Car Bomb Wounds Six in Lebanese Capital

BEIRUT (Reuters) - A car bomb exploded in a mainly Christian eastern suburb of the Lebanese capital Beirut on Saturday, wounding six people, a security source said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050318/wl_nm/lebanon_dc

Thank you president *! With any luck at all Lebanon's civil war will be back in business full time. F'ing moran.

eom

state. It will be destablized and the people will begin living the same hell as Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the US. But this is just what the US and Israel want in the Arab countries and all of the ME. Widespread destablization and terror so that the US and Israel can have a free hand to do whatever they want in the region. Nothing new under the sun.

Watch for it.

I really doubt that Israel wants destabilization of the ME, especially a country with whom they share a border. They no more want civil war there, than the Lebanese! A civil war in Lebanon has the potential to spill into Israel.

doesn't make sense to me. Same goes for the rest of the ME. The Israelis have been TRYING to get peace FOR DECADES.

I've just been reading up on the civil war in Lebanon and it was terrible. It lasted for 15 years, from 1975 until 1990. The modern State of Lebanon was created in 1943, from a French mandate, and had always been rich in ethnic diversity.

Essentially the root cause was ethnic imbalance within the government. The majority had shifted from Christian to Arab, although this was complicated by splits within the Arab community - primarily between Druze, Sunni and Shi'a. Naturally there was interference from the outside - from other Arab states backing one side or the other, and from the Soviet Union backing socialist groups.

Here's a link:

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

There are some interesting facts in here, including some folks might not know concerning the role of the PLO in the Civil War, how they wound up in Lebanon after having been evicted from Jordan by King Hussein - for terrorist activities - how they attacked Israel from the north, were later accused by several groups including Maronite Christian and human rights groups of genocide, of killing up to 100,000 people there. For their part the local Lebanese hadn't taken the Palestinians to their bosom and the Palestinians lived in refugee camps. At one point during the war the Christian forces, given access by the Israelis - who should have known better - exacted revenge on the Palestinians by killing several hundred people in the camps.

I think this is worth mentioning because it seems lately to be Israel which gets the blame for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East. The above brief scenario should show that there was ample blame to spread around and some the key players, the PLO for one, continued to be quite violent up until the death of Yasser Arafat. Arafat, it may be recalled, rejected an excellent deal to establish a Palestinian state, apparently preferring violence to the rule of law.

Only under Abbas has real progress once again been made toward securing peace.

There were many players in the Lebanese conflict - Syria, Israel, several Arab nations, the PLO, the PFLP, the Soviets, the US, and of course the citizens. None were innocent; I can't begin to believe that ANY want a repeat. There are, however, violent and reactionary forces within Lebanon, who don't want to disarm, who don't want to become part of a modern state, who do want to destroy Israel and who seem to prefer violence to peace. They're a danger to the Palestinians as well.

How anyone can imagine this is what Israel wants baffles me. The Israelis are just like YOU: they want peace and quiet so they can go to work and raise their families.

What Bush wants, who can figure out? Primarily I think he is into oil, but I think he is a True Believer on the subject of democracy. This may well lead him to pursue another war although I am quite sure the Europeans are attempting to persuade him to attempt diplomacy instead. Let us pray:)

to try and wipe out Hezbollah again. They blew it the last time around.

Oh and Israel was very active in the destabilization of Lebanon that led to the 1975 civil war.

There were many things leading up to the Lebanese Civil War, most of which was strife between Muslims and Christians. And, although, the Israeli's supplied arms to the Christian groups, they did not become involved until March 1978 when members of the PLO went on a shooting spree in Israel. Israel responded!

As for Hezbollah, they will provide their own undoing if they don't straighten up! It seems some members are wanting to be legitimate, while others are still nothing more than terrorists.

As hard as it may be to believe, the nation of Israel is not responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East.

"the Israeli's supplied arms to the Christian groups" and "they did not become involved until March 1978" are contradictory.

Israel has a long history of meddling in Lebanese affairs, including of course the disastrous occupation of southern Lebanon and the atrocity committed by Sharon in the palestinian refuge camps. These are simply facts. Nowhere have I stated that Israel bears responsibility "for all the ills of the Middle East", I have simply stated that Israel has a historical record of interfering in Lebanon and has motives for doing so now.

"As for Hezbollah, they will provide their own undoing if they don't straighten up!" as in we will smash them with the Iron Fist of our military might, right?

result of Israel, they are endemic to the area.

