Lebanon, Round 2, Fight !

[Nerdfish]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...lah/index.html



Where is the UN?

[Fannin]

Note what's being left unsaid in the article. Who's attacking whom? What are the targets and the objectives being pursued?

[HunterX]

I have no idea what we're supposed to discuss here. Nerdfish, how about elaborating on what this is about, and maybe I'll consider leaving this thread open.

[Nerdfish]

I have no idea what we're supposed to discuss here. Nerdfish, how about elaborating on what this is about, and maybe I'll consider leaving this thread open.

Lebanon's recent misfortune, maybe ? Lebanon seemed to suffer quite a bit of instability for what appear to be a modern and prosperous country.

[Tiresias]

Lebanon suffered a 10 year or so civil war, got itself out of it eventually, then invaded by Israel, and now this seems a step backwards is essentially the issue.

Hezbollah is the main issue, but it is a very powerful organisation that gains widestream support not just through terroristic posturing but by providing education and healthcare etc. Israel's attempted military solution to it was a disaster that onlyundermined the lebanese government and not Hezbollah itself.

Ultimately it's a mess that will be a nightmare to untangle, one hopes however that Hezbollah will lose support if they use to much force/are seen to be provoking another civil war.

[bottenbreker]

well, Lebanon is a fucked up country. being raped by senseless violence, terrorism, extremism. like a lot of countries in that region. i feel sorry for those people though. being involved in a conflict they don't want to be in.

[TheDividedGod]

The violence erupted shortly after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the government's attempts to halt Hezbollah's use of a telecommunications system amounts to "a declaration of open war." (are you serious? Because they won't let your paramilitary/terrorist organization use the phone?)

"We believe the war has started and we believe that we have the right to defend ourselves," Nasrallah said in a televised speech. "We will cut the hand that will reach out to the weapons of the resistance no matter if it comes from the inside or the outside."

At the same time, Nasrallah called for dialogue, saying, "We are ready, whoever wants a compromise, we are here and ready."

( )

"Those who have taken decisions leading to war, let them withdraw their decisions and there would be no war," he said.

"Am I declaring war? Not at all. I am declaring oppression and self-defense."

Hilarious.

If the shiites and sunnis want to murder each other, it seems there's not really much anyone can do to convince them otherwise, whether in iraq or elsewhere.

[Starfisher]

This isn't about Shiite v Sunni. It's about Hezbollah becoming a stronger political entity. If analogies must be made, I'd say this is much closer to Hamas v Fatah - it's a political battle over power rather than a religious one. Hezbollah has been growing in strength as a political entity and this was probably made inevitable both by the 2006 war and the Lebanese Army's inability to quickly end the Nahr al-Bared situation last year. 2006 showed that Hezbollah was powerful, or at least it made for incredible political capital at home, while the Lebanese army looked weak in its inability to end Nahr al-Bared quickly and decisively. Hezbollah is looking more and more like a country within a country, and something like this was going to happen sooner or later.

[Commander ASOP]

Not that the specifics matter in a case such as this but for the record.

Leabonon Gov removed the general who was in charge of the airport. He had let Hezbollah install security cameras in the airport and monitor them. I can see how the government would see that as a bad thing.

The county is torn in half again and a possible civil war could occur again. It all depends on how much syria wants to continue to control what goes on there.

[TheDividedGod]

@SF - choice quote from the article:

The latest tensions between Lebanon's U.S.-backed government and Hezbollah were sparked Monday when the government declared Hezbollah's communication system illegal.

The same day, the government fired the head of Beirut airport's security, Brig. Gen. Wafik Shoukeir, amid its investigation into allegations that Hezbollah had installed cameras and other monitoring equipment at the airport.

Hezbollah viewed Shoukeir's dismissal as another confrontation by the Sunni-led government against the Shiite militant group's authority.

At least one half of this conflict seems to think there are religious underpinnings to this "declaration of war"

you seem to see the religious conflict being tertiary to a more base political issue, much like, as you said, hamas and fatah. I rather see it the other way around - the political distinction is the cover for the primarily religious division and conflict. Recent events, dating back to '06, have simply made it a better cover.

