Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

I found this article on the Christian Science Monitor website and it is really interesting.
Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US

Hizbullah is considered to be the most advanced terrorist organization in the world, and they were responsible for the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. However, they have not been responsible for an attack on US interests in 15 years. Should they be the next target? The article is really interesting because it notes that Hizbullah is actually a multi faceted organization with political and humanitarian wings, sort of like the IRA were back in the day, and that is why a lot of countries would be apprehensive about attacking it. What is also noteworthy is that Hizbullah are based in Syria, so it would give the administration an excuse to attack said country. What do you all think? Has not attacked the US in 15 years even though they obviously could if they wanted to, should it be, and as a result Syria, the next candidate for pre-empive action?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
I found this article on the Christian Science Monitor website and it is really interesting.
Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US

Hizbullah is considered to be the most advanced terrorist organization in the world, and they were responsible for the 1983 army barracks bombing in Lebanon. However, they have not been responsible for an attack on US interests in 15 years. Should they be the next target? The article is really interesting because it notes that Hizbullah is actually a multi faceted organization with political and humanitarian wings, sort of like the IRA were back in the day, and that is why a lot of countries would be apprehensive about attacking it. What is also noteworthy is that Hizbullah are based in Syria, so it would give the administration an excuse to attack said country. What do you all think? Has not attacked the US in 15 years even though they obviously could if they wanted to, should it be, and as a result Syria, the next candidate for pre-empive action?

I stopped reading halfway through the first sentence. If they don't know the difference between the Army and the Marine Corps . . . sheesh.

Edit . . . whoops, that was your mistake, not theirs. I thought the second part was part of the article.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
I found this article on the Christian Science Monitor website and it is really interesting.
Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US

Hizbullah is considered to be the most advanced terrorist organization in the world, and they were responsible for the 1983 army barracks bombing in Lebanon. However, they have not been responsible for an attack on US interests in 15 years. Should they be the next target? The article is really interesting because it notes that Hizbullah is actually a multi faceted organization with political and humanitarian wings, sort of like the IRA were back in the day, and that is why a lot of countries would be apprehensive about attacking it. What is also noteworthy is that Hizbullah are based in Syria, so it would give the administration an excuse to attack said country. What do you all think? Has not attacked the US in 15 years even though they obviously could if they wanted to, should it be, and as a result Syria, the next candidate for pre-empive action?

I stopped reading halfway through the first sentence. If they don't know the difference between the Army and the Marine Corps . . . sheesh.

Edit . . . whoops, that was your mistake, not theirs. I thought the second part was part of the article.

My bad, I'll fix that, wasn't paying attention.

 

[jjones]

(US) Officials are determined to brook no interference from terror group as Iraq rebuilds.

Sheikh Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah: "Tomorrow brothers and sisters, and I am not exaggerating or throwing out zealous or sentimental words ... is the beginning of the end of the American era in Iraq and the region."

Well if he plans to resort to terrorism to carry that out then I certainly hope they are next. And it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit to see Syria get spanked in the process. I don't like the prospect of something like that happening but if Syria can't keep their terrorist guests under control, so be it.

 

[etech]

If one of the main goals is to produce a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis than groups like Hizbullah will have to be taken on. Considering that the I/P conflict is so often cited as the reason for so much discord and disharmony amoung the Arab countries than you must assume that is high on the US agenda.

So no, I don't find it surprising that a terrorist group of that magnitude and one that targets Israel and would keep on targeting it even if a peace accord was reached would be next on the list.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: etech
If one of the main goals is to produce a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis than groups like Hizbullah will have to be taken on. Considering that the I/P conflict is so often cited as the reason for so much discord and disharmony amoung the Arab countries than you must assume that is high on the US agenda.

So no, I don't find it surprising that a terrorist group of that magnitude and one that targets Israel and would keep on targeting it even if a peace accord was reached would be next on the list.

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: etech
If one of the main goals is to produce a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis than groups like Hizbullah will have to be taken on. Considering that the I/P conflict is so often cited as the reason for so much discord and disharmony amoung the Arab countries than you must assume that is high on the US agenda.

So no, I don't find it surprising that a terrorist group of that magnitude and one that targets Israel and would keep on targeting it even if a peace accord was reached would be next on the list.

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

Locking Arafat and all his cronies up would be a good start.

 

[Zebo]

It would'nt be wise to attack the country who has the largest, most sophisticated, best trained military and get them mad at you.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It would'nt be wise to attack the country who has the largest, most sophisticated, best trained military and get them mad at you.

Canada?

Wait, wait, I know this one . . .