The forging of alliances between groups and outside nations was not and is not limited to the old alliance between Israel and the Christians. There are alliances between various Muslim groups and Arab nations as well, including Syria, that have been of long standing. Iran is involved, as well as various major powers.

If you are going to accuse Israel of destabilization you should also mention these other factors as well - not that Lebanon needs any help being unstable.

Indeed, if Lebanon were not unstable to begin with, and containing many violent factions, "meddling" by these outside groups would not be so effective. It is this single fact about the Arab world which must be recognized before any clear picture of regional violence can be realized: it is VIOLENT. The rule of law has not yet, in many cases, taken clear hold. Understanding and tolerance between splintered social and religious groups has not yet evolved.

That is why you see dictators, such as Saddam Hussein - and in his absence - all hell breaks loose.

This would not work in New England or the Midwest or in France.

Blaming this essential fact on any one group, the Israelis for example, is both inaccurate and blinding. It blinds one to the nature of the beast and makes it impossible to create a meaningful dialogue on the subject, or a meaningful plan to deal with it.

Finally, when discussing Lebanon, one must again mention the PLO. The entrance of the PLO into Lebanon, after King Hussein evicted them from Jordan for terrorism, was the key tipping point that got Israel actively involved in the war. They used bases in Southern Lebanon to attack Israel and also were extremely aggressive in the war. As mentioned in the Wikipedia link, some groups held them responsible for genocide - not of a few hundred people - but of UP TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.

It is in this light that one must look at the massacre of which Sharon is accused. This massacre, of up to about 800 people, was actually committed by Maronite Christians, probably bent on revenge. The cover story was the existence of PLO fighters in the camp. The role of the Israelis was to allow access to the camps, which they had surrounded. It was a grave mistake at the least, complicity at the worst. Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible to some degree, however to suggest that he or the Israeli forces actually committed the murders is untrue, misleading and again, paints a false picture of the complexity and violence of the situation.

This massacre was not isolated. Others occurred, of Palestinians, by Palestinians, and so forth.

As far as Hezbollah, by not acting progressively, by preferring the reactionary way of the gun and the bomb, it stands to become irrelevant to the political process. Lebanon is no isolated fortress kingdom in the middle of nowhere. It faces the Mediterranean and has people of diverse social, economic, political and religious backgrounds and it has an ancient history. In the past it has had a luminous role and it could do so once again. It should not be held hostage - nor should Israel and the Palestinian people - to a violent group bent on destruction.

Hezbollah has an opportunity to enter regional politics in a peaceful and progressive way, representing the voices of the Shi'a people of Lebanon, and IMO this is what it should do. To continue the cycle of violence, when so many other forces seem to be moving toward peace and stability, would be an utter tragedy.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/18/beirut.explosion/index.html

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- A car bomb has ripped through a predominantly Christian area of Beirut early Saturday, sheering off part of a multi-story office building and raising concerns about more violence in the volatile Lebanese capital.

The city has been wracked by turmoil since last month's assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

There were no immediate reports of deaths in the bombing, but several people were transported to a hospital with injuries, authorities said.

I hope from the bottom of my heart it won't happen ... and if the U.S. keeps out it may not....but I'm not sure .

The Syrian occupation kept the waring factions apart --

I wonder as the Syrians leave will the violence increase?

Nobody understands that sometime the divisions in a society are so deep that only strong-arm tactics keep the violence under control....Syria stopped the Lebanese Civil war....

car bombs and boobie traps, machete attacks and lynchings, videotaped beheadings and devastated museums, burned out libraries, all wrapped in a facade of pointless 'elections' for unnamed, unseen 'representatives' who can do nothing . . . maybe we on this board lament something lost to ourselves that we're perhaps better off without if this is indeed its present face.

A few weeks ago I went to a museum and saw a Queen of Sheba exhibit and all I could think about was all the artifacts that were destroyed in Iraq

Sociopathic people who have gotten way too big for their bridges.

Mesopotamia, the begining of documented civilization dating back over 5,000 years. First known written tablets ... gone. Babylon Gardens ... gone. Oh yeah, but the oil ministry was protected from bombing, looting, etc. Damn them greedy, selfish b*stards.

will haunt the United States for the rest of time. The Iraqis still curse the Mongols for when they destroyed Baghdad, burned the libraries and destroyed a culture . . . and that happened over 750 years ago.

