Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

Hezbollah Starts Civil War in Lebanon

news.bbc.co.uk — Gunmen from Shia militant group Hezbollah have taken control of most of western Beirut, driving out supporters of the pro-Western government, forced the closure of pro-government media, and shut down Lebanon's port and all but closed the international airport, with burning barricades on major highways in Beirut.

Bury

yonoz 8 days ago

46 diggs
digg it

DerangedPenguin, on 05/09/2008, -6/+18Love those piece of ***** Muslims. If the United Nations had stayed out of Israel's way, instead of sending intelligence reports to Hezbollah during the last incursion into Lebanon, things would have remained peaceful in Lebanon.
The United Nations has become the great apologist for the Radical Muslim Movement, hoping that by appeasing Islamo-Fascism the United Nations can return to its more useful purposes like figuring out how to tax with out representation the people of the United States, and scamming money from the sale of oil that was supposed to feed children in Iraq. Once again the United Nations proves it is about as useful as ***** on a bull when it comes to making peace a world wide reality.
- yonoz, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14The UN isn't a monolithic body. The "one state one vote" structure of the UNGA means the Muslim bloc enjoys more power than they can handle responsibly - being non-representative regimes themselves. I see diggers keep bringing up the vetos by the US over UN decisions, they seem to think this system is somehow representative.
- Kizilbash, on 05/09/2008, -18/+3If Israel hadn't invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982 and tried to force its will upon it Hezbollah wouldn't even exist.
  The UN is a tool used by the US and Europe to force its will on the rest of the world and still the idiots in the US think it is not pro-US enough...
  - hadees, on 05/09/2008, -1/+15If by force their will on it you mean stop Palestinian terrorists who used Lebanon as a base of operations.
    - kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2If Israel wanted to stop Palestinian terrorists they would have maybe entered into some kind of dialouge and stopped bombing, shelling, etc. Instead they stoked Palestinian hatred by murdering thousands and becoming the biggest terrorists in the region. I suggest you read the fateful triangle by Noam Chomsky. It covers the Lebanon conflict in the 1980s in some details.
      
      For example from 1967 - 1982 106 Israelis were killed in the north of the country, due to terrorism. Some of these killings were in retaliation to Israel attacks. Overall terrorist killings from 1967 - 1982 were 282 (B. Michael, Haaretz, Jul 16, 1982). If we compare this to the 1,821 terrorist killings commited by the IRA from 1968-2001 and the far more restrainted response of the British Government we can easily see that Israel was and is going down the wrong path to find peace.
      - Beveridge89, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Firstly, you are comparing two different time frames. The total number of Israelis dead would be much higher if you compared the same timelines. But thats really beside the point since the two conflicts are very different.
        
        The restrained approach of Britain achieved some gains in terms of PR, but the real battle was fought in attempting to infiltrate the IRAs leadership and to stop it obtaining weapons. Both are significantly more difficult for Israel, and it's important to note that Britain, in the end, failed in winning those battles- the advantage of infiltration of the IRA achieved in the 80s was squandered in the 90s, hence why terrorists sit in the N Irish parliament; Libya was able to ship enough weapons to the IRA to keep the long war going indefinitely; and the battle to damage its image wasn't so much won by us as lost by the IRA.
        
        I think the fundamental difference between the IRA and Islamist terrorists comes down to the attitude in their backers. When the IRA, who for most of the campaign targetted the military, bombed Enniskillen, its backers were horrified- Irish-Americans might have all supported the 'revolution', but bombing pensioners at a memorial ceremony? Even Gadaffi released a statement recognising it as an act of murder. When 9/11 happened, the last ardent Irish-Americans who still supported the Real IRA that terrorism really was bad. Can you imagine Hamas or Hezbollahs backers ever been so disgusted by them that they would stop funding them?
      - kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1http://www.mfa.gov.il records the total number of deaths from terrorism between 1960 and 2006 at 2131. I believe this includes security personnel as the 2000-2006 list includes all incidents and list IDF deaths. IRA civilian deaths and security personnel deaths are between 1100 and 1276 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_campa ... I would agree it is much higher over the same time period.
        
