Posted on 09/05/2014 6:30:41 PM PDT by markomalley
Every day around sunset, dozens of residents of this small Lebanese Christian village on the border carry their automatic rifles and deploy on surrounding hills, taking up positions and laying ambushes in case Muslim extremists from neighboring Syria attack.
"We all know that if they come, they will slit our throats for no reason," said one villager as he drove through the streets of Qaa, an assault rifle resting next to him.
For months, Lebanese Christians have watched with dread as other Christians flee Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq, fearing their turn will come next. Fears multiplied after militants from Syria overran a border town last month, clashing with security forces for days and killing and kidnapping Lebanese soldiers and policemen.
Now, for the first time since the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990, Lebanese Christians are rearming and setting up self-defense units to protect themselves, an indication of the growing anxiety over the expanding reach of radical Islamic groups.
Across the Middle East, Christian communities as old as the religion itself feel their very survival is now at stake, threatened by militants of the Islamic State group rampaging across Iraq and Syria.
(Excerpt) Read more at sj-r.com ...
This, in the year 2014. Unbelievable.
Perhaps they should move a few miles south, and be Israel’s first line of defense. At least Israel would be on their side.
Is this what bam bam means by “manage”?
Why did they wait so long?
The only people we should arm in the Middle East is Christians.
Let the ragheads kill each other off.
ISIS would do well to remember the Lebanese Civil War. Christians there don’t hesitate to shoot
There is a long history to that, with the “South Lebanese Army”, a predominantly Christian force who acted as Israel’s proxies during the occupation (1982-1999). They had to face the music when Israel left. Some left Lebanon, others made an accomodation with the new regime, as Hezbollah judged it wise to realise that “time past is time forgotten.”
There is still a significant Christian population in south Lebanon. Both they and the Shia majority in that area are alarmed (if not terrified) by the savage militias fanning out of Syria.
However the leading Maronite politicians in Lebanon have committed themselves to “regime change” in Syria, and if you look at their press, they are always trying to imagine that the atrocities in Syria are merely the work of a few extremists. I predict this fantasy will not last, and they will change that policy. They have to.
I don’t discount your history, because there is truth in it. None the less, I have to come to terms with Hezbollah ascendance, and past skirmishes with Israel in the midst of Southern Lebanon dynamics.
The South of Lebanon was armed to the teeth against Israel. That took place, as people in Lebanon turned a blind eye.
I am continually amazed at the groups of Islamic adherents who feign apprehension regarding the things other Islamicists do.
Beheadings are not uncommon. The stoning of women who are raped is not uncommon. None the less these types of reports continue to come out of the Middle-East, as if there are good and bad sides of Islam.
Where are the condemnations of beheading, and what are those condemnations based on? The members of Islam have signed on to that sort of thing for hundreds of years.
Now we’re supposed to believe that some don’t approve? What is that based on?
These people are either confused themselves, or confused about the fact that the West knows them for exactly who they are.
I wish this weren’t true, but I am unable to judge this it isn’t.
But if the West does know them for what they are, then why is there this weird policy of regime change, in places like Libya and Syria, where it is handing power to the head-choppers? It is inexplicable.
In Iraq too - dare one say it - was Sadaam Hussein any worse than what has come after him? Was he wrong to be a "tyrant"? Most of those killed in his various crack downs were Islamic extremists of one sort or another. We put in a no fly zone, so that he could not bomb militias in northern Iraq. Now that he is gone, we ourselves have to go to all the trouble of bombing militias in northern Iraq.
There must be some plan to all this, but I cannot see it.
It is their home... Should I have to move from Pennsy because the Libs are at our heels?
Screw that! Fight! In place! Now! And then advance!
F these bastards!
No, and living in Southern California, your argument has special meaning for me.
None the less, folks aren’t yet shooting Kalashnikov level weapons, mortars, and missiles into my home town either.
Armed civilians defending their homes and families.
We call that a “militia” if I’m not mistaken.
We had better remember the value and power of a militia here in the United States ... the sooner the better.
Depends on who you are. From the standpoint of the average Iraqi Shiite or Kurd, Saddam was worse. The average Sunni did better under Saddam. From the average American's standpoint, we are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq won't be threatening the gulf states any time soon, and it won't be getting nukes. What Bush did wrong was stay in Iraq. We should have gone with the Afghan/Libyan model. Plink government forces until the opposition wins. Instead, we used the Iraq model in Afghanistan, and have now lost 8K men in both theaters.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.