Hezbollah says nearing victory in battle at Lebanon-Syria border

[webfact]

Hezbollah says nearing victory in battle at Lebanon-Syria border

By Ellen Francis

 

FILE PHOTO: Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters via a screen during a rally marking Al-Quds day in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon June 23, 2017. REUTERS/Aziz Taher

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah said on Wednesday that the group was close to defeating Nusra Front militants in the battle along the Syrian-Lebanese border.

 

"We are in the face of a very big military victory," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech. The militants have "effectively lost" most of the land they held in the barren, mountainous border region of Jroud Arsal, he added.

 

As soon as the fighting ends, the Shi'ite Iranian-backed Hezbollah would be ready to hand over territory it has captured if the Lebanese army requests it, he said.

 

Hezbollah has made rapid advances since it launched an offensive with the Syrian army on Friday to drive Sunni militants from their last foothold along the frontier.

 

In the outskirts of the Lebanese town of Arsal, the operation has focussed on the ex-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's Syria branch until last year when it severed ties and rebranded. The next phase is expected to target a nearby enclave in the hands of Islamic State militants.

 

The Lebanese army, a big recipient of U.S. and British military support, has not taken part in the offensive and has set up defensive positions around Arsal, which Nasrallah described as essential.

 

Negotiations began on Tuesday between Lebanese officials and the Nusra Front over the withdrawal of remaining militants to insurgent-held territory in Syria, he also said.

 

"There is seriousness, better than at any previous time," Nasrallah said. But he added that militant demands remained unreasonable and that the Lebanese state, the Syrian government, and Hezbollah must each agree to the terms.

 

Hezbollah has played a major role in fighting militants in the border region during the six-year Syrian war, along with critical military support it has provided to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

 

On the Syrian side of the border, Hezbollah fought "shoulder to shoulder" with the Syrian army around the town of Fleita in recent days and cleared the area of insurgents, Nasrallah said.

 

Security sources say some two dozen Hezbollah fighters have been killed overall, and nearly 150 militants.

 

REFUGEE CAMPS

 

Early in the offensive, Saraya Ahl al-Sham - the FSA rebel faction that had a small presence in the area - pulled its fighters from the front lines, Nasrallah said. The rebels took charge of protecting nearby refugee camps.

 

"We facilitated this," he said. "We are ready to work with the Lebanese state and the Syrian government on the withdrawal" of the rebel faction to Syria.

 

Since the onset of the Syrian conflict, nearly 1.5 million refugees have poured into Lebanon - around a quarter of its population - where most languish in severe poverty. Several thousand refugees live in makeshift camps east of Arsal.

 

The Lebanese army has been helping with the passage of refugees fleeing the recent clashes at the border, with United Nations supervision, according to a security source.

 

The International Rescue Committee said around 390 people, mostly Syrian women and children, escaped to Arsal so far, many of them visibly shaken.

 

Nasrallah said fighters were proceeding cautiously because of the proximity of the refugee camps. The border offensive had been in the works for months and Hezbollah asked the Syrian army to help after deciding to launch the battle, he said.

 

Hezbollah's role in the Syrian conflict has drawn criticism from its Lebanese political opponents, including Sunni leader and Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.

 

During a state visit by Hariri this week, U.S. President Donald Trump called Hezbollah a threat to Lebanon from within and a "menace" to the region.

 

Nasrallah said on Wednesday he would not respond to Trump's comments in order "not to embarrass" the official Lebanese delegation to Washington.

 

(Additional reporting by Sarah Dadouch and Laila Bassam; Editing by Richard Balmforth and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-27

[craigt3365]

So one terrorist group is fighting another?  Crazy times. LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

So, Hezbollah are removing the Al-Nusra Front, and this is great news. The article also says that Hezbollah will now move onto removing ISIS in nearby areas. Great.

Let's hope Hezbollah can carry on. Hezbollah are backed by Iran. Maybe, all of us should back Hezbollah. Yes, be united in defeating the Al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra Front are, after all, the Al-Qaeda guys in Syria.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, Hezbollah are removing the Al-Nusra Front, and this is great news. The article also says that Hezbollah will now move onto removing ISIS in nearby areas. Great.

Let's hope Hezbollah can carry on. Hezbollah are backed by Iran. Maybe, all of us should back Hezbollah. Yes, be united in defeating the Al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra Front are, after all, the Al-Qaeda guys in Syria.

