===
The problem with political jokes is they get elected.
~Henry Cate, VII~
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.
~Clarence Darrow~
Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.
~John Quinton~
Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.
~Author unknown~
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
~Oscar Ameringer~
I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.
~Adlai Stevenson, 1952~
A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.
~ Tex Guinan~
Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.
~Doug Larson~
|
===
Allen and I are on the same page. Let the lawyers lawyer, allow our military to fight unencumbered. (See 1 below.)
|
===
Commentary on a Trump Nomination and run for the brass ring. (See 2 and 2a below.)
One day maybe we will get beyond two unacceptable choices , we will return to viable candidates and the choices will be positive no matter their party affiliation.
Until then, I am being forced to hold my nose and go with Donald. I just have experienced too much of Hilarious for over 30 plus years.
Should Trump be the nominee and then become president it is my fervent hope he will turn away from his pissy fanny campaign style and take seriously the problems we face and use his skills, of which he has many, to accomplish his/our goal of returning America to a path of world leadership, sticking by our word, reversing the course of our being pushed around without fighting back and uniting the nation. I believe he could do this if he shuts his mouth and listens, selects truly competent advisers who are united with his goals and stops looking the mirror and believing he can drink his own bath water.
Obama has so turned off most Americans, it really would not be difficult for Trump to make modest changes and earn the actual affection of the nation.
As for Hillarious, she has committed to follow in Obama's footsteps and probably must because she was so much a part of Obama's loyalty squad. Why Black Americans see her as their best hope is beyond me. Obama did nothing to help them lift themselves out of the deepening rut progressive and liberal policies have placed them in and, in fact, Obama made the ditch even deeper when it comes to statistics relating to food stamps, unemployment and thus, their participation in crime etc.
Black Americans do not owe their plight to police departments. They owe their plight to their lack of education, their dependency on Uncle Sam handouts and their lack of self-respect.
You would hope, after decades of falling behind, the increasing break up their family unit, soaring numbers of children born out of wedlock being raised by single and stressed mothers they could see this. Until they recapture their own futures, which they are free to do, their plight will continue to worsen and their perpetual status of grievance will persist.
They have proven they have much to offer our nation in a variety of endeavors but first they must make politicians compete for their vote so they will not be taken for granted, patted on the head while remaining enslaved to the Demwits.
Therefore, if given no other choice, I will roll the dice with Trump rather than keep rolling snake eyes (See below.) with the old untrustworthy, unlikable grandma in a pant suit.
What does it mean to roll snake eyes?
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)Rules of Engagement for the 21st Century Battlefield
Rules of Engagement (ROE) is defined as a directive issued by a military authority specifying the circumstances and limitations under which forces will engage in combat with the enemy. In the history of warfare we have seen an incredible metamorphosis of the rules of engagement. Long ago, armies presented themselves upon the battlefield in open areas away from civilian populations. The fact that weapons were limited to that which was carried, sword and spear, meant that fighting the enemy meant close-quarter engagement. The rules then were quite simple: engage the enemy, defeat them, and pursue to bring about their ultimate destruction. Given the fact that the level of communications capability was basically that of your voice, formations were tight and not spread out.
As battlefield technology and communications technology improved, the military battlefield expanded, and that meant a broader scope of what a “battlefield” encompassed. So as time moved forward, the battlefield was not just far away fields where armies came together; it meant involving civilian populations. As armies grew in size and scope, it became more necessary to depend upon local populations for food resourcing.
One thing that remained necessary and important was the states declared war against each other and fielded uniformed militaries that were identifiable on the battlefield. But consider what began here in America with the French and Indian War when there were two adversaries, but each employed non-state entities in support of their uniformed forces. The history of our vaunted US Army Rangers came from a company-sized force from the provincial colony of New Hampshire called into service of the British Army led by Colonel Robert Rogers, Roger’s Rangers. This guerrilla force operated in support of a uniformed state military, the British Army, against its enemies and won fame in the campaign against the Abenanki Indian tribe – who had been waging a frontier war against civilian populations supporting the British.
In our own Revolutionary War, militias such as that of Francis Marion, the “Swamp Fox,” in South Carolina again featured a group supporting a uniformed Army in its prosecution of warfare.
