Russia says ISIS defeated in Syria.....Really?

Iran and VZ have a long standing relationship because Iran has little refining capacity.. so VZ refines Iranian oil.

Perhaps that's where the Hezbollah connection comes it.

 

I looked around, and, yes, there are reports of Hezbollah activity, particularly in the drug trade, in South America. Their leaders are in Syria and Lebanon. I would tell them to get out of the western hemisphere, or else all of their leaders are dead men walking.

 

So when was the last time Hezbollah attacked America? Do you actually think the US government can stop members and affiliates of Hezbollah from traveling to the western hemisphere or that they even should attempt it? Why?

 

You won't get away with that. Since when has America been NATO? Nato is for them being attacked. Gaddafi did not attack a Nato country.

 

The US is a member of NATO........

NATO - Topic: NATO and Libya (Archived)

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm
Nov 9, 2015 - Following the Qadhafi regime’s targeting of civilians in February 2011, NATO answered the United Nations’ (UN) call to the international community to protect the Libyan people. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO Allies and partners began enforcing an arms embargo, maintaining ...

 

Yes, we can stop it. If Hezbollah is making money off the drug trade in South America, it makes sense that we should put a stop to that.

If Hezbollah's leaders in Syria and Lebanon are faced with a choice of sending their operatives to the western hemisphere for their nefarious purposes, or death, which do you think they'll choose?

Here's a quote from an article I found ...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/8/hezbollah-moving-tons-of-cocaine-in-latin-america-/

If you google "hezbollah in south america", there is much more.

So, I think, if it were up to me, I would get a message to Hezbollah's leaders in Syria and Lebanon that the party in the western hemisphere is over. They may get out, or they may die. Their choice.

 

You didn't answer my question about all the terrorist attacks that Hezbollah has been committing in America. Is that because there are no such attacks?

By the way, that is a rhetorical question. Virtually all of Hezbollah's "terrorism" is directed at Israel and has nothing to do with countries in the western hemisphere. Given that, why are you so concerned with them coming to the western hemisphere? And how, exactly, do you plan on stopping them from going to countries in South America? Are you going to have the US military invade South America or something?

 

You are very wrong about this ^^^ (in bold)...America is not prepared for Hezbollah

Either way I have no interest to convince anyone, I just post here and then get on with my life... I have 4 Trump supporters arriving within the hour (from your neck of the woods) and I need time to mentally prepare myself.... as in keeping my mouth shut (which is extremely difficult for me sometimes)

Regarding the Hezbollah issue, I look at the bigger picture with concern, for America (also Australia) because we have Hezbollah sleeper cells even here. I think it's a mistake to remain on the back foot, and believe we should on the offensive instead, especially when presented with the golden opportunity of (Syria) and (Afghanistan).

Supplying money and training to a proxy is far cheaper than conventional warfare and essential when you're engaged in a very long drawn out conflict. Saudi Arabia in Yemen is a very good example, they're stuck and spending $200 million a day with a frontline that hasn't moved in about a year, this is what Iran does best with their proxies/militias. America needs to roll up it's sleeves and get down in the mud... the same way Iran does.

 

Hezbollah cells in America and the west are sleeper cells, and currently waging narco terrorism, not terrorism as you understand it, although that doesn't mean it is off the table.

 

In other words, Hezbollah has never committed a terrorist attack on American soil.

 

They are a terror organisation as is I believe the Quds Force who closely support them

https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au...izballahsExternalSecurityOrganisationESO.aspx

 

They are only called a "terror organization" because they oppose Israel's aggression and thievery.

 

No, we're not going to send the Marines if that's what you mean.

Look ... Don't underestimate the abilities of the U.S. to focus on a problem and address it. We have capabilities that are very, very good. Since 9/11, these capabilities have become very well integrated, combining intelligence capabilities with kinetic capabilities into a well-oiled machine. Bits and pieces of these capabilities have been researched and written about, but they are mostly secret, and they are mostly unknown to the general public.

Agreed, Hezbollah has not carried out attacks against the U.S., but they are involved in the drug trade which enriches the cartels, corrupts governments, and funds their operations, and they are doing all of this in our back yard. I get the impression from some of the articles I scanned over that the U.S. has not put out a concerted effort to address this.