Yes, let's hope the terrorist organization removes another terrorist organization.  And yes, let's support Iran.  A country who supports terrorist groups.

 

GREAT NEWS! LOL

 

Wow...stunning.

[Srikcir]

Not so crazy really when it's Shi'ite Iranian-backed Hezbollah versus Sunni militants.

Muslim religious divisions seem fairly consistent throughout the M.E.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Not so crazy really when it's Shi'ite Iranian-backed Hezbollah versus Sunni militants.

Muslim religious divisions seem fairly consistent throughout the M.E.

Crazy times!  As has been reported many times, the biggest problem in the ME is Saudia Arabia and Iran. 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Yes, let's hope the terrorist organization removes another terrorist organization.  And yes, let's support Iran.  A country who supports terrorist groups.

 

GREAT NEWS! LOL

 

Wow...stunning.

The Al-Nusra Front are far more dangerous than Hezbollah, surely, we all know that ?

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

Above is a link from wikipedia. Yes, Britain accepts that the military wing of Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but Britain makes a distinction between the military wing and political wing. Australia reckons the same.

It's great that the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS are being removed by Hezbollah. I mean, if Hezbollah fails to remove the Al-Nusra Front, and if Assad also fails to remove them, then what ?  Oh, Washington will have to bomb the Al-Nusra Front. And indeed, I think Washington should give weapons to Hezbollah, to fight the Al-Nusra Front. It saves Washington having to pay for bombs that will be dropped onto the Al-Nusra Front in the future. And once the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have gone, well, Washington is not going to bomb Hezbollah. So, the fighting stops.

[simple1]

54 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

The Al-Nusra Front are far more dangerous than Hezbollah, surely, we all know that ?

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

Above is a link from wikipedia. Yes, Britain accepts that the military wing of Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but Britain makes a distinction between the military wing and political wing. Australia reckons the same.

It's great that the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS are being removed by Hezbollah. I mean, if Hezbollah fails to remove the Al-Nusra Front, and if Assad also fails to remove them, then what ?  Oh, Washington will have to bomb the Al-Nusra Front. And indeed, I think Washington should give weapons to Hezbollah, to fight the Al-Nusra Front. It saves Washington having to pay for bombs that will be dropped onto the Al-Nusra Front in the future. And once the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have gone, well, Washington is not going to bomb Hezbollah. So, the fighting stops.

You ever bother with background research prior to posting strange speculation? e.g. Hezbollah is an enemy of the US, whose operatives were recently arrested in NYC for plotting a terror attack as well as threatening US forces in Syria and a continuous threat to Israel.

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/syria-south-ceasefire-israel-hezbollah-confrontation.html

 

The current version of Al-Nusra Front,  Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, has and is being attacked by US & coalition forces.

Edited July 27, 2017 by simple1

[tonbridgebrit]

On 27/07/2017 at 11:03 AM, simple1 said:

You ever bother with background research prior to posting strange speculation? e.g. Hezbollah is an enemy of the US, whose operatives were recently arrested in NYC for plotting a terror attack as well as threatening US forces in Syria and a continuous threat to Israel.

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/syria-south-ceasefire-israel-hezbollah-confrontation.html

 

The current version of Al-Nusra Front,  Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, has and is being attacked by US & coalition forces.

Yes, the US doesn't actually like Hezbollah, but the US knows that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah. That's because it was Al-Qaeda who did 9/11.  In war, you attack the one who you think is most dangerous. And the Al-Nusra Front, they're very dangerous, that's because they are the Al-Qaeda branch or franchise in Syria.

So, you say that US and coalition forces are attacking the Al-Nusra Front. I think you mean that, the US is doing airstrikes (dropping bombs) to support whatever coalition groundforces. Good. The US is not doing airstrikes against Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah are trying to remove the Al-Nusra Front.

How about give weapons to Hezbollah ? Hezbollah are now trying to remove ISIS.
And once Hezbollah has removed ISIS, well, Washington is not going to drop bombs onto Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah will be withdrawing to Lebanon.

Edited July 28, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

On 7/27/2017 at 5:03 PM, simple1 said:

You ever bother with background research prior to posting strange speculation? e.g. Hezbollah is an enemy of the US, whose operatives were recently arrested in NYC for plotting a terror attack as well as threatening US forces in Syria and a continuous threat to Israel.

