Hezbollah

palefrost

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
265
Just curious if anyone knows exactly how much control Syria/Iran/Lebanon really has over this group?

To me it sounds like they have about as much control over them as say the Irish government did with the IRA. Sure they may assist them tacitly, but I would imagine that the actual plots/plans of the groups are carried out at a local level rather than some grand scheme being run from Tehran....

Honestly I just find it really difficult to watch the countries jump up and down about the failure of the countries to rein in these groups when I really don't think that they would do the same in reverse (say with the mujahideen in Afghanistan).....
 
Werbung:
You re right palefrost in you accessment. The countries that the United States would like to claim are "helping" these folks are not backing them just helping a little. I will not be surprised if the Bush gang try to use these guys as a stepping off point to go after Iran or Syria. Here's the thing though, I believe that the "kids" in the middle east are fighting because the other school yard bullies (US and Britian) may have egged them on. This whole conflict is bad for everyone involved but still they push on.
 
I find it interesting how the enemies never stop coming. You get rid one one dangerous regime and another one pops right up.
 
theyre only helping a little?!?! iran is giving missiles to hezbollah to launch into israel. if iran is cut off, the terrorists will run out of ammo.
 
From what i gathered up. Iran gives Hezbollah about 1 billion a year in funding, and sells the group arms, shipped through Syria. The US gives Israel about 2.5 billion a year in funding, and sells arms to Israel.

Personally I think Iran has about as much influence over Hezbollah as the US has over Israel, which is not insignificant. The US could pressure Israel to stop and they probably would, and so could Iran do the same with Hezbollah probably. At the moment though, neither the US or Iran seem inclined to do so.
 
digger said:
theyre only helping a little?!?! iran is giving missiles to hezbollah to launch into israel. if iran is cut off, the terrorists will run out of ammo.

Well where do you think Isreal is getting all of its weapons from?
 
Haha good point. Wouldn't it be quite the thing to not try to fight for sides of a war but to simply disarm and discontinue to arm the war. Hmm..
 
Unfortunately there is to much money to be made from that, so there will always be a market for weapons.
 
OneofaKind said:
Well where do you think Isreal is getting all of its weapons from?

Relatedly, I don't think there's any single way to cut off terrorist groups. Even if we managed to eradicate one group, another will form. Sometimes, I think that fighting terrorist groups is a pretty hopeless cause. And I also wonder . . . if we just left the middle east alone for five years, might terrorism and war rates drop?
 
capitalist_junkie said:
Relatedly, I don't think there's any single way to cut off terrorist groups. Even if we managed to eradicate one group, another will form. Sometimes, I think that fighting terrorist groups is a pretty hopeless cause. And I also wonder . . . if we just left the middle east alone for five years, might terrorism and war rates drop?

Or would the groups we classify as terrorists become the governing bodies of the country??
 
I agree with Capitalist. There will always be a threat that we can label as terrorism. But I do also believe that we must deal with those who pose a direct threat to the peace and safety of the world.
 
It is certainly a hard line to walk. Not fighting them could empower them to control more land and people. Fighting them could make them hate us more and be more determined to hurt us. It's a tough call to make.
 
What I find of concern is that Hezballah is a terrorist group, and there's actual negotiation with them! Since when do we negotiate with terrorists ...
for me that's a bad sign.
 
Werbung:
The label of terrorist as it regards Hezbollah and many other groups is really a misnomer, especially taken in the context of who is using the word. I addressed this language trick in The Semantics of War.The entire region is constantly in a state of conflict even if there is no open war, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas exist because of it. In that sense, they're a bit like a street gang, using collective power to defend themselves against an already hostile situation.

Unfortunately, some of them take it too far and call for the complete destruction of Israel and things of that nature. I have no doubt that there are plently of Arabic words that are the moral equivalent of terrorist and are used to describe Israelis and Americans. This kind of language dehumanizes people and makes it easier to kill them. Furthermore, it breeds the kind of hate that starts wars. Some Americans and Israelis have just as extreme views of what should happen to Muslim nations, but no one of that ilk feels in the wrong because...well, because they're terrorists!

Looking at the conflict purely through the actions of its participants, however, the Israeli "Defense" Forces (and the United States, their benefactor) are responsible for more death and destruction than Hamas or Hezbollah could ever achieve. They have killed many more civilians and caused much more harm to the region than any Muslim group. But when murders committed by Palestinians and Lebanese are called terrorism, while murders committed by Israelis are called self-defense, it automatically denotes a "bad guy" regardless of what is actually happening.

Anyway, the point I was originally trying to make is in response to vicki2's statement that it is a bad thing to negotiate with so-called terrorists. Quite the contrary, to maintain that policy is only an escalation of the conflict. The problem will only end when both sides get together to resolve their issues, or one of them is completely annihilated (and genocide is hardly a solution). This applies not only to the Mideast war, but to America's "war on terror" as well. What will end the war is an end to the war, as foolishly simple as that sounds. War only creates more warriors.
 
Back
Top