        The fact former terrorists now sit in Parliament is testament to the UK's ability to actual look beyond the short-term need for revenge and actual aim for a lasting peace.
        
        I think your view on the fundamental difference is not correct though. Of course the opinions of the financial backers has a big part to play, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_campa ... has the number of civilians casualties being just under the number of military casualties. If the Irish-American backers were that horrified then why would the civilian casualties have climbed this high, before they suddenly found their conscience? Maybe the fact the British government negotiated and gave concessions actually helped - I think you're underestimating the role of diplomacy and negotiation. I haven't really read much about the Real IRA so can't comment on that. I don't think Gadaffi actually cared, but just wanted to look good in the eyes of the international community - would you agree with this?
        
        I agree that Hamas or Hezbollah backers wouldn't actually be disgusted though. In fact they're probably as disgusted of Hamas atrocities as the US are of Israeli atrocities. If only the Iranian and US governments had the same kind souls as the IRA backing Irish-Americans.
        
        As I've said, the more important difference between the IRA and the likes of Hamas/Hezbollah is the way the each government handles them. I'm sure if the UK had used Israeli tactics, IRA attacks would still be happening. Imagine the support that the IRA could have gained if the UK had dropped a bombed on the house of a terrorist and killed everyone in the house, terrorist and innocents alike. On top of that the UK government didn't have such extreme racist views of the Irish as the Israelis do of the Palestinians (this book gives a good account of racism in modern day Israel http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Religion-Unmasking-J ... There's a bit of fluff but it brings up a lot of well sourced facts). Obviously the strength of your disdain for someone based purely on their race will have a big bearing on how you perceive and treat them. The statistics on http://www.mfa.gov.il show us, that as Israel has increased its punishment of Palestinians the number of terrorist deaths have increased, as the likes of Hamas have grown in support, due to the continued (perceived and real) injustices committed against Palestinians.
      - Beveridge89, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2That terrorists sit in the parliament probably is a testament to that. It is also a testament to the failure to decisevely beat the IRA. Irish Republicans deserve a voice, but that it became unavoidable that that voice had to come from mass murderers is telling of the failure of the post Thatcher Tory and Labour governments to take a firm line and stick to it.
        
        Perhaps I am over emphasising the events of Enniskillen, but I do believe they had a major part in changing public opinion, both in Northern Ireland and America. Civilian casualties were also high, but in general the IRA would target British military or Loyalist paramilitaries. Enniskillen was different; there was no way it could be looked on as anything more than the cold blooded murder of pensioners. But the concessions and negotiations didn't really start until 96, when the IRA were already struggling, and could be contained, if not defeated, by the Government.
        
        Gadaffis motive for criticising is more complicated I think. He and the West already hated each other, after a member of his security services had commited the Lockerbie bombings and he had refused to hand him over, and the US had bombed Libya in 8, Gadaffi had started shipping weapons to the IRA; he wasn't too concerned how the West viewed him. On the other hand, I doubt he was genuinely offended by the murder of civilians. Its probably a mix of both- he wanted to be viewed as someone challenging the West, but not through acts like this.
        
        I don't think you can compare Israels actions to Hamas'. In any case, when Israel does become overly agressive, the US will call on it to show restraint, either publically or privately. And there any many people who would agree that Irish-Americans who funded terrorism and murder in the guise of revolution were any sort of moral example.
        
        edit; This comment system can be annoying.I'll come back to your last paragraph again when I have more time
      - kieranmaine, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I guess we'll have to disagree over the IRA leadership becoming MPs. I think bringing them into parliament is a decisive victory over violence. Murders went unpunished but sacrfices had to be made. Now they're politicians they have to try and change opinions with words if they want to reunify Ireland.
        