 

[Zebo]

What I found more interesting was this story from that same magazine.
British Labor party official has been taking bribes from Saddam to Bash Blair in the House Of Commons for over three years.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
I found this article on the Christian Science Monitor website and it is really interesting.
Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US

Hizbullah is considered to be the most advanced terrorist organization in the world, and they were responsible for the 1983 army barracks bombing in Lebanon. However, they have not been responsible for an attack on US interests in 15 years. Should they be the next target? The article is really interesting because it notes that Hizbullah is actually a multi faceted organization with political and humanitarian wings, sort of like the IRA were back in the day, and that is why a lot of countries would be apprehensive about attacking it. What is also noteworthy is that Hizbullah are based in Syria, so it would give the administration an excuse to attack said country. What do you all think? Has not attacked the US in 15 years even though they obviously could if they wanted to, should it be, and as a result Syria, the next candidate for pre-empive action?

I stopped reading halfway through the first sentence. If they don't know the difference between the Army and the Marine Corps . . . sheesh.

Edit . . . whoops, that was your mistake, not theirs. I thought the second part was part of the article.

My bad, I'll fix that, wasn't paying attention.

Nothing new

 

[Tiger]

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

If we have to just like we did in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda weren't walking around with "Terrorist" tatoo'd on their backs.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: etech
If one of the main goals is to produce a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis than groups like Hizbullah will have to be taken on. Considering that the I/P conflict is so often cited as the reason for so much discord and disharmony amoung the Arab countries than you must assume that is high on the US agenda.

So no, I don't find it surprising that a terrorist group of that magnitude and one that targets Israel and would keep on targeting it even if a peace accord was reached would be next on the list.

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

You convince the leaders of Syria, Iran and Palestine that the old way of supporting terrorist groups is not in their best interests. There are known Hizbullah training camps in Syria. It's time they were shut down. Iran supports the terrorist organization with money and arms. It's time they stopped.

It will be a dangerous time. Hezbollah will fight the loss of power even if it was gained by terrorist actions and will most likely fight for that continuation of power by terrorist actions

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Tiger

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

If we have to just like we did in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda weren't walking around with "Terrorist" tatoo'd on their backs.

Has Al-Qaeda been eliminated? Osama and his groupies are still around. The war on terror is like the war on drugs. The only people that ever get caught are the low level idiots. The leaders of the drug cartels and Osama are still running loose causing terror and killing people.

 

[Alistar7]

Really, what has OBL done since 911? Other than recent calls for attacks on even his own country, I'm sure that played well with the Arab world, you saw firsthand the power of his words now didn't you? lol

Barney looks like Bush was right all along, clear links, WMD.... any comments other than they were planted?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Really, what has OBL done since 911? Other than recent calls for attacks on even his own country, I'm sure that played well with the Arab world, you saw firsthand the power of his words now didn't you? lol

Barney looks like Bush was right all along, clear links, WMD.... any comments other than they were planted?

Yeah, but just because an attack hasn't happened since 9/11 does not mean that OBL cannot or will not strike again. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda has been weekend, but how do we know that they are not planning something as we speak? It took them years to plan out 9/11, and if they are going to do something that will eclipse it, its going to take them a long, long time.

 

[mrCide]

us attacking hizbollah would be like israel trying to attack palestinian terrorists.. it gets them NOWHERE. they're one of the things the arab world has against israel and primarily israel, they dislike the US because of our support for israel as any other arab state that doesn't like us (as oppose to 'because they're dirty americans!')..

attacking them to arabs would be like attacking the UN.. heh

just my 2c

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Really, what has OBL done since 911? Other than recent calls for attacks on even his own country, I'm sure that played well with the Arab world, you saw firsthand the power of his words now didn't you? lol

Barney looks like Bush was right all along, clear links, WMD.... any comments other than they were planted?

Well remember that explosion outside the embassy in Pakistan last year? Remember that bombing in that night club in Malayasia that killed all those aussies. Like the other person said, what makes you think they aren't planning another elaborate scheme? Nobody ever dreamed of crashing planes into buildings in the US. We all thought that only happens in the middle east.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
What I found more interesting was this story from that same magazine.
British Labor party official has been taking bribes from Saddam to Bash Blair in the House Of Commons for over three years.

PWNED!

haha, that douche has to be sweating a little now... unless something comes out to completely refute this, his political career is over

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Tiger

And how do you plan on taking on a terrorist group? Are you going to invade Syria, Lebanon, and Palenstine? You know these people wear street clothes and aren't in uniforms.

If we have to just like we did in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda weren't walking around with "Terrorist" tatoo'd on their backs.

Has Al-Qaeda been eliminated? Osama and his groupies are still around. The war on terror is like the war on drugs. The only people that ever get caught are the low level idiots. The leaders of the drug cartels and Osama are still running loose causing terror and killing people.

Al-Qaeda has not been eliminated and never will be completely. I am sure in the future they will think long and hard about trying to pull off another 9-11. I think the U.S. has caught a lot more than a few low level idiots:

Text

Lots more, but you can do the searching.