In order to try and police the battlefield and reduce the impact of such non-uniformed belligerents, it was often a practice that those captured on the battlefield as such were summarily tried and executed. The purpose was to try and protect civilian populations.
But with the advent of “total war,” where civilian populations were in support of the war making machine, industry rules of engagement changed. Industry and means by which the materiel support to warfare were deemed part of “centers of gravity” were now targets. We remember the bombing of the Ploesti oilfields in Romania. Such as it was for factories that produced weapons components and the train systems that transported troops and materiel. And yes, there were spies and acts of espionage to gather intelligence and sabotage key infrastructure – and again, those captured not in uniform aiding and abetting efforts were summarily executed. It was brutal, but in essence it was the unfortunate consequence of civilians entering the expanded battlefield.
Fast forward to Vietnam, where a main belligerent on the battlefield was the Viet Cong, who infiltrated the civilian population and used adjoining nation-states as a base of operations to train, equip, provide provisions, and stage their attacks. They were a non-state actor in support of a state actor, the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). The ROE during that war was very convoluted, and in many ways enabled the enemy to find sanctuary due to the desire not to inflict civilian casualties.
And so we find ourselves much in a similar position today in the war against Islamic Jihadism. War on terror is a horrible misnomer. One cannot fight against a tactic, which is what terrorism is. It is a means, a method used by an undefined enemy. On the new battlefield of the 21st century, we must have ROE that is not developed at the highest levels but at the battlefield levels to enable success. When the enemy knows that we have a political concern with “collateral damage,” they will use that reticence to their utmost advantage.
As a Battalion Commander in Iraq, I can recall the insurgent enemy using mosques and burial grounds as assembly points, as well as ammunition and equipment staging points. They knew what our restricted target list was. We insidiously advertised it. The enemy knows that our troops are told to not fire until fired upon, and it has come to the point where Islamic jihadist enemies can simply drop their weapons and walk away, knowing they will not to be engaged by our forces.
We must also employ weapon systems on the battlefield with the proper ROE that enable us to gain and maintain contact with the enemy, and not allow them to reposition into civilian populations, which increases the chances for civilian casualties. Let me provide you with an example from my years in Afghanistan.
When an American element becomes involved in a TIC (troops in contact), it is imperative that they have the support of all resources that can destroy that enemy in place. The ground element must be able to keep the enemy engaged and maintain “eyes on target.” If the enemy is firing upon you from a location, that location is a target. What happens all too often is that far back at some headquarters, any request for additional fire support must go through ROE protocols, where a series of inane questions are asked of the ground element – something the enemy knows very well. Time is of the essence in a firefight.
We need weapon systems platforms that are in support of the ground element; that can deliver close support to them. We need mortars, artillery, and aerial close-air support assets that allow the ground element to keep an enemy pinned down for the ultimate kill, with additional assets. And let me be very clear: an F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are not exactly fixed wing close air support assets. The best tools for that mission are attack helicopters or A-10 Warthogs. Why? Because the ground element can direct them right in on the enemy while still maintaining their direct fire, and reducing the issue of collateral damage.
What happens on the modern battlefield is that the enemy knows our TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures). When our ground element disengages, meaning they stop firing, they are repositioning to not be in the circular error probable of bombs that will be dropped. So the enemy repositions as well, and normally deeper into civilian areas, and we raise the probability of collateral damage.
If we are to be successful on this battlefield, let’s allow the leaders on the ground - not lawyers - to develop common sense ROE. We can ill afford to allow the enemy any advantage and initiative to kill our men and women we have deployed into harm’s way. This is a critical issue that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees should be examining. This is why we at the National Center for Policy Analysis are addressing this policy issue. To learn more, visit our “
Provide for the Common Defense, Now petition.
==========================================================
2)
With polls showing Donald Trump the likely winner of most of the Super Tuesday primary contests, a lot of shocked conservatives are starting to come to grips with a question they never thought they’d be forced to ask: Is the likely Republican presidential candidate more palatable than the choice of the Democrats? Though the animus that Hillary Clinton generates among conservatives and Republicans is deeply felt, the answer coming from many of them is that he is no better. That’s what has motivated a variety of leading Republicans to say in the last few days that they will not support Trump under any circumstances.