The Iraqis are going to curse themselves for looting their museums?

For creating the conditions that allowed the looting to go forth, and for (according to news reports) providing much of the market for the looted goods.

For the clarification. By the way, the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN just spoke at my school. "Deep down in their hearts, the Iraqi people know that the United States saved them" I don't think that we're quite on the level of Mongols.

He gained his position as the result of an invasion and occupation, (i.e. was placed there by the occupying power (or by their proxy government). He can no more speak for "the Iraqi people" than you or I can. For the record, we could have said the same about Saddam's ambassador to the U.N.

None of this has any bearing on what happened to the Iraqi antiquities anyway. The Mongols probably didn't think their actions were so bad either, at the time. But history is hard on invaders that plunder (or allow the plundering of) the treasures of another civilization. I think history (including American historians, eventually) will look back upon this episode very negatively.

but I read an interesting book about 'the mongols' this summer that had as its core thesis that it was the mongols who invented the prototype for modern civilization and that rather than the 'plundering barbarian hordes' that they are held up as in the west (europe and the middle east) they were rather enlightened. Not that they didn't go about conquering huge chunks of the inhabited world, but they did not generally engage in the mindless destruction usually comes to mind. The Mongol nation practiced religious tolerance, encouraged trade and literacy, and once a people were conquered and submitted to Mongol rule, they generally prospered. The 'plundering hordes' bit was basically a rationalization of the fact that the forces of the great khans destroyed the armies of europe and the middle east without much effort on their part.

I believe the Vandals weren't really that destructive of Rome, as well, for example. History, especially the version that makes it to most of us, is written with propaganda purposes in mind, after all.

troops.

Go google the subject. The looting and senseless destruction of archeological sites is ongoing and is being done by americans.

and the hospitals - this is what I had spoken of. This was right after the fall of Baghdad and as I far as I know, totally caught the troops by surprise.

It is NOT surprising, however, that the oil fields were well guarded.

AAARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

the blanket statement that it was 'Iraqis doing the looting' is nonsense, and that was what I was objecting to, plus as you noted at best the initial looting spree 'took us by surprise', at worst we encouraged it. In either case we are responsible as we were the cause of the instability that allowed the looting to occur. And the subsequent and ongoing pillaging of the archeological treasures such as babylon is simply inexcusible.

originally came from this region, so I don't need a lecture.

OK?

It wasn't clear to me what you meant. I took exception to a statement that seemed to absolve us from responsibility for what has happened in Iraq over the last two years. We've belabored this enough. We appear to be in violent agreement. I did not intend to lecture you or anybody, although in a sense this here is one vast hectoring/lecturing dialog/diatribe, so perhaps you shouldn't be so thin skinned, eh?

we know so little about the people of this region, too, and are so insular and seemingly don't wish to learn more.

I have such visions of how it could be, and instead what we get are explosions and black clouds of burning oil and flames and bombs.

Maybe if we all hold hands and send good vibes it will help. I'm sad today, because of this bomb.

It took years to reach a very delicate stabilization. The bushistas deliberately fucked it up because an ability to resist Israeli expansionism was demonstrated.

Any American forces introduced on the ground in Lebanon will wish they were in Anbar province.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7949745

Car Bomb Explodes in Lebanese Capital, Six Wounded
Sat Mar 19, 2005 01:41 AM ET

By Lin Noueihed
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A car bomb exploded in a Christian suburb of eastern Beirut Saturday, wounding at least six people and raising fresh fears of a return to Lebanon's violent past.

The blast devastated the ground and first floors of an apartment block, blowing out balconies, shattering windows in surrounding buildings and wrecking dozens of vehicles, a Reuters correspondent at the scene said.

The vehicle containing the bomb exploded after midnight in an adjacent car park, gouging out a crater.

"I was standing under this building and we heard a huge explosion and there was a big cloud of dust, and glass flew everywhere. We saw this car just fly into the air and land on the street right in front of us," said witness Rany Ayoub.

It was unclear whether there was any political or sectarian motive behind the attack, but residents at the scene -- clearly shocked and some still dressed in their pajamas -- blamed Syria. They were anxious, however, about being quoted by name.

MORE

Lebanese civil war...the sequel.

Hmm, let's see... Blossoming Democracy or Reignited Civil War? Blossoming Democracy or Reignited Civil War? I just can't decide. </sarcasm>