The questions of the Syrian Civil War spilling over into its neighbors have long since been answered, but the situation in Lebanon looks to be escalating rapidly, with a pair of missiles, fired from Syrian rebel positions, pounding the outskirts of the capital city of Beirut today.
The attacks only wounded four in a residential area, but point to the rebels’ pledges of hitting Lebanon as retaliation for Hezbollah’s involvement in their war. Rebels had been saying that they were planning attacks on Lebanon for “several weeks,” and officials said the strike today was a “warning” to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to withdraw.
That’s unlikely, of course, and earlier this weekend Nasrallah declared the Syrian War “our battle,” pledging a “completely new phase” of support in the form of sending troops into neighboring Syria.
The full extent of Hezbollah’s role in Syria is much debated. Fighters are known to have taken part in the efforts to oust rebels from the town of Qusayr, near the Lebanese borders.
Yet at times the estimates have ranged into the absurd, as Brookings Institute fellow Salman Shaikh declared this weekend that Hezbollah already had 5,000 troops in Syria and was preparing to send another 5,000. Though Hezbollah’s size is widely debated, most analysts estimate the group to have only about 1,000 full-time fighters in total, and a large number of reservists who are only really called up during the occasional Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.
It's high time we stopped calling them 'rebels', don't you think?
—–
rebel, n. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority
—–
Unless you are suggesting that the Assad regime is not "the constituted authority" in Syria, "rebel" is an appropriate descriptor.
The Shorter Oxford comes closer to what I mean in referring to "one who refuses or renounces allegiance to his sovereign or the government of his country"- while many rebels correspond to this descriptor many do not since they are foreigners for whom the question of allegiance does not arise. Hence the blanket term rebel must be substituted by another – e.g. opposition forces. Ditz and yrself stick close to the MSM register on so much! That is of interest to me.
I'm not sure the word "must" means what you think it means.
That Ditz and myself stick close to the MSM register is not something "of interest" to you. It's something you made up.
'Must' is appropriate, since logic comes into play (or are all the 'rebels' home grown?) ; in response to things that it is thought I 'make up'; this has to do instead with intellectual honesty; yours or mine – readers can decide. On where the so called rebel forces come from, let me take readers for example to "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) where General Wesley Clark explains the game. In the meantime the EU has just lifted its embargo on arms supplies to those you believe are rebels. As a Briton I can't refuse allegiance to, say, the State of Japan. As a Libyan I can't do the same in Syria.
Knapp's (reformists) 'Z'ionist' mind-set is somewhat the square peg to antiwar.com's round holes ….. including other such venues of intellectually saimilar nitches of thought and polemics…. and all the consistency of a two-toned chameleon..
*
*
*intellectual honesty; yours or mine'……. Hey! I've shown you your's…. Try showin me mine…
Actually, I gave up on even reformist Zionism — and all other identity politics.
sorry for being behind on your views….. these are tough issues to engage fairly,,,, and open mindedly.
*
*Ditto: squarely, justly, soberly, indifferently, neutrally, equitably, considerately,
detachedly, disinterestedly, dispassionately. evenhandedly, on the up and up, with impartially, objectivity, without favor, and without prejudice as "thesaurus.com/browse/open-mindedly kindly enumerates.
*
Keep up your good work on the journey here at antiwar.com and elsewhere…..