Again, I would just inform their leaders that the party is over. Get out, or lights out.

 

Haha! Good luck. I hope you have a nice time with your guests.

 

I was in the military, so I know all about it. They are far less competent and capable than you've been led to believe.

In any case, the illegal drug trade is entirely the result of the US government's deceitful and unjust "war on drugs". If you really want to end the illegal drug trade, then simply end drug prohibition.

 

I think they also truck bombed a US barracks in Lebanon causing massive loss of life.

Otherwise I would have agreed with you, but between Hezbollah and the USA, there is bad blood.

 

Does it even pay for me to waste my time listing the multitude of terrorist attacks by this sc-mbag terrorist organization across central/south america, syria, lebanon, europe and elsewhere?

 

Given the quality of the stuff you usually post, I would suggest that "no". It doesn't.
But hey if someone is dumb enough to pay you to talk this way, take the money.

 

1. There are tasks for the army and tasks for politicians. After Pearl Harbor Japan won and grabbed more than they actually needed (oil and food from colonies), but politicians couldn't reach the peace agreement with the USA and GB (a sort of great power those days). In 1941 the Germans defeated more soviet troops than their war plans, but due to some unexpected will to fight there was no peace treaty. So we need to distinguish firstly between the army's victory and political victory.
2. If we regard war in Afghanistan led by USSR we have to face the fact that soviet army defeated every organized group. But in terms of politics USSR lost to the help of USA (primarily) to what we call now ISIS. Those days they were rebellions and freedom fighters in what you call 'media'. Afghanistan had its chance to become another soviet state, secular to the level of atheism. But they didn't use the chance. Later the army received the order to leave and they left the region without being actually defeated.
3. USSR was not defeated by any army. The state collapsed because of corrupt revolutionary ideas that were the basis of the state and economical crisis well set by our western partners. It is still a loss. But not the one at the battlefield. The population itself didn't like to stay soviet. Even now when we have the demographic calculation of the population about 1-2% identify selves as 'soviet', but that is comparable figure to 'elves' and other stuff. It's impossible to govern Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians etc as if they are soviet, while they don't think themselves to be the ones. Nowadays some western countries who mostly replenish their populations with immigrants step on the same rakes...
4. If we return to Syria we have to face the fact that ISIS no longer exists. it is no longer a state. it doesn't have politics, economy, law (whatever primitive it used to be). What we have there is on the ground level terrorist cells, which is mostly a task for police rather than the army. And on the world level we have a view spread in western media that 'Assad must go' and democratic Syria is still somewhere there in Syria and it needs help from NATO. So we have the same situation when the armies did their job and politicians for some reasons do not want the peace. This is the only reason for armies to still present there and blood spilling...

 

What for?
Of course if there is a plan to stop the increasing population of middle east and to make those who can escape to flee to the EU - the continuation of war makes sense. It is an extremely mean (I just cannot pick up a better word in English to characterize this aim) aim, but if the politicians want it - they do the right thing. Leaving would cause the shrinking military spendings and shrinking influence of the US in the world. China would grow gradually into the first economy of the world and the world itself would change into something new, but evidentally not to the picture of future of western 'democracies'. But if I got it all wrong then what is the aim?

The initial plan was to turn Syria into another Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, which will make the argument for American troops to present in the region and poiticians to make their business with the resources of Russia, Iran and territory of Syria (Ukraine) to earn money on EU. But since now the argument no longer works and there is absolutely no legal right for the US army to operate in the region, what for should they stay? Democracy?

 

And yes. The burning news. Russia returns its military home. Putin promises to keep an eye on terrorists activities and in case of their return to strike blows as heavy as they haven't seen so far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42307365

 

Attacking a military target isn't really "terrorism" in my humble opinion.

 

Since I was asking about terrorist attacks against the USA, I fail to see how such a list would be relevant.

 

Actually I think it was .. and in response to the Sabra Shatillas massacres.

 

You're free to think whatever you want. But in my opinion, attacking a military installation does not qualify as terrorism. It's just war.