Bush calls on Hizballah to prove it is not a terrorist group

A spokesperson for the group said: "Despite the softening of attitude, the U.S. position regarding the Lebanese resistance group has never changed. Hizbullah remains on their list of terrorist organizations and the U.S. administration continues to consider us an enemy."

Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Same as Osama. The former killed some 200+ marines n a Truck bombing in Beirut in '83. Just as a softening of attitudes against Osama is implausible, so it is with Hezbollah as well. I'd rather these terror mongers not lay down arms, fight actively against both public opinion and the US military and take it in the chin! That way they can't claim peace was achieved because of their strength.

Dear Robert,
I think diplomacy is in order now right now in Lebanon. Bush's comments were calculated towards a democratic Lebanon. Hezbolla's were a reaction against it. The diplomacy of the USA in no way needs to be construed as a 'softening' on Hezbolla's terrorist aims and jihadi strategies towards those aims. In fact, invitations to sanity can either be accepted or rejected. If accepted, then that's a good beginning. Once sanity is rejected, another course of action becomes appropriate. However, it would be a misuse of political power not to extend the invitation. I firmly believe Bush was right to do so.

I agree with Daisytoo. I think it's more likely that Bush is playing "good cop", making the necessary show for broad public consumption at home and abroad, before he hauls out the artillery.

In the meantime, Steven Stalinsky, writing in the New York Sun yesterday, that the European Parliament labelled Hezbollah a terrorist organization last week, and called on EU members to "restrict the group's activities in a non-binding resolution" so at some level the Europeans realize what Hezbollah are too, even the French.

It is speculated that rather than enhancing his position in Lebanon and abroad by staging the pro-Syrian demonstrations, Nasrallah may have actually alienated everyone except his Syrian and Iranian paymasters.

I’m sorry to say that Mr. Bush doesn’t get it. He is misinformed about Islam and the jihadist mentality. The problem is much deeper than our President and his advisors realize. I used to think it was only the left that failed to come to grips with the dangers of an ideology that is rotten to the core. I know see most of our conservative friends have the same problem when the ideology has a religious façade.

By the way, I just finished ibn Warraq’s intro to “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.” What a way to start a book! His powerful uncompromising essay had a historical scope – both West and Oriental – that sets the tone for what’s to come. I also read some of the others, spot picking to get a sample. Outstanding! In any case, having the facts helps to show people how much they assume and how different the reality is.

Sorry for that typo. The above should read:

I now see most of our conservative friends have the same problem when the ideology has a religious façade.

Jason~ 5 years ago, I would have still believed that islam was part of a Trio: Christianity, Jewish, Muslim. I liked the idea that they just branched off with Abraham... oh well. They are as unwilling to accept a 3 faiths-in-1 History as they are the concept of the Three In One.

Maybe Hez can unkill some people to prove it is a good group.

Good grief! Will we actually be hosting them in the WH one day?

Just curious, has Robert Spencer ever written an article saying how he would conduct the WOT? I'd be curious to read it. Can anyone point me to a link?

I agree with Seymore, how in the heck can hezbolla unprove thier own past? Besides, it sets a dangerous precident for other terror groups to point to. Starting out as terrorists and then negotiating to reach a goal, and then repeting the process as nessasary.

Like the Bush Admin. tried in Iraq with the Insurgency, he's trying to get hezbolla to turn from a terrorist org. into a political org. It's not gonna work!

Bud

My dear 2468,

"Just curious, has Robert Spencer ever written an article saying how he would conduct the WOT?"

Not really. I mean, who would care?

But in fact, I do have a talk I have been giving in various places around the country that offer 14 points on how to conduct the WOT. I plan someday to write it up as an article or maybe even a book.

Here is the closest thing so far:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050123-100613-4895r.htm

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I now see most of our conservative friends have the same problem when the ideology has a religious façade.

Posted by: JasonP at March 17, 2005 12:57 PM

JASONP, THREE CHEERS AND HIP, HIP, HOORAY!