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/syria-south-ceasefire-israel-hezbollah-confrontation.html

 

The current version of Al-Nusra Front,  Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, has and is being attacked by US & coalition forces.

First off, it's allegations. Nothing proven. And second, it's just one potential incident. All the actual terrorist attacks come from Sunni fanatics.

Edit: I should have said terrorist attacks in the west. And in the 21st century.

Edited July 28, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[tonbridgebrit]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, it's allegations. Nothing proven. And second, it's just one potential incident. All the actual terrorist attacks come from Sunni fanatics.

Yes, I totally agree.
Sunni groups, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, they've damaged America and Europe far more than Shia groups. Hezbollah is a Shia group, Iran is a Shia nation. Why the absurdity of saying that Hezbollah and Iran are a threat, when Sunni groups are far more dangerous.

Edited July 28, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[simple1]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, the US doesn't actually like Hezbollah, but the US knows that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah. That's because it was Al-Qaeda who did 9/11.  In war, you attack the one who you think is most dangerous. And the Al-Nusra Front, they're very dangerous, that's because they are the Al-Qaeda branch or franchise in Syria.

So, you say that US and coalition forces are attacking the Al-Nusra Front. I think you mean that, the US is doing airstrikes (dropping bombs) to support whatever coalition groundforces. Good. The US is not doing airstrikes against Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah are trying to remove the Al-Nusra Front.

How about give weapons to Hezbollah ? Hezbollah are now trying to remove ISIS.
And once Hezbollah has removed ISIS, well, Washington is not going to drop bombs onto Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah will be withdrawing to Lebanon.

Israel attacks Hezbollah on a fairly regular basis in Syria, asked yourself why? US has attacked pro Iranian forces in Syria. Hezbollah is operating in Yemen & Iraq. Hezbollah is an ongoing strategic threat to the stability of Lebanon & Israel.

Edited July 28, 2017 by simple1

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Israel attacks Hezbollah on a fairly regular basis in Syria, asked yourself why? US has attacked pro Iranian forces in Syria. Hezbollah is operating in Yemen & Iraq. Hezbollah is an ongoing strategic threat to the stability of Lebanon & Israel.

I'm trying to say, that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah.

From the OP  " The Lebanese army, a big recipient of U.S. and British military support, has not taken part in the offensive and has set up defensive positions around Arsal, which Nasrallah described as essential."   Please note, Nasrallah is Hezbollah's leader.

And  " Hezbollah has played a major role in fighting militants in the border region during the six-year Syrian war, along with critical military support it has provided to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad".


I'm only quoting from the OP.  So, Israel is attacking Hezbollah ?  Well, how about wait for the Al-Nusra Front to be removed (removed by Hezbollah) and then, then go and bomb Hezbollah ?  About the US attacking pro-Iranian forces in Syria. We know that America has bombed the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, you've already said that, and I've read it on many websites. The OP is telling us that Hezbollah are also fighting the Al-Nusra Front. Don't you think that it is (or would be) absurd that Washington is bombing both Al-Nusra Front and Hezbollah ?  If Washington is doing something that is absurd, is it that surprising ?
Surely, it would be far more sensible to watch Hezbollah remove the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS, and then, then bomb Hezbollah ? Or how about just let Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon ?

Edited July 28, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[simple1]

47 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I'm trying to say, that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah.

From the OP  " The Lebanese army, a big recipient of U.S. and British military support, has not taken part in the offensive and has set up defensive positions around Arsal, which Nasrallah described as essential."   Please note, Nasrallah is Hezbollah's leader.

And  " Hezbollah has played a major role in fighting militants in the border region during the six-year Syrian war, along with critical military support it has provided to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad".


I'm only quoting from the OP.  So, Israel is attacking Hezbollah ?  Well, how about wait for the Al-Nusra Front to be removed (removed by Hezbollah) and then, then go and bomb Hezbollah ?  About the US attacking pro-Iranian forces in Syria. We know that America has bombed the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, you've already said that, and I've read it on many websites. The OP is telling us that Hezbollah are also fighting the Al-Nusra Front. Don't you think that it is (or would be) absurd that Washington is bombing both Al-Nusra Front and Hezbollah ?  If Washington is doing something that is absurd, is it that surprising ?
Surely, it would be far more sensible to watch Hezbollah remove the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS, and then, then bomb Hezbollah ? Or how about just let Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon ?

Hezbollah are committing war crimes in Syria, why do you keep supporting their activities?

