider issue - an organization being designated terrorist is not an absolute construct. Other countries may see things differently. Some here seem confused as to it being an instance of "my opinion is as good as yours". It isn't. The planes of reference are different. While you and the other Hezbollah fan lamely attempt to highlight supposedly moral questions, the point actually made is of a more "practical" nature.

 

There is no absolute, higher authority which makes undisputed pronouncements on such things - unless one is into religion or poorly arguments as you two. Countries are not required to be pure as snow, or free from all sin in order to make such decisions. There weren't even claims that they are anything of the sort. There is no higher agency to judge everyone equally - your personal views on these matters aren't anything of the sort.

[dexterm]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, this isn't "exactly what you said", and certainly not what was meant and posted. That you decide the process of designating organizations terrorist is "fickle and flexible" doesn't make it a fact. It would actually involve producing enough legal arguments to make it qualify. That you do not approve, does not mean anything.

 

What resonates with you is, oddly enough, both false and meaningless as well. You are a private person, and entitled to your own opinions. But if you were to breach relevant sanctions or laws, there could be consequences - I think that answers the "resonate" part. Hence, the wider the acceptance or agreement on such  designations, the more effective they become. So, while Iran (or yourself) could decree this or that, it would have a limited scope of effect and relevance.

 

That you decide Hezbollah didn't do anything meriting the designation as a terrorist organization, doesn't make it a fact. That you consider their "cause' righteous is neither universally supported, nor carries a whole lot of significance. Hence your "questioning" of the "justification", which ignores much of the facts presented is about as bogus as the pretense of not grasping countries can make such decisions.

I wrote "It's very easy to unthinkingly put labels on people or groups. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" Iran has done it, Turkey did it last week but somehow their labelling countries as terrorist is invalid, but US and EU's is not.

 

Then you argue for a page of posts.
"It is actually not "very easy" to be labeled a terrorist organization." because "Officially designating an organization as "terrorist" is a whole different ball game - there are legal requirements for the designation to be applied"

 

I ask what are those legal requirements. You won't or can't tell me. You try  to fob me off with: "you'll have to make do with the answer above."

 

Only to finally admit "Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so."

Which is exactly what I argued. It's very easy to call people and countries terrorists. Any country may do so.

 

So when confronted with this contradiction, you resort to mindreading and outright denial. 
"No, this isn't "exactly what you said", and certainly not what was meant and posted". 

Very hard to argue against outright denial, calling black white. You are trolling.

 

That US and EU call Iran and Hezbollah terrorists does not make it a fact. It all boils down to what I also said above. Because some countries have more clout than others they can make the mud they throw stick, and use the mud as the basis for sanctions.