The religous facade of Islam has, for far too long, acted as a "cloaking device" rendering its true nature invisible to others. Islam is nothing more than a political wolf in religious sheeps' clothing, and until that is acknowledged, the rest of the world will not deal with it as it deserves.

We simply must get past Islam as religion, and respond to it for what it is, Islam as a political movement.

That's what it will take to succeed.

Thanks, cubed. And "cloaking device" is a useful methphor. You're right, of course, it is a political movement or "totalitarian, supremacist, expansionist ideology" as it was called in Spencer's Washington Times article (see link in above post)

I do not buy the idea that W's position is carefully calculated. W has demonstrated that he can't talk, read a prompter, or pronounce noocyular. Can a serious man believe that he can cypher? I think not.

I believe W is rube advised by academic feather merchants. In my experience, executives who surround themselves with female lieutenants are weak executives. The women are a telltale.

W is weak - pathetically so.

Thanks Robert for the link.

I do hope you get it written up as an article or book, preferably an article so that it can be criticized and improved upon by the blogosphere. I've been reading your blog for 3-4 months now and find it very interesting.

As Kerry found out in 2004, if you can't advocate an alternative vision for people to weigh up, criticism isn't going to be taken seriously. Whether that criticism is from the dove or the hawk end of the spectrum there should still be an alternative.

Reading your site has certainly caused me to understand and treat Islam with more skepticism than I did before. I think I am more open to that skepticism compared to most other people ever since I asked a Muslim acquaintance what he thought of the 9/11 attacks, and he said something to the effect that America deserved it (this was immediately after). That was the beginning of an eye opening for me.

That being said, I don't like to feel anger and frustration just for the sake of it, I want to know what alternative policies someone has if they are getting irritated at the way current events are panning out.

So, thanks for the article. As far as criticism, the first thing I can think of is a Den Beste Article on a Manhatten project for alternative energy:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/AnewManhattanProject.shtml

It's a good read, I suggest you read it. As far as the other stuff, I think you have some good points. It's always easier to invoke harsh restrictions first and then step back a bit to look like a nice guy. If you are going to provoke criticism and there is no difference between a full blooded response and measured one, why not go full blooded? Otherwise you will look like a constant a-hole as you escalate demands and withdraw aid.

That being said, I think the goal is to make Iraq a capitalist democracy with enfranchised women. If we are there to regulate things a bit and keep women enfranchised, I think that the seed of destruction will be sown in the heart of Islam as women vote for emancipation.

Hence the need to lay low for a while in order to get that project off the ground. But now I think that it's time to start pressuring the Saudis to stop exporting Wahhabism. We have bases in Iraq that although Bush says we will remove once Iraq can adequately defend itself... will in practicality be there for the next 50 years because given a choice between free national security and having to fork out major dollars to buy it, who is not going to want free national security?

So, we are now in a perfect position to start applying pressure. Now we can effectively blockade middle eastern countries in order to achieve our agenda. It's time to start now, IMO.

I'm with Daisytoo on this one. Before saying Dubya's gone soft, consider how the line "if they lay down their arms" probably sounds just a little ominous to a group like the Hizb, which has lived by the gun. Dubya has seen the world of Ithna'ashariyya Shiah Islam line up with the Iranian youth against the mad mullahs, and the Sadrites isolated from the rest of southern Iraq. We aren't in conflict at all with Azerbaijan (another Ithna-ashariyya majority state). He's at war with Taliban and Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan, and in alliance with a much wider swath of that country which he had every reason to expect to be hostile. No, Dubya Bush has sound political reasons for seeing Islam as just another multifaceted piece of the international puzzle.

Further, while Hizb is bound to strut and bluster, it knows that its Iraqi colleagues have succeeded in making Iraq a statistically less dangerous place for young Americans than the South Side of Chicago or the US highway system; and that the paper tiger who ate Fallujah is now just over the horizon; while an alienated two-thirds of Lebanon are on its doorstep. A half a carrot to the Hizb is within Bush's political budget.