Monday, October 23, 2006

A Bombing in Beirut

October 23rd, 1983
There will always be a number of ways in which to remember this infamous day. The Dawn of Hizballah. The introduction of the Suicide Bomb. The Fall of Lebanon. The End of America's Military Involvement there. The Death of the Multinational Force.
Whichever way one chooses to remember it, one can't help but notice how close to a full circle we have come in the 23 years since two bombs brought down the American and French barracks.
We pray that circle never becomes complete.




12 comments:

  1. If you will meet Imad Mureighny somewhere in Lebanon, there is still price on his head - 5mill$.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is danger in Surrender

    I guess Michel Kilo is still in Jail. Need some creative art to cause an impact. Some people said I am only saying words, but together we can make a difference. Keeping Kilo in Jail will be very costly.

    Lebanese artistic talent and originality is urgently needed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. hi B.S.

    was curious to know how you inderstand the american and french role in Lebanon at that time

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Nobody,

    Thanks for your question. Given my overwhelming time-limitations this upcoming week (clearly noticeable in the uncharacteristic brevity of this post!) I'm going to open the question up to all readers:

    How do you interpret and analyze the French and American roles in Lebanon at the time of the Barracks Bombings.

    I'll try to answer soon myself. In the meantime it would be interesting to hear everyone else's views, yours included Nobody.

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. just a small note, at the time the bombing were done, the hezbollah wasnt "existing".
    The persons involved in theses bombing were oriented toward the iranian influence but directed by the syrians with the objective to make the multinational force leaving lebanon.
    They were among the founders of the hezbollah later on.

    Nowaday some people claim that the person leading hezbollah's military wing is moughnié (sorry for the orthograph) whose also the responsible of theses attacks.

    another note here:
    the US replied to this attack by commiting a bomb attack against fadallah's convoy in bir hassen. more then a hundred of lebanese civilians were killed.
    This bombing was made with the cooperations of lebanese services and ex LF persons that were integrated to the lebanese army.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Blacksmith Jade said...

    Hey Nobody,

    How do you interpret and analyze the French and American roles in Lebanon at the time of the Barracks Bombings.

    ------------

    I actually know little about this except the fact of the two attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Confidential, thanks for your comment.

    Directly after the bombing - or after the US investigation into who carried out the bombing - US President Ronald Reagan ordered an airstrike on a para-military base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Bekaa. The base housed approximately 300 fighters (some Lebanese some Iranian) and was thought to be the one from which the attack was launched.

    Although the order to strike was given by the President, the mission was aborted by his Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger. Nobody knows why Weinberger aborted the mission. The reason given by him is that he thought it would harm US concerns in the region.

    Personally, I don't really buy it. The French had carried out a strike of their own on a paramilitary base in the Bekaa immediately following the attack on their paratrooper barracks in Beirut with little impact on their relations with Arab countries.

    In fact, given the testy history and animosity between Arab states and Iran, there is little doubt that most Arab states would have welcomed an airstrike on the base.

    The only country that would've opposed it would've been Iran's longtime ally - Syria. A country that had an acute interest in seeing the Americans and French leave.

    So again, why the abortion?

    The order to abort was given minutes before the mission's execution. The planes were in the air.

    There are a number of theories out there on why Weinberger acted in defiance of Reagan's orders and singlehandedly snuffed out the Americans' first and best opportunity to curb Iran's influence in Lebanon just as it was beginning to take shape.

    To my knowledge, most sing to the tune of Weinberger being a pro-Israeli neo-con who was willing to sabotage American interests and policy in order to further Israel's.

    I don't exactly remember what the bulk of the supporting argument for that statement was made and so I can't support or reject the theory.

    I wish I had more time to research the subject but its been a crazy week and its going to get crazier...I'll try my best to find something but in the meantime I hope that Confidential, Nobody, and anyone else interested might be able to look into it and let us know what they find (personal biases and all ;))

    OK, thanks guys again for your comments and looking forward to hearing back from you soon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dear Jade

    do you know alain ménargue book ... les secrets de la guerre du liban (dunno if it is published in french)

    the guy talking about these events and he s clearly showing the syrian role about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (the french carried a airstrike against empty building in order not to hurt anyone, accordng to some, they even warmed the syrians and their allies they ll bomb theses barrack)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Confidential: Thanks for the reference, I wasn't familiar with that book.

    Francois: Thanks for that tidbit of information.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lady's Man10:40 PM

    Typical French, they get bombed attacked and do not even respond.

    ReplyDelete
  12. H.A had nothing to do with this attack.

    Not that the servicemen of the imperialist country that had set out to force a peace treaty between Lebanon & Israel didn't deserve it. But then again, you are dealing with a country that re-sets the definitions of what constitutes legitimate attacks (attacks on military personnel traditionally falling under this group), and what constitutes terrorism (according to them, any attack on any American target, even military, is terrorism, and of course, similar attacks by them, indeed attacks on CIVILIANS, are not to be considered terrorism. Israel adopts the SAME EXACT set of definitions; not that Israel is in any way separable from USA - they are conjoined twins...).

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.