And yes, on a purely semantic and particular level, the brigadier general in charge of the airport was feeding info to hezbollah concerning government troop movements and other things via the airport telecommunications system. I'd have sacked him too, regardless of who was on the recieving end. Saying that this is a "declaration of war" is just more absurd nonsense from people who are constantly trying to cover their real intentions (not very well, mind you) with wild hand-waving and highly dramatic, over-the-top political and religious statements.

More choice quotes highlighting the religious impetus behind this:

The violence is limited to Beirut's Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods and has continued into the evening hours.

The Lebanese army, which is charged with trying to keep peace in the capital, is in a precarious position, Perry explained.

"When you're talking about this much gunfire, when you're talking about [rocket-propelled grenades] fire, it's absolutely ludicrous to think that the army will put themselves between these two factions," he said.

Well, no, mr. perry, it's not ludicrous at all. Actually, it was just stated that it is in fact their job to keep peace in the capital, and they are the fucking army, hence, maybe they should get their fucking asses in there and try to contain the violence.

Bunch of morons.

Video of the scene showed empty streets and shuttered stores. There were no reports of violence in Beirut's Christian neighborhoods. Witnesses and journalists described a long line of cars on the main road leading out of Beirut after the violence broke out.

interesting, the above bolded. Seems only the major sunni and shiite neighbourhoods were involved.

[motiv-8]

TDG, what you don't understand is that politics in Lebanon have always been determined by sectarian affiliation. It's ingrained into the constitution and system of political representation. A Lebanese person could have absolutely no religious underpinnings at all, but by default they must belong to a religious group in order to have any kind of political life or representation. Furthermore, violence between the Sunni and Shi'ite factions in Lebanon has always been a rare occurence, because for years they worked together against the domination of (minority) Maronites in the government.

You also don't understand that Lebanon was utterly destroyed by a decades-long civil war, and the last thing anyone wants to do is provoke that kind of violence. Thus the hesitancy of the army to engage in urban combat as part of a situation that isn't even entirely clear.

Frankly, there is no religious impetus in this conflict, it's a product of the archaic Lebanese political scene. Everything Starfisher said is right.

[Ammon Ra]

I'm not going to point ant fingers since they're somewhat obvious, but that whole region is very unstable. It seems like it has always been that way.

Either way there are only three possible solutions:
Civil War: Both fight each other for complete control over the country. (religion?)
Compromise: They come to a peaceful compromise with power, money and military sharing.
Stalemate: When neither a compromise or a civil war breaks out and the "status quo" remains until one of the above options is reached.

That is, assuming no external intervention, which is unlikely, since israel is nearby and the shiite and suni friends in neighbouring countries will most likely come to their respective side's aide.Oh and the UN & USA.

[Starfisher]

TDG: Motiv nailed it. When you say "Sunni vs Shiite" in Lebanon, you basically mean "Republican vs Democrat". Not quite the same obviously, as it is after all a different culture and Republicans haven't stomped on Democrats like this since the Civil War, but the point is that you shouldn't take CNN's framing of the issue at face value. The American media can only handle one context at a time. Reality's actual diversity is impossible for them to reduce to sound-bites, so they just ignore it. Right now, America is in Iraq, so if there's Sunni and Shiite blocs in a different conflict, they're going to try to force it into the Iraqi context, even though it really doesn't fit at all. And even that context is essentially a bastardized, bullshit version of reality in which Sunni and Shiite are a bunch of religious zealots killing in the name of Allah, instead of... well, being political parties arrayed around shared belief and centuries of consolidation.

What we're seeing is a political conflict. I don't mean to say that religion is totally irrelevant, but I think it's important to realize that it definitely is taking a back seat.

[Raver]

Am I the only one thinking it'd just be easier to shoot all the f*ckers? I mean, I know it's mean but they don't exactly care what THEY do to other people, so why should people care what is done to them?

[Torbert]

Where is the UN?

On the border between Israel and Lebanon.

[Troubleshooter]

What we're seeing is a political conflict. I don't mean to say that religion is totally irrelevant, but I think it's important to realize that it definitely is taking a back seat.