Into that breach has stepped respected conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt to argue that those who despise Trump are not thinking straight. Hewitt has some standing to speak dispassionately about the frontrunner. Trump chose to publicly abuse Hewitt at last week’s debate for having the effrontery to ask him to make good on a promise about releasing his taxes that he made on his show. But Hewitt has a thick skin and instead of calling out Trump for his flip-flops, he makes an argument for why, despite his manifest shortcomings, his election would be a net gain for conservatives when compared to the alternative.
Hewitt puts forward six reasons for backing Trump. They consist of 1 & 2) the names of two conservative jurists that he thinks Trump will nominate to the Supreme Court; 3) Trump’s pledge to back the cause of religious liberty; 4) His prowess as a “builder” will enable him to make good on a promise to rebuild the U.S. Navy; 5) The leaders of Russia and China will fear him. 6) Trump’s daughter Ivanka will serve as his “Svengali” and perform the same role Valerie Jarrett has played in the Obama administration only with a better “sense of America’s role in the world.”
I’m not sure if Hewitt’s support will do much to convince Republicans to back their party’s likely nominee or even to win him some favor with the candidate. But nevertheless, Hewitt’s reasons deserve consideration if for no other reason they are the strongest arguments on behalf of Trump that I’ve heard from a sensible conservative.
Let’s state up front that if you believe that Trump can be trusted to nominate conservatives to the court, keep his promises on religious liberty, rebuild the Navy, pursue foreign policies that will defend U.S. interests and allies then perhaps Hewitt’s arguments have merit. But as with so much else about Trump, there seems little reason to believe that he can be trusted to stick to any of the positions he’s taking now.
As he’s demonstrated over his long public career in business and entertainment, Trump is not a man of principle. He is a genius at marketing and a master manipulator of the media. But his conservative principles are, at best, newly minted.
As a man that has bragged about his willingness and even a desire to change to suit the circumstances, it is far easier to see his newfound devotion to conservatism as a bargaining chip that he can and will discard, as he likes.
On Supreme Court appointments, Trump may have spoken favorably of two conservatives to Hewitt, but he is also a man who has little regard for constitutional principles. On topics as diverse as eminent domain and libel law, Trump still seems to view the law as a tool to be manipulated or exploited as it suits his interests of the moment. In other words, Trump is still thinking like the robber baron entrepreneur that he has always been, not a defender of conservative ideas or the constitution.
Flexibility is a good trait in a businessman. But politics is about more than deals. Compromise is essential to progress but without firm principles guiding the politician as to where the line in the sand must be drawn, the result is mere opportunism. On religious liberty, a debate that has centered on the attempts of the Obama administration to impose its will on individuals and faith organizations, it’s difficult to believe that someone who believes in socialized medicine, the ObamaCare individual mandate and supports planned parenthood, as Trump does, is also going to stand firm on this topic.
As for the Navy, a rebuilt fleet does fit nicely with the “make America great again” mantra that he spouts, but, like everything else about Trump, this may be another negotiable position. It’s not clear how he will pay for an enlarged Navy any more than the border wall that supposedly will be financed by Mexico. When pressed on specifics, especially on the country’s fiscal health, Trump actually sounds very much like a conventional liberal/centrist politician opposing entitlement reform. All of which is to say that Hewitt’s faith in his devotion to the Navy has no more of a foundation than any other Trump stand. Trump has no real policy positions, merely attitudes that suit his rhetorical stance of nationalism. Anyone that thinks they know what Trump will do is merely guessing. Hewitt is entitled to do that as much as the rest of us, but he gives no reason other than wishful thinking to back up his bet.
As for the contention that authoritarians like Vladimir Putin will fear him, there is something to be said for having an American president that is regarded as less pliable than Barack Obama has been. But as much as foreign leaders may regard him as a wild card, Trump has also signaled that he will not be any more of an obstacle to Russian ambitions than Obama has been. Compared to Trump, who applauded Russian intervention in Syria and defended Putin against charges of human rights abuses, Hillary Clinton sounds positively Reaganesque in her willingness to oppose the nation that Mitt Romney correctly labeled as America’s leading geostrategic rival.
