Finally, Lebanon’s government decides to actively fight religious extremists of Arsal.

The state tries to neutralise the army of Lebanon and is intelligent in doing so, but it should try to neutralise it by action, not inaction, the action of attacking the extremists with the backing of all political factions and all religious authorities.

The Hezbollah position of fighting against extremists of Arsal is politically dangerous because it gives the picture of a Shia-Sunni fight and this picture is explainable though not justifiable. It also gives the image of supporting Assad, and it is true, Hezbollah is directly Assad through this battle, but it is also, and most importantly, defending Lebanon of the Nusra front and the Islamic state policy of expansionism. IS and the Nusra front are expansionists and they will try to attack all country to expand the so-called caliphates, and they don’t care whether they have local support among Muslims.

Had the army decided to take matters more directly into its hands, that is, relentlessly fighting for Arsal as soon as the terrorists fell back with hostages last year, Hezbollah would have not taken the battle into their own hands.

The army has already given martyrs to the Lebanese people and territories, often with surprise attacks by the extremists. The government finally decided to have a proactive stance in the battle. Gebran Bassil, the Lebanese foreign minister, has criticised the vagueness of the cabinet statement. “What is needed is a decision rather than a statement. We support tasking the Army [with clearing Arsal’s outskirts of jihadis] as stipulated in the statement, but we oppose the vagueness of it, and we are waiting for results,”. “A statement said the government tasked the Army with doing whatever is necessary to drive out jihadis entrenched in the mountain terrain along the outer edge of Arsal” [Daily Star]

Let us then wait for the results. I’m not speaking about “containing” them, nor counter-attacking them, but attacking them, and driving Nusra front and the Islamic state out of the Lebanese territories. The longer these groups stay, the greater their forces will be to attack Lebanon Bekaa province.

Will USA bombardments stop “IS” ? (“Islamic State”)

I consider myself as an anti-interventionist.  I don’t want “boots on the ground” nor intervention. Simply because it led to more chaos, more deaths, more hatred. US, the only so-called superpower in the world, is the master of intervention.

It is very important to say that being against an intervention does not mean being with the government the interventionist want to fall.

Example : Being anti-interventionist in Iraq 2003 does not mean being pro-Saddam. Look at France.

Being anti-interventionist in Syria 2013 does not mean being pro-Assad.

These examples may sound naive, but the number of people I’ve seen blaming everyone to be pro-Assad because they were against an intervention is huge.

Of course I was happy when Saddam fell, but I was not happy when I saw that the bombs were killing mostly civilians. And in fact, the weapons of massive destruction never existed, it was just an excuse to finish Saddam.

Iraq chaos have not created Al Qaeda and terrorism, but it led them in the country for sure and it also led to bloody instability. Saudi Arabia terrorist Wahhabits began to flow into the country, to blow themselves up and join Paradise in their views.

Years later, US left Iraq, but before leaving, they trained and armed the Iraqi army. As soon as USA left Iraq, an Iraqi insurgency began. Some Sunnis of the country were malcontent of the Shi’ite-led government. Again, more violence, more hatred and chaos. Maliki, the Shi’ite prime minister, left his seat after Iran and USA advised him. This move were to appease the insurgency. But in fact, it is too late.

“ISIS” have become a “state” with or without a Shia Prime Minister, and I am certain that the group won’t step down after seeing a Sunni Leader. ISIS have grown, fed itself from the chaos in Syria, and now promise war to the United States and Europe.

US began strikes against IS, not because they fear a massacre from IS, but because they have  interests in Erbil, a city not far from Mosul.  IS have massacred well before the US bombardments, and it will continue their massacre, their ethnic cleansing after the bombs.

If US strikes finish them off, (that is doubtful), what’s the plan after this ? I see no real plan, and please, if you have a link, share it.

With no real plan, IS and terrorism will re-organize, re-exist. The hatred against USA will grow, and the strikes will be very useful for the “Islamic State” propaganda.

Nonetheless, I am supporting US bombardments for multiple reasons.

1) IS needs to be stopped, their expansion is very dangerous and is already destroying Middle East Culture and minorities.

2) If they are not slowed down, this expansion will continue, Baghdad may fall. More chaos.

3) IS is killing innocents.

I will not support a military ground operation or intervention.

And as soon as the bombs are killing mostly civilians, my support will end.