Pretty much. Religion does play a major role in defining the sides though... you are born into your political party so-to-speak. From there, it plays a central role in defining who your friends and enemies will be when the shit hits the fan whether or not your family is particularly devout.

Its not a holy war per-se, but its not exactly Hillary vs. Obama with rifles and grenades either

[motiv-8]

On the border between Israel and Lebanon.

No, UNIFIL is a non-entity in the situation today.

[Torbert]

I was just saying that there were UN troops there, although their mandate is weak and it basically makes them useless. Not like the UN can really do a whole ton in this case i think. Not until western nations and Iran stop using Lebanon as a proxy war.

At least thats my opinion.

[TheDividedGod]

Frankly, there is no religious impetus in this conflict, it's a product of the archaic Lebanese political scene

...which itself is a product of an even older religious division.

[Fannin]

...which itself is a product of an even older religious division.

....which today, is no longer significant save as the mythological "root cause".

Unless you believe a theological question concerning the succession of Mohamed is what's driving RPGs to be fired in the streets.

[motiv-8]

...which itself is a product of an even older religious division.

NO, it's not. It's a product of French colonialism.

[TheDividedGod]

...french colonialism?

Does the history of the region longer than a century ago not exist for you people?

jesus.

Here, a relevant TIME article for you all that highlights the issue:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...566289,00.html

Notice also how no one refers to specific party affiliations - everyone identifies specifically, religiously, as a shiite or a sunni. That certain political parties do exist that represent either faction is just further indication that the religious significance is primary, and the respective political affiliations ultimately came to be through said sectarian divisions.

my underlying point here is that religious division provides the impetus for such political conflicts, not that this isn't a political conflict - of course, right here and now, the immediate conflict is absolutely a political power grab on the part of hezbollah - I never disputed this.

TDG, what you don't understand is that politics in Lebanon have always been determined by sectarian affiliation. It's ingrained into the constitution and system of political representation. A Lebanese person could have absolutely no religious underpinnings at all, but by default they must belong to a religious group in order to have any kind of political life or representation.

You're proving my point.

You people need to read, carefully, and perhaps ask a clarificatory question or two, instead of just arbitrarily assuming that I'm taking a position that I'm not.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

TDG, the point is that Shiite and Sunni are competing power blocks. There are lots of Christians in Lebanon, there are lots of other minor ethnic groups. They're involved in the politics of the matter too.

Shiite and Sunni might as well be Democratic or Republican as far as this situation are concerned, because the struggle is over purely secular concerns. It's Shiite and Sunni as ethnicity rather than religious preference.

[motiv-8]

Does the history of the region longer than a century ago not exist for you people?

Excuse you, I study the fucking region as my job, so this kind of input from you is unwelcome.

I'm not even going to bother explaining the history of political development in modern Lebanon to you now, which fyi is less than a hundred years old, because you clearly don't wish to learn. Maybe you have an agenda, maybe you don't, but the constant "these people are all religious nuts" type arguments wears really thin.

[Starfisher]

Okay thread, time to calm down.

If you find yourself angry because of a discussion like this, you need to take fifteen minutes before you post and ensure that you don't end up trolling. This is a discussion forum, not a place to score e-penis points by belittling each other. We're all mature enough to trade fact and analysis without engaging the ego.

[motiv-8]

Yes, sir.

Alright, here's the deal with Lebanon. When the French entered the country under mandate, they conducted a census. They conducted another census in 1932 and were alarmed to discover that the Muslim population of the country was growing at a much higher rate than the Christian population. It was the last official census that was conducted in the country.

Why? Because the French set up a political system that, lacking any other available method of cohesion for the artificially-created Lebanese 'state', used religious affiliation as an identifier. This system, known as confessionalism, was supposedly designed as a way to best represent the cultural and religious diversity of Lebanon, but there were alterior motives. The top post of the government was always guaranteed to a Maronite Christian, and because of the outdated census and subsequent 1943 National Pact, Christians also retained the majority of representation in parliament, despite quickly becoming a minority in the face of Muslim demographic growth.