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Hezbollah are committing war crimes in Syria, why do you keep supporting their activities?

He also supports China's actions in the SCS. LOL 

[Chris Lawrence]

I have just circled my calendar for next year. Don't want to miss Al-Quds day.

 

Still don't know if the baby is in the bath water?

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Hezbollah are committing war crimes in Syria, why do you keep supporting their activities?

Do you reckon that Al-Qaeda (actually, they call themselves the Al-Nusra Front in Syria) have committed war crimes in Syria ?

So, as you said, the US and coalition forces are bombing and fighting the Al-Nusra Front in Syria. Do you think it is a good idea to bomb Hezbollah as well, as the same time ?  I think this is action that is absurd, bearing in mind that this actual OP is telling us that Hezbollah is removing the Al-Nusra Front. You say that I am supporting Hezbollah. I'm trying to say that, bombing Hezbollah does not make sense.

Do you think it will be more sensible to bomb Hezbollah after they have removed the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS in Syria ? And if Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon after doing their stuff in Syria, well, do you think Washington should bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon ?

 

[simple1]

26 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Do you reckon that Al-Qaeda (actually, they call themselves the Al-Nusra Front in Syria) have committed war crimes in Syria ?

So, as you said, the US and coalition forces are bombing and fighting the Al-Nusra Front in Syria. Do you think it is a good idea to bomb Hezbollah as well, as the same time ?  I think this is action that is absurd, bearing in mind that this actual OP is telling us that Hezbollah is removing the Al-Nusra Front. You say that I am supporting Hezbollah. I'm trying to say that, bombing Hezbollah does not make sense.

Do you think it will be more sensible to bomb Hezbollah after they have removed the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS in Syria ? And if Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon after doing their stuff in Syria, well, do you think Washington should bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon ?

 

Depends on your sense of morality. Personally I wouldn't express support for any group committing war crimes / deliberately targeting civilians etc. I would assume Hezbollah will conform to strategic directions from Iran, so who knows what will unfold. You have twice been informed Al Nusra have changed their naming convention (Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) , which accompanies changes to their objectives and alliances in Syria.

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/08/jabhat-al-nusra-sever-al-qaeda-focus-local-syria.html

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Do you reckon that Al-Qaeda (actually, they call themselves the Al-Nusra Front in Syria) have committed war crimes in Syria ?

So, as you said, the US and coalition forces are bombing and fighting the Al-Nusra Front in Syria. Do you think it is a good idea to bomb Hezbollah as well, as the same time ?  I think this is action that is absurd, bearing in mind that this actual OP is telling us that Hezbollah is removing the Al-Nusra Front. You say that I am supporting Hezbollah. I'm trying to say that, bombing Hezbollah does not make sense.

Do you think it will be more sensible to bomb Hezbollah after they have removed the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS in Syria ? And if Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon after doing their stuff in Syria, well, do you think Washington should bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon ?

 

Washington would never bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon.  If they are in Syria, that's another matter.

 

I was near where this battle is taking place last year.  Breaks your heart to see the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians living in utter poverty.  Great job Assad!

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Washington would never bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon.  If they are in Syria, that's another matter.

 

I was near where this battle is taking place last year.  Breaks your heart to see the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians living in utter poverty.  Great job Assad!

It's all Assad's fault, is it?

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's all Assad's fault, is it?

He's the president of Syria right?  The killings happened under his rule.  And started at his orders.  So yes, it's his fault.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 11:07 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, the US doesn't actually like Hezbollah, but the US knows that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah. That's because it was Al-Qaeda who did 9/11.  In war, you attack the one who you think is most dangerous. And the Al-Nusra Front, they're very dangerous, that's because they are the Al-Qaeda branch or franchise in Syria.

So, you say that US and coalition forces are attacking the Al-Nusra Front. I think you mean that, the US is doing airstrikes (dropping bombs) to support whatever coalition groundforces. Good. The US is not doing airstrikes against Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah are trying to remove the Al-Nusra Front.

How about give weapons to Hezbollah ? Hezbollah are now trying to remove ISIS.
And once Hezbollah has removed ISIS, well, Washington is not going to drop bombs onto Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah will be withdrawing to Lebanon.

 

And the talking point machine is on....