        I think the greatest difference in Israeli actions is they're far more deadly, due to the superior weapons - both groups are just as racist and hateful as each other though. Luckily the US does have an immense amount of control of Israel - its a shame the US and Iran don't get together and stop there associated groups killing each other.
  - Beveridge89, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Yeah, because the goal of the US is to have the UNHRC be devoted to nothing but criticising Israel.
- OwdenBowden, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Once again the Islamic Terrorist never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They seems to be getting their education from the Palestinian terrorists.
  - kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3Or the Israelis - in 1954 Israeli jets hijacked a Syrian passenger jet and forced it to land in Israel, so they could exchange the hostages for Israeli soldiers captured in Syria.
    - Tangaroa, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Which has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand but does promote the principle that Jews are evil and so any evil against Jews is acceptable.
    - Jeff82, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3And I'm sure those soldiers were appreciative! (And I noticed they didn't slit the throats of those they captured... :( )
    - OwdenBowden, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2You see - the Israelis play by the rules. Where as the Koranimals do not play by any rules. So when the Israelis beat the Koranimals at their own game - using their own methods - they are once again chastised as criminals and Murderers. Wake up - The Koranimals are the problem. They flew a plane into the world trade. They blew up my Friends and others in the London bombings. They blew up the Spanish trains, they continue to use women and children as shields and homicide bombers killing innocent people. Do you see the Israelis doing this - NO.
    - kieranmaine, 18 hr 9 min ago, -0/+1I was simply replying to the comment, by saying that terrorism in the region is practiced by all countries and that 'the Islmaic terrorist' can also use Israel actions to educate themselves, and don't have to get their education of the Palestinians. I don't know how you infer from my comment that I promoted that Jews are evil and evil against Jews is acceptable. I don't think Jews are evil and don't think evil actions against anyone are OK.
yonoz, on 05/09/2008, -1/+21http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981696.html
In his speech, Nasrallah warned against trying to disarm Hezbollah and said his fighters would retaliate swiftly if attacked.
Those who try to arrest us, we will arrest them. Those who shoot at us, we will shoot at them, Nasrallah said in a news conference via video link from his hiding place.
Later, Hariri made a televised appeal to Nasrallah seeking to calm the conflict.
"My appeal to you and to myself as well, the appeal of all Lebanon, is to stop the slide toward civil war, to stop the language of arms and lawlessness," said Hariri, son of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated in 2005.
Hariri proposed a compromise that would involve the army, one of the sole national institutions respected by Lebanon's long deadlocked political factions.
Opposition-affiliated television announced late Thursday that Hariri's offer had been rejected and the fighting continued.
Kizilbash, on 05/09/2008, -18/+4This war has been going on a long time. Hezbollah is not innocent in it but neither is the US-backed government (unless Israel is bombing the crap out of them of course, then the Lebanese government can go ***** itself, which goes a long way in explaining why the US policies in the Middle East are failing: Israel always comes first, no matter what).
- czman, on 05/09/2008, -1/+18excuse me? What has israel got to do with this. and what has the US to do with this. If I'm not mistaken it was syria and iran that back and fund the hizbulla while the US is totaly ignoring the situation. Israel intervines only when it's attacked.
  
  the US doen't see to give a *****, anyway.
  - zolthar, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4What has the US and/or Israel got to do with this? are you f***g crazy?????
    If the US and Israel didn't exist, then it would be France and Germany and Australia.
    And if France, Germany and Australia didn't exist then it would be... Tibet!
    - vault, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9what?
      - zolthar, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Never mind. It was a moment of clarity, and now I don't get it either.
- yonoz, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17How is the Lebanese government "not innocent"?
  It sure seems that in any situation "the enemy of Israel is Kizilbash's friend", even if they are starting a civil war.
- kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I'm with Yonoz on this one. What have the government done to not be innocent?
- tomasII, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Kizilbash is another person so blinded by the hatred of Israel that he can't see the terrorists for who they really are.
moulin1, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2Hariri used his dominance in the Lebanese government to shut down his media and telecom business competition. Now the competition has used their influence in the streets of Beirut to shut down his.
- kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Why is this comment being digged down? He simply high lighted that the attacks happened after the government tried "to close Hezbollah's telecoms network on Tuesday".
  
