iran and hezbollah - the real enemies

Last Exodus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2951938.stm

How quickly we forget

sponger

How Americans never actually knew....

The US was there as peacekeepers between the warring factions inside of beirut. One night the Lebanese Maronites had tricked a US Commander into thinking that a Maronite position had come under attack, so the Commander ordered a battle ship waiting offshore to shell a shiite position that was supposedly conducting the attack.

It turns out of course that the Maronites were never under attack. They had just devised a scheme to not only have an enemy position obliterated by a battery US Naval cannons, but to also coax the US into breaking the ceasefire. The Hezbollah, being shiites, retaliated. And they did this by bombing the barricks.

It's all in Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem", which is a National Book Award winning personal account of a reporter who was embedded in Beirut throughout the 80's.

Anyway, so all I'm saying is that it wasn't an unprovoked act of "terrorism" as it is portrayed to be. It was in fact provoked and it was directed at a military target.

Of cousre, I'm not saying that those Marines deserved to die or that the Hezbollah should be forgiven.

Last Exodus

sponger wrote:

How Americans never actually knew....

The US was there as peacekeepers between the warring factions inside of beirut. One night the Lebanese Maronites had tricked a US Commander into thinking that a Maronite position had come under attack, so the Commander ordered a battle ship waiting offshore to shell a shiite position that was supposedly conducting the attack.

It turns out of course that the Maronites were never under attack. They had just devised a scheme to not only have an enemy position obliterated by a battery US Naval cannons, but to also coax the US into breaking the ceasefire. The Hezbollah, being shiites, retaliated. And they did this by bombing the barricks.

It's all in Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem", which is a National Book Award winning personal account of a reporter who was embedded in Beirut throughout the 80's.

Anyway, so all I'm saying is that it wasn't an unprovoked act of "terrorism" as it is portrayed to be. It was in fact provoked and it was directed at a military target.

Of cousre, I'm not saying that those Marines deserved to die or that the Hezbollah should be forgiven.

can i get a page cite on that. im intimately familiar with that book

Collin

Last Exodus wrote:

Um a BBC article dude. Not the most objective when it comes to American politics these days pal

At least be consistent, in one thread you say BBC is biased and here you're using it as your source!

Don't believe everything you read. We can all play this 'don't trust the media' game. :rolleyes:

Ahnimus

It takes two to tango.

Neither party is innocent and we are talking a generation or two of people on both sides. These things don't end swiftly unfortunately. It all comes down to intolerance on both sides. But I question how much we expect either to tolerate. I think both sides are behaving just as people would under the circumstances and therefor neither is explicitly at fault.

I can see that time may be the only solution. Eventually things will change through some complex series of events. Or the world may end as the violence intensifies. Pointing blame only seems to fuel the escalation, warranting further attacks by either faction.

sponger

Page 200-201.

OK, so I forgot that the Maronites were actually under attack, but what the Maronite Commander in Chief told General Stiner was, "...a massive offensive was taking shape against his army, and that he didn't think his defenses could hold out another 'thirty minutes', and that one of his own howitzers was out of ammunition."

It turns out only 8 Maronites were killed and 12 wounded during the entire "massive offensive."

It's been awhile since I read the book. However, the fact remains that no independent confirmation of the attack was made before the order to shell the druse muslims was given. And if you are intimately familiar with this book, then you know that these types of schemes were the hallmark of war strategies in Lebanon.

What is the name of the chapter?

Last Exodus

Collin wrote:

At least be consistent, in one thread you say BBC is biased and here you're using it as your source!

Don't believe everything you read. We can all play this 'don't trust the media' game. :rolleyes:

exactly the point. even the most biased media acknowledged Iranian complicity in American deaths. Glad someone picked up on that.

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

It takes two to tango.

Neither party is innocent and we are talking a generation or two of people on both sides. These things don't end swiftly unfortunately. It all comes down to intolerance on both sides. But I question how much we expect either to tolerate. I think both sides are behaving just as people would under the circumstances and therefor neither is explicitly at fault.

I can see that time may be the only solution. Eventually things will change through some complex series of events. Or the world may end as the violence intensifies. Pointing blame only seems to fuel the escalation, warranting further attacks by either faction.

Ahnimus. This thread is meant for intelligent debate. Not propoganda. Go away

Last Exodus

sponger wrote:

How Americans never actually knew....