This political situation, which occured regardless of how the population felt about religion (individually or collectively), caused huge feelings of disenfranchisement and resentment amongst Muslims, especially the Shi'ites, who felt that they were being shut out of an effective role in the country. Other issues compounded the problem, such as the establishment of Israel and the sudden appearance of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees within the country. The various parties of Lebanon used the Palestinian-Israeli situation as a political tool against rival parties. It's important to note that many of these parties did not base themselves on religion, but rather on secular principles such as leftist ideology and pan-Arab nationalism (this trend has continued in the Sunni bloc to present day).

The civil war broke out when various Muslim parties demanded a new census to take into account demographic changes. The Maronite-dominated government staunchly refused. As relations broke down between the parties over this issue, they began arming themselves with militias. As tensions grew, so did the militias, and soon fighting broke out at a level that the weak Lebanese Army couldn't handle.

The civil war was gravely costly both in terms of material damage and loss of life. It lasted fifteen years, during which every party, whether Muslim or Christian, sided with and fought against every other party. It was a free-for-all, and the diversity of the fighting showed that religious principles were irrelevant to the situation. That's largely what you still see today. While the major fighting was settled by the Taif Agreement in 1990, which set a more balanced representation between Christians and Muslims--balanced, not fair--and reduced the powers of the Maronite presidency, many in the Muslim community still felt it wasn't enough. Meanwhile, the Hezbollah party was a rapidly rising star due to its performance in the war and the resistance in the south of the country to Israeli invasion. It was one of the few parties to explicitly espouse a religious doctrine in its platform, but even that was eventually dropped; the establishment of a Shi'a Islamist state is no longer an official plank.

The conflict going on right now is a remnant of unsettled issues from the civil war. Hizbollah, as the current majority representative of the Shi'ite population, and enjoying massive popularity in that sector, still mistrusts the government, especially after the ouster of Syrian influence. So, when the government moved to disable its communications centered on Beirut airport--which to the government, is a legitimated act of authority upon one of its political parties--Hizbollah resisted, seeing the move as a threat to its security. No side was willing to back down. Shooting. Here we are.

Now, going along with what Shoe said, I say: find where the religious impetus is in all that, and you deserve to take my degree from me.

[TheDividedGod]

Sorry about the heavy omnislashing, i find it is sometimes the best way to ask questions and clarify.

TDG, the point is that Shiite and Sunni are competing power blocks

no doubt of this.

There are lots of Christians in Lebanon, there are lots of other minor ethnic groups. They're involved in the politics of the matter too.

Mmmm....re-read the article in the OP. It specifically states that christians and other minorities are desperately trying to stay out of the conflict, and that the violence is limited to devout shiite and sunni neighbourhoods.

Excuse you, I study the fucking region as my job, so this kind of input from you is unwelcome.

Take it easy.....oh, and refute my argument. But take it easy first.

modern Lebanon to you now, which fyi is less than a hundred years old

Yes, this is true for "modern lebanon", which is only became so in 1926, after about ten years of being the french mandate of greater syria, or some such, which included lebanon and a few other states.

However, Greater Lebanon existed some 400 years before that as part of the Ottoman empire, and even beyond that as part of various warring caliphates, muslim warlords, and other islamic factions. Sectarian division was around then, and it remains today. the fact that it has morphed into modern political affiliations does not change history, and does not change the fact that there is indeed an underlying religious division.

Maybe you have an agenda, maybe you don't, but the constant "these people are all religious nuts" type arguments wears really thin.

ahhh...and the truth comes out.

Please, run through the thread, show me where I have made this argument. Show me, in fact, any post that I have ever made in my time on these boards where I have refered to muslims (or christians, or any denomination really) with the phrase "these people are all religious nuts" (or something close to it)

this is not my agenda. I try not have one. honestly...just stop assuming things. Just...just focus on trying to refute my standing argument. if you can't, the very least you can do is provide one of your own (which I see you've now done with a short rundown of modern lebanese politcal history, thank you (finally!) for actually engaging me in a meaningful way).

now, several questions:

The various parties of Lebanon used the Palestinian-Israeli situation as a political tool against rival parties. It's important to note that many of these parties did not base themselves on religion, but rather on secular principles such as leftist ideology and pan-Arab nationalism (this trend has continued in the Sunni bloc to present day).