The problem is not with having a tough sounding president. That would be helpful in many instances. But a president that knows as little about foreign policy as Trump would be a liability no matter whether he was quiet or loud. Trump’s truculence on trade sounds good to primary voters, but it is a recipe for unwanted conflicts that will likely distract the country from more serious threats to U.S. security. Though his fans think his talk about a wall and hostility to Muslims is a substitute for a coherent worldview, it is not.
Even worse, when Putin and the Chinese hear Trump blathering about his neutrality between Israel and the Palestinians and his ambition to make a peace deal that is impossible under the current circumstances, they don’t hear strength. They correctly understand that the person making such statements is just a different version of Obama, whose foreign policy hubris was, though different sounding, very similar in substance. They will see someone that can’t be relied upon to back U.S. allies and who will be, for all of his boasts about his bargaining prowess, an easy mark.
As for Hewitt’s last argument about the brilliance of Ivanka Trump, I have no real idea whether he’s right about her. Neither does anyone else. But even if she is as amazing as he claims, do conservatives really want to gamble the country’s future on a theory about a potential Svengali with no political experience or record of her own guiding another political novice? As flimsy as Hewitt’s other arguments may be, this one sounds just plain crazy.
If many on the right are saying that they can’t back Trump, it’s because they see no real difference between him and Clinton other than a rhetorical truculence about immigrants that is almost certainly not going to be translated into action. Trump is no more likely to be able to round up 12 million illegals and then deport them before letting some back in than he is to flap his arms and fly to the moon.
To acknowledge the case against Trump is not an argument for Clinton. A third term of Obama in the form of a Hillary Clinton administration would be a disaster for those who care about conservative ideas and the American future. Yet if Super Tuesday plays out as another Trump triumph, then,
as Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse noted, the choice facing Americans will be between “two fundamentally dishonest New York liberals.” I don’t know if that means we will have a repeat of 1860 with four parties competing for the presidency as he predicts. But if the two major party nominees are Trump and Clinton, principled conservatives won’t have a good reason to back the former other than dislike for the Democrats and vestigial loyalty to a Republican party that has been hijacked by a fraudulent populist.
JOHN MCCAIN GOT ROUGHLY 60 MILLION VOTES IN 2008. MITT ROMNEY GOT ROUGHLY 61 MILLION IN 2012. BARACK OBAMA SECURED 70 MILLION AND 65 MILLION SUCCESSIVELY. THIS TELLS YOU TWO THINGS. FIRST, A REPUBLICAN PARTY IN STASIS COULD EXPECT 60 MILLION VOTES ON ELECTION DAY — AND THOSE 60 MILLION VOTES WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. ITS HOPES REST ON TWO POSSIBILITIES: FIRST, THAT IT CAN ENLARGE ITS ELECTORATE, AND SECOND, THAT THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTORATE CAN BE HELD TO OBAMA’S 2012 TOTAL RATHER THAN ITS 2008 TOTAL — OR LESS. SO THE GOP HAS TO DO BETTER, AND THE DEMOCRATS PROBABLY HAVE TO DO A LITTLE WORSE.
TRUMP POSES A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEMOCRATS DOING WORSE. “THREAT” MAY BE TOO WEAK A WORD. WE MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT A LIKELIHOOD. TRUMP REFUSING TO DISAVOW THE KU KLUX KLAN THIS WEEKEND IS THE BIGGEST GIFT HILLARY CLINTON HAS GOTTEN SINCE A POTENTATE GAVE HER FOUNDATION A ZILLION DOLLARS. ONE CAN ALREADY ASSUME IT WILL BE AT THE HEART OF A $100 MILLION AD BUY IN THE STATES IN WHICH AFRICAN-AMERICANS PLAY MORE THAN A NOMINAL ROLE IN ELECTORAL POLITICS.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE SEEMED POSSIBLE FOR A CANDIDATE TO DO BETTER THAN BARACK OBAMA WITH AFRICAN-AMERICANS, BUT THE ABILITY TO PAINT TRUMP AS AN HONORARY KLANSMAN MAY DO THE TRICK. IN OBAMA’S REELECTION, A STAGGERING 66 PERCENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS TURNED OUT AT THE POLLS. BUT THERE WERE STATES WITH SIGNIFICANT BLACK POPULATIONS IN WHICH HE DIDN’T BOTHER TO TRY AND MAKE UP THE GAP. PERHAPS NOT SO THIS TIME FOR HILLARY. CONSIDER TWO THAT HAVE BEEN RELIABLY IN THE REPUBLICAN CAMP FOR DECADES, MISSISSIPPI AND GEORGIA. BLACKS MAKE UP 37 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF MISSISSIPPI, AND 32 PERCENT IN GEORGIA. THE LATTER WENT DEMOCRATIC IN 1992, AND NOT SINCE. IF HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO PUT THEM IN PLAY, SHE CAN PUT THEM IN PLAY, AND SHE WILL WANT TO PUT THEM IN PLAY.