The US was there as peacekeepers between the warring factions inside of beirut. One night the Lebanese Maronites had tricked a US Commander into thinking that a Maronite position had come under attack, so the Commander ordered a battle ship waiting offshore to shell a shiite position that was supposedly conducting the attack.

It turns out of course that the Maronites were never under attack. They had just devised a scheme to not only have an enemy position obliterated by a battery US Naval cannons, but to also coax the US into breaking the ceasefire. The Hezbollah, being shiites, retaliated. And they did this by bombing the barricks.

It's all in Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem", which is a National Book Award winning personal account of a reporter who was embedded in Beirut throughout the 80's.

Anyway, so all I'm saying is that it wasn't an unprovoked act of "terrorism" as it is portrayed to be. It was in fact provoked and it was directed at a military target.

Of cousre, I'm not saying that those Marines deserved to die or that the Hezbollah should be forgiven.

I did recall the incident about the Maronites. But the connection between the battleship shelling and the attack on the Embassy would be theory alone. In either event iran was behind it and hezbollah committed it. bottom line, neither are friends of ours and payback will be a bitch

B nice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_%28AGTR-5%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs


oh yeah....you killed him as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


keep up the good work "pal"

B nice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun


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



terrorist/leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben_Gurion


again ...keep up the good work

Last Exodus

B nice wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_%28AGTR-5%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs


oh yeah....you killed him as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


keep up the good work "pal"

The Rosenbergs and the Liberty?? Nice. You forgot the Blood Libel and ZOG. How's life in the Aryan Nation...?

ThumbingMyWay32

Last Exodus wrote:

The Rosenbergs and the Liberty?? Nice. You forgot the Blood Libel and ZOG. How's life in the Aryan Nation...?

Damn it's good to have another one on board!

Last Exodus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Damn it's good to have another one on board!

Another what???

sponger

Last Exodus wrote:

I did recall the incident about the Maronites. But the connection between the battleship shelling and the attack on the Embassy would be theory alone. In either event iran was behind it and hezbollah committed it. bottom line, neither are friends of ours and payback will be a bitch

Sure, OK. In that case, the attack on Pearl Harbor was "theoretically" retaliatory as well. Nevermind that the barricks attack came just one month after the shelling and was the first act of violence committed by the Hezbollah against the US.

Last Exodus

sponger wrote:

Sure, OK. In that case, the attack on Pearl Harbor was "theoretically" retaliatory as well. Nevermind that the barricks attack came just one month after the shelling and was the first act of violence committed by the Hezbollah against the US.

So let me get this straight, you think it was ok to kill over 250 peacekeepers? Wow....scary. Pearl Jam board the hotbed of Hezbollah sympathizers. Who knew?

Last Exodus

sponger wrote:

Sure, OK. In that case, the attack on Pearl Harbor was "theoretically" retaliatory as well. Nevermind that the barricks attack came just one month after the shelling and was the first act of violence committed by the Hezbollah against the US.

and it's "barracks". you must have missed English AND History classes.

sponger

Last Exodus wrote:

So let me get this straight, you think it was ok to kill over 250 peacekeepers? Wow....scary. Pearl Jam board the hotbed of Hezbollah sympathizers. Who knew?

I guess that's what they call a loaded question. When did I say it was OK? I said it wasn't an unprovoked act of terrorism and that it's doubtful that it was a "theoretical" act of retaliation.

Just admit that you started this thread with the intentions of pretending like you knew something about the middle east.

sponger

Last Exodus wrote:

and it's "barracks". you must have missed English AND History classes.

Congratulations! You finally got to make a point.

Last Exodus

sponger wrote:

I guess that's what they call a loaded question. When did I say it was OK? I said it wasn't an unprovoked act of terrorism and that it's doubtful that it was a "theoretical" act of retaliation.

Just admit that you started this thread with the intentions of pretending like you knew something about the middle east.

not my intent at all. i know plenty about the middle east. i just returned from a two week trip to the region. but thats not why i started the thread at all..

sponger

Last Exodus wrote:

not my intent at all. i know plenty about the middle east. i just returned from a two week trip to the region. but thats not why i started the thread at all..

I've been to Mexico plenty of times. That doesn't mean I know anything about what happened there 24 yrs ago.