Why do they continue to use religious denominators if the parties are focused on secular principles? follow-up - why is it not possible (as I think has been implied here) for a political party to have secular principles but religious impetus/support? that seems very reasonable to me.

Next question - To clarify: do you mean to refer seperately to the sunni bloc (religious) and ideology (pan-arab nationalism) that is to say, does the sunni bloc push pan-arab nationalism, or is it, itself, the political platform that IS pan-arab nationalism? The latter obviously implies modern secular politics, while the former shows a definite religious influence.

I would also point out that the consitutionally-guaranteed control of the governmental body by christians came under increasing fire from muslims that identified themselves religiously (whether sunni or shiite) well before it came under fire from leftists/liberals that identified themselves politically. It was indeed a religious basis that underscored that particular tension.

While the major fighting was settled by the Taif Agreement in 1990, which set a more balanced representation between Christians and Muslims--balanced, not fair--and reduced the powers of the Maronite presidency, many in the Muslim community still felt it wasn't enough.

to me, you've left out the most important part of your explanation: WHY did they feel it was not enough? What was "unfair" about it? And, relating to my argument, did it have anything to do with religious tensions in the region?

(Sorry about the heavy omnislashing, but I find it is the best way to clarify and ask questions.)

Anyways, I'd really like someone to try and take apart my analysis of the two articles, namely the one in the OP and the TIME article I posted (has anyone even read it yet?) and show me where i've gone wrong.

primary points:

That certain political parties do exist that represent either faction is just further indication that the religious significance is primary (or, at least, was when said parties were formed)

respective political affiliations ultimately came to be through said sectarian divisions, whether denoted by the french or not

politics in Lebanon have always been determined by sectarian affiliation

by default a lebanese person must belong to a religious group in order to have any kind of political life or representation.

All of the above implies a strong religious connection that i believe still thrives today. It is simply that today, the political hot-button issues of the minute take precedence in terms of the clear and obvious catalysts for such internecine strife - then again, the TIME article writer makes some strong points for a serious religious basis in the modern day (which, again, I am not arguing, and this is why i agreed with shoe, and in some way, felt you were actually supporting my point with your above post, quoted by me in #22.)

understand me clearly: there is no trolling or bullshit or agendas going on here. however, one does need to actually engage a person by either discussing an idea, refuting an argument, or posting one of your own. until this happens, nothing is really happening at all, and I'm sorry it took so long to get to this point. When i'm faced with an "argument" that goes along the lines of "nuh uh, you're wrong" there's not much i can do except express my incredulity and try to restate my argument in better terms.

And, to further clarify - I do understand the simple sunni-shiite/democrat-republican analogue, and i have no issue with it. To take that analogue to it's logical conclusion (and show my argument with the metaphor at the same time), it's generally accepted in the states that the democrat voter base is primarily made up of secular leftists and liberal christians, protestants and what have you, whilst the republican right wing is known to consistently rely on the fundamentalist christian/catholic turnout for it's voter base.

understand now?

Even in a completely secular nation like the US, the religious motivations/affiliations to the respective parties are still quite clear, and very few dispute this.

Now, going along with what Shoe said, I say: find where the religious impetus is in all that, and you deserve to take my degree from me.

heh...well, deserved or not, I wouldn't ever take something like that away (figuratively or otherwise) from someone who clearly has such a....shall we say, strong, strong passion for the issue.

[Troubleshooter]

Agree to disagree and move on.

Motiv has book learn'n, you cant argue with his books!

Funny thing is Motiv started out on the right foot and got pissy when someone stuck their big toe in his sand box. People get very defensive about their personal area of OMFGDONTARGUEWITHMEIAMANEXPERT. Naturally.

Summary : Conflict right now is running along religious lines, which conveniently also happens to represent the political lines, which is why the present conflict is both sectarian and political.