HEY, HOW ABOUT LOUISIANA, 34 PERCENT AFRICAN-AMERICAN? IT ELECTS STATEWIDE DEMOCRATS; JUST DID SO, IN FACT, FOR GOVERNOR. TRUMP POTENTIALLY PUTS IT IN PLAY NEGATIVELY. AT THE VERY LEAST, HE WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THESE 34 ELECTORAL VOTES. IF HE LOSES ANY ONE OF THOSE STATES, AND GEORGIA ESPECIALLY, TRUMP’S PATH TO THE PRESIDENCY IS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE.
THIS IS TO SAY NOTHING OF THE EFFECT ON STATES WITH BLACK POPULATIONS THAT MIGHT TIP TO THE GOP UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. VIRGINIA WENT FOR OBAMA IN 2008 AND 2012, BUT HIS MARGIN SHRANK THERE AND THAT COULD MEAN HOPE FOR A REPUBLICAN. NORTH CAROLINA WENT FOR OBAMA IN 2008 AND THEN FLIPPED BACK TO THE GOP BY THE TINIEST OF MARGINS IN 2012. WITH A POPULATION 20 PECENT BLACK, IT WILL FLIP BACK. AND VIRGINIA, WITH 22 PERCENT, WILL BE A LOST CAUSE.
TO MAKE UP FOR BLACK TURNOUT APPROACHING 70 PERCENT THAT MIGHT BE UNIFORMLY DEMOCRATIC AND WIN THESE STATES, TRUMP WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SUPERNATURAL MEANS TO FIND ENOUGH SUPPOSEDLY MISSING AND NEW VOTERS.
I HAVEN’T YET MENTIONED THE GROWING HISPANIC/LATINO VOTE, OF WHICH MITT ROMNEY SECURED 27 PERCENT IN 2012 — THE FACT THAT LED THE MUCH-MALIGNED GOP “AUTOPSY” IN 2013 TO ARGUE IT HAD TO REVERSE THE DOWNWARD TREND OR BE CONSIGNED TO PERPETUAL PRESIDENTIAL OBLIVION. THE AUTOPSY NEVER IMAGINED THE GOP WOULD FIELD A CANDIDATE WHOSE HOSTILITY TO IMMIGRATION HAS SCORED HIM AN 80 PERCENT UNFAVORABILITY RATING WITH HISPANICS NATIONWIDE.
IF WE TOOK THAT NUMBER AS THE FLOOR FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER, MEANING THAT TRUMP WOULD GET 20 PERCENT RATHER THAN 27 PERCENT OF THE HISPANIC VOTE, HE COULD SIMPLY KISS NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA AND COLORADO GOODBYE. COLORADO WAS TRENDING DEMOCRATIC BUT NOW SEEMS TO BE TRENDING REPUBLICAN, WHILE ARIZONA HAS VOTED REPUBLICAN IN THE PAST FOUR ELECTIONS—AND A GOOD REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT NEW MEXICO IN PLAY. IF DEMOCRATS WIN ARIZONA, THAT’S ANOTHER 11 ELECTORAL VOTES GONE—AND AT THE VERY LEAST HILLARY COULD AGAIN MAKE TRUMP FIGHT FOR IT AND, THEREFORE, FORCE RESOURCES TO BE SPENT THERE THAT COULD BE USED TO PUT PRESSURE ON HER ELSEWHERE.