 

The Al Nusra Front (currently going under a different moniker, explained and linked by other, ignored as usual) is not a major player as far as international terrorism goes. That you wish to call it AQ (see previous comment) does not change that, or makes a direct connection to the 9/11 attack. But actually dealing with facts makes the talking point about "Al Nusra Front" being AQ and therefore more dangerous - which you have repeated at least three times on this topic.

 

The US does not attack Hezbollah forces in the same way it does not initiate actions against Syrian, Iranian or Russian forces in the region. It has little to do with the reason cited, but with the mission description of the US forces, plus having no particular wish to complicate things further.

 

The US will not arm the Hezbollah, which it defines as a terrorist organization. That it also fights ISIS and others in Syria (on behalf of Iran and Assad's regime does not change the designation.

[ilostmypassword]

On 7/29/2017 at 3:20 PM, craigt3365 said:

He's the president of Syria right?  The killings happened under his rule.  And started at his orders.  So yes, it's his fault.

Well, Isis and Al-Nusra and Turkey (al-qaeda) thank you for the exculpation.

[Morch]

On 7/29/2017 at 6:14 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

I'm trying to say, that Al-Qaeda are far more dangerous than Hezbollah.

From the OP  " The Lebanese army, a big recipient of U.S. and British military support, has not taken part in the offensive and has set up defensive positions around Arsal, which Nasrallah described as essential."   Please note, Nasrallah is Hezbollah's leader.

And  " Hezbollah has played a major role in fighting militants in the border region during the six-year Syrian war, along with critical military support it has provided to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad".


I'm only quoting from the OP.  So, Israel is attacking Hezbollah ?  Well, how about wait for the Al-Nusra Front to be removed (removed by Hezbollah) and then, then go and bomb Hezbollah ?  About the US attacking pro-Iranian forces in Syria. We know that America has bombed the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, you've already said that, and I've read it on many websites. The OP is telling us that Hezbollah are also fighting the Al-Nusra Front. Don't you think that it is (or would be) absurd that Washington is bombing both Al-Nusra Front and Hezbollah ?  If Washington is doing something that is absurd, is it that surprising ?
Surely, it would be far more sensible to watch Hezbollah remove the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS, and then, then bomb Hezbollah ? Or how about just let Hezbollah withdraw to Lebanon ?

 

Israeli attacks on Hezbollah are related to advanced weapon transfers from Iran, which are directed to Lebanon - to be used against Israel in the future. Other attacks relate to Hezbollah operations in near the Israeli border with Syria, again - aimed at future operation against Israel. That you misrepresent the issues is nothing new.

 

Hezbollah, regardless of the praise you heap on them are not removing anyone out of Syria single handed.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 11:33 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, I totally agree.
Sunni groups, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, they've damaged America and Europe far more than Shia groups. Hezbollah is a Shia group, Iran is a Shia nation. Why the absurdity of saying that Hezbollah and Iran are a threat, when Sunni groups are far more dangerous.

 

It's not a zero sum game. There's no obligation to support one if it fights the other or vice versa.

[Morch]

On 7/29/2017 at 3:05 PM, ilostmypassword said:

It's all Assad's fault, is it?

I don't know that it's all Assad's fault. A large part of it for sure, though.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

I don't know that it's all Assad's fault. A large part of it for sure, though.

Well, then if we're to take Craig3365 at his word "So yes, it's his fault"  which was in response to my question "So, it's all Assad's fault", then you and Craig3365 are in substantial disagreement.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, then if we're to take Craig3365 at his word "So yes, it's his fault"  which was in response to my question "So, it's all Assad's fault", then you and Craig3365 are in substantial disagreement.

 

Nah, sounds like more of your semantic games. Again.

Craig's views are his own, not responsible for them, even if we often agree.

Doubt most things ME could be wholly blamed on specific leaders without factoring in other elements. That's not to say leaders are exempt from responsibility or that they do not play a major role in events.

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nah, sounds like more of your semantic games. Again.

Craig's views are his own, not responsible for them, even if we often agree.

Doubt most things ME could be wholly blamed on specific leaders without factoring in other elements. That's not to say leaders are exempt from responsibility or that they do not play a major role in events.

 

No. I'm just pointing out that assigning all or most of the blame to one party in an extremely unstable part of the world is unsound. In fact, I believe you and I agree about this.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No. I'm just pointing out that assigning all or most of the blame to one party in an extremely unstable part of the world is unsound. In fact, I believe you and I agree about this.

Considering your posts on things ME, I'm surprised to learn that's your position. Guess it depends on which conflict is discussed.