@Motiv : Just because theres a religious element to the conflict doesn't mean that point it out is dismissive of whats actually happening. It IS ok to address the religious aspects that tint 99% of the politics in the middle east, since the people there do it too.

Now, if you want to get what TDG was (I presume) driving at, is that there is a religious impetus because religion defines the boundaries and motivations for much of what constitutes political and social effort. Thus, the Sunni vs. Shia aspect of the conflict IS what causes the friction. The more mixed the muslim population, the more the conflict runs along secular lines, the more homogeneous the muslim population, the more conflicts run along liberal/conservative lines... but always the fuel behind the fire is the core religious feuds that run back to the middle ages. Thats not to say that Islam is the problem, but that the population is easily moved to action when Islam is invoked. When the population can not be provoked to action by conventional means, it never fails that the instigators will fall back on religion to get the job done. Best of all, since you are born into your religion, you dont get to have a say in whether or not to participate in the conflict... if it comes to you, you must get involved or get the hell out of there... either way you slice it, the effect is the same.

So, hizballah wants total power, they are supported and armed by Iran becuase they have similar goals and ideals. Again, not unlike why america supports and arms freindly liberal democracies (and some that aren't so liberal), but the effect is the same, except in the case of Hizballah, they are a political party/militia being made stronger by foreign powers to sieze control of their host nation, not a nation unto themselves.

[Fannin]

The point is that the religious aspect of what's going on over there is vastly overplayed. Much as with the Catholic-Protestant violence that's been common in the west, the fact that these two sects have different theology is damn near irrelevant. What you're really looking at is a power struggle, plain and simple... which is political, not religious, in nature.

[motiv-8]

Funny thing is Motiv started out on the right foot and got pissy when someone stuck their big toe in his sand box. People get very defensive about their personal area of OMFGDONTARGUEWITHMEIAMANEXPERT. Naturally.

I don't like people acting like I don't know what I'm talking about. Naturally. Anyway..

TDG, unfortunately you have not done anything to show why religious impetus is the largest factor in this conflict.

"Why do they continue to use religious denominators if the parties are focused on secular principles?"
Because Lebanon would utterly fall apart. There is no other feasible method for determining identity in the Lebanese state. The whole nationalism thing utterly failed, as it did in many parts of the Middle East.

"I would also point out that the consitutionally-guaranteed control of the governmental body by christians came under increasing fire from muslims that identified themselves religiously (whether sunni or shiite) well before it came under fire from leftists/liberals that identified themselves politically. It was indeed a religious basis that underscored that particular tension."
Nope.

"WHY did they feel it was not enough? What was "unfair" about it?"
Actually, I very clearly spelled that out. Underrepresentation of the majority population is something that will very quickly alienate and embitter a population, and that's something you'll see irrespective of culture or religion.

"the TIME article writer makes some strong points for a serious religious basis in the modern day"
I should give a shit what TIME thinks over scholars who have spent there whole lives studying the region and living in it? HAHAHA..

"it's generally accepted in the states that the democrat voter base is primarily made up of secular leftists and liberal christians, protestants and what have you, whilst the republican right wing is known to consistently rely on the fundamentalist christian/catholic turnout for it's voter base."
Lebanon is much more unique. You're born into your religion there, and because of the wa the system is set up, you are consequently born into a set of political affiliations. Of course, within the different confessional groupings you will find the entire spectrum of secularists and religious conservatives (kind of like the spectrum you'll find in the Republican and Democratic parties, but larger), but ultimately everyone in that spectrum will identify positively with those of the same confession, because that's the only way they can hope for any kind of political clout. The civil war, however, showed that the confessional solidarity could easily be broken for quick gains -- Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Christians all cooperated with each other when it suited their needs at that particular moment. That, along with events such as the split between AMAL and Hizbollah, have shown that religious principles clearly take a backseat to political realism in the Lebanese scene.

[Troubleshooter]

The point is that the religious aspect of what's going on over there is vastly overplayed.

In general, I'd agree with you. So much focus on the "ancient struggle" often leads to glossing over the very real lunges for power and influence by people only vaguely familiar with the core precepts of their own religion, save the parts they can use as a tool to get to their the more down to earth desires.