BUT I FIGURE THAT 80 PERCENT NUMBER IS LOW. BY THE TIME TRUMP WOULD RUN IN NOVEMBER, HE’D BE LUCKY TO GET 10 PERCENT OF THE LATINO VOTE, AND THEN THAT’S ALL SHE WROTE. A DECLINE FOR THE GOP IN THE LATINO VOTE FROM 27 TO 20 WOULD MEAN ABOUT A MILLION VOTES LOST NATIONALLY. FROM 27 TO 10 WOULD MEAN ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILLION.
SO FOLLOW ME SO FAR. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HILLARY GETTING MORE OF THE OBAMA AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTE AND FAR MORE OF THE LATINO VOTE THAN OBAMA. AND THE WORDS “GENDER” AND “GAP” HAVE YET TO COME UP.
ONE MUST ALSO CONSIDER THAT TRUMP COULD NOT DEPEND UPON GETTING THE ROMNEY VOTES, SINCE THE CHANCE A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SHOW UP IN HIS TALLY. IF THAT NUMBER WERE TO BE 2 PERCENT, THAT WOULD ADD UP TO 1.2 MILLION MISSING VOTES.
ALL THIS MEANS A TRUMP CANDIDACY WOULD BEGIN FAR DEEPER IN THE HOLE THAN ANY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE SINCE BARRY GOLDWATER, AND ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE SINCE WALTER MONDALE.
I’VE PROBABLY BOLLIXED UP SOME OF THE MATH HERE, AND YOU CAN LET ME KNOW ON TWITTER IF I HAVE AND I’LL CORRECT IT. BUT IF TRUMPKINS CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TRUMP GETS NOT ONLY THE FOUR MILLION NEW VOTES TO CATCH UP TO THE DEMOCRATS BUT ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE MILLION TO MAKE UP FOR THE VOTES HE HAS ALREADY LOST HIMSELF BY HIS DESPICABLE RHETORIC AND CONDUCT, THEN BY ALL MEANS, LET THEM TRY. BUT THE PORTRAIT I’VE PAINTED HERE SHOWS, I THINK, JUST HOW SUICIDAL FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY A TRUMP NOMINATION WOULD BE.
============================================================================
3)
| Gulf Arab states designate Hezbollah a terrorist group |
|
|
| GCC Secretary-General, Abdullatif al-Zayani, in a statement issued in Riyadh, says that the bloc had now taken a collective decision on the Lebanese Shi'ite organization. |
|
|
The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, it said on Wednesday, ratcheting up pressure on the Iran-allied group that wields influence in Lebanon and plays a key role in the Syrian crisis.
Gulf Arab states imposed sanctions on Hezbollah members in 2013 in retaliation for the group's intervention in Syria's civil war in support of President Bashar Assad. And individual GCC countries - including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab emirates and Bahrain - have labeled the group terrorists.
But the GCC Secretary-General, Abdullatif al-Zayani, in a statement issued in Riyadh, said that the GCC had now taken a collective decision on the group.
"As the militia continues its terrorist practices, the GCC states have decided to label it a terrorist organization and will take the necessary measures to implement its decision in this regard based on anti-terrorism laws applied in the GCC and similar international laws," the statement quoted Zayani as saying.
The decision came one day after a speech by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah that Saudi Arabia had pushed Lebanon into a new phase of political conflict by announcing it was suspending an aid package to the Lebanese army.
Nasrallah also stepped up criticism of Saudi Arabia, accusing it of directing car bombings in Lebanon, an arena for sectarian-tinged Iranian-Saudi rivalry that is escalating across the Middle East.
For his part, Zayani accused Hezbollah of committing hostile acts against GCC states, including recruiting young men to carry out "terrorist attacks, smuggling weapons and explosives, stirring up sedition and incitement to chaos and violence."
Sunni-led Saudi Arabia, the biggest member of the GCC, wields considerable influence in Lebanon through its backing for Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri, a former prime minister who said on Tuesday that "riots, road blocking and tire burning" were attempts to provoke "chaos and discord." "We should not be dragged to any attempt of this sort," he said.
Tension between Hezbollah and Hariri spilled into armed conflict as recently as 2008, when a political dispute fueled by Saudi-Iranian rivalry triggered a brief civil war. Nasrallah said there would be no repeat of that conflict.
============================================================================================ |
No comments:
Post a Comment