  I don't really know much about Lebanese politics though. As with everything there's usually a lot more to a story than what the BBC reports.
  - vinshlusen, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2"Hariri used his dominance in the Lebanese government to shut down his media and telecom business competition"
    
    Are you willing to put forth an article from a reliable newspaper that supports your accusation?
    I could say that you are wrong, but you are not, you are just making a joke out of yourself. Please continue.
    
    The government didnt want to shutdown Hezbollah's "telecome buisness". It wanted to shutdown Hezbollah's military telecomes infrastructure, this has nothing to do with a an open market and business competition. From the BBC article: "The Syrian- and Iranian-backed group has made clear that it regards the private network as an integral part of its defensive measures against Israel.". Link to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7385733.stm
    Hizbollah's TV station is up and running (the "pro-government" ones were shutdown by Hizbollah). Check out "Al-Manar TV" site to verify:
    Arabic: http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx
    Egnlish: http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/News.aspx?langu ...
    And you can even watch Al-Manar TV live from your home, for free! : http://www.livewtv.com/arabic_channel/almanar.htm
    But when I checked it they aired some show about the brain or something :)
    And there goes down the drain your argument about the Lebanese government shutting down Hezbollah's media
    
    "I don't really know much about Lebanese politics though. "
    No, you got it wrong. Its not that you dont "really know much about Lebanese policies", you just dont know anything about whats going in Lebanon.
    In fact that link that I just gave to the other pundit is accessible from that same page your brought your quote from.
    Here is another BBC article of an alleged secret (and illegal) spy camera that Hezbolla was accused of using in Beirut's international airport:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7382289.stm
    Here are some other articles for you to clarify things up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7393431.stm
    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/09/beir ...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL074259 ...
    
    Please note that Hizbollah is in the Opposition. The government is formed from the majority elected coalition. Just so you know a little about Lebanese politics. And a last quote from the CNN article which I found a bit funny:
    "Soldiers instead effectively negotiated a surrender of pro-government positions, Lebanese Internal Security Forces and Western military observers said." LOL anyone?
novenator, on 05/09/2008, -1/+14You cannot use diplomacy with a group like Hezbollah, the only thing they understand is force. Thus, when they can't get their way in the government, they do something like this, and hijack neighborhoods that aren't even shiite. Beirut used to be the "Paris of the Middle East", and look at it now due to islamic radicals and their thuggery. Unleash the Lebanese army on their asses, and give them some help in logistics, intelligence, and weaponry.
- kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2As I commented above, the attacks happened after the government tried "to close Hezbollah's telecoms network on Tuesday". Obviously diplomacy wasn't the first thing to be used and that looks to have failed. Maybe diplomacy should be given a go now?
  
  Still II don't know what happened before the government tried to shut down the telecoms networks - does anyone know why the government might have done this in the first place?
  - hadees, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Closing a telecom network is hardly a declaration of war. The government was just exercising their legally given power. And the reason the government tried to shut down the networks was because Hezbollah was spying on the airport for some unknown reason although you can guess it wasn't altruistic.
pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7destroy hezbollah, they are just iranian puppets designed to usurp the legit government in Lebanon
- hadees, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3In some ways you got to feel back for Shias because Iran is trying to dominate the entire Shia world. If you are a Shia and want to live in peace with the west you better look out.
Jeff82, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Who expected any different? After all, we're talking about folks who worship satan through one of his gods (a demon) called allah. Is it any big leap of logic that this will manifest itself in curses, maiming, and death? After all, satan comes "to steal, kill, and destroy." Look around the world and you will know who they are by their "fruits."
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Hezbollah Starts Civil War in Lebanon

Login or register to add a comment