Still, to dismiss religion as a side-aspect of the conflicts around the middle east would be just as distorting to the reality as reducing the conflict to a simple difference in confession + gunz.

Hezbollah is very much a shia organization, and it derives much aid and comfort as a result of its religious affiliation. (see Iran) While the present conflict is mainly about power (so much for their "legitimatizing" trend...) who they are shooting at is just as important as why they are shooting at them. Yes, it all ties back into the strange political environment from back in the day, but where do you think its going? If Hezbollah takes control of the country by force, it will devolve into a theocracy because the post occupation Lebanon doesn't need Hezbollah, and without the Israelis to shoot at, all they have to rally around is their religion based communal ties.

I don't like people acting like I don't know what I'm talking about. Naturally. Anyway..

Understandable. Theres still a fairly large gap between what you've read about and how it actually plays in the real world. Clearly you know the subject matter, its the way you have shaped the building blocks of that information to build an image of the middle east that leaves me in stitches sometimes. Anyway, I apologize for pushing your buttons... I'm looking forward to your report back after your first trip to Iraq though.

[TheDividedGod]

I'm looking forward to your report back after your first trip to Iraq though.

ahh! interesting, as i myself have made the trip (years ago mind you, it was quite an (illegal) adventure), as well as spending several years all told in isreal and egypt. I'd like to hear this as well.

Anyways, thanks motiv for responding to my specific questions. i still have several points and issues that have so far gone unaddressed, but it seems this particular engagement will not amount to much in that regard. it's unfortunate that you won't even take the time to even read the TIME article, much less critically analyze it, but I can't force you into doing something you clearly feel is beneath you and your polysci degree (i can only assume you are talking about a political science degree, pardon any mistake). Nevertheless, i will continue to educate myself on the matter.

i'd like to make it clear however...I never said or implied that you didn't know what you were talking about. Claiming that I did, to justify your attitude, is simply unsupportable - go ahead and look through the thread. Clearly your knowledge of modern lebanese politics is highly comprehensive. i simply can't understand why you got so defensive so quickly, and refused outright to actually argue with me in the first place, or even, at least, analyze the articles I was referencing. As trouble just elucidated, I was never intending to "push your buttons", as i don't even know what they are (and, in some way, I don't really care....it's not relevant to being able to just discuss all possible angles of an issue and come out of it with more insight, which is really what i'm trying to promote here.)

hopefully this won't happen again. apologies.

(exeunt.)

[motiv-8]

Apologies, gentlemen. See, I typically deal with topics such as the one in this thread with people that are poorly-educated or downright ignorant, on an almost daily basis. It gets rather frustrating after a while, but it was completely bad form to assume the same from you fellows and act correspondingly diminutive.

I have some moving to do while I prepare to go to OCS, so it will be a little while before I reply. I'll read the Time article and see what they have to say -- I usually don't take magazines of Time's ilk very seriously, but as you pointed out, I shouldn't automatically consider it beneath me to approach another angle.

[INVICTA]

Those were quite a few interesting days, I could have sworme a couple of rpg's flew right by my house, two days ago, we counted at least 60 rpg's and b-7 shells fired. Whish I was on the ground thought, rather than being stuck in the house.

But for all of you discussing the religious and historical aspects for what is happening, it doesn't matter, none of that is being discussed on the ground and no one really cares, it's not religious or sectarian, to put it simply, the current government is pro-us, and backed by the us, hence naturally Hezbollah and his allies are going to take the opposition side, it's a simple power struggle to determine Lebanon's political future weather it's going to be in the us camp, or in the Syrian camp.

On the ground, we have Sunni and Christian Nationalists and comunists fighting alongside Shia Hezbollah, against government supporters, who are also comprised of all the different Lebanese sects.

[Fannin]

current government is pro-us, and backed by the us, hence naturally Hezbollah and his allies are going to take the opposition side

Very key; Opposition politics continued by other means.

[motiv-8]

Funny, what INVICTA said is what I was tryin gto say, I guess it takes being there to describe things so straightforwardly.

Stay safe, INVICTA, and keep us updated if you can.