Why Is Lebanon On U.S. Terrorism Watchlist?

After the security lapse that almost led to a horrific tragedy in the form of the Christmas Bomber, the U.S. government issued a list of 14 nations whose nationals will now receive extra scrutiny in American (and presumably Western) airports: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria (U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism) and nations deemed worthy of concern: Lebanon, Algeria, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq. As above passport holders can attest, many of them have already been treated with undue suspicion, indignity and humiliation at Western airports long before 9/11 and the 'Terrorism Scare'. Just anecdotally, my family used to exclusively hold Tunisian passports before we acquired American citizenship. My mother, my siblings and myself once spent hours in an Amsterdam airport jail (that cell was open, that was nice!) while customs sorted out our papers.

A quick note on the inclusion of Cuba 1) This is probably the North Korea-trick that Bush pioneered in his Axis of Evil. U.S. government rule of thumb: whenever creating a list of "scary" Arabs and Muslims, make sure to include a non-Arab/non-Muslim to therefore try to convince Arabs/Muslims that America is not determined to dominate their region. No Arabs/Muslims actually fall for it, but the U.S. government must keep up appearances for its own sake. 2) the inclusion of Cuba and the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism is hollow coming from the United States, a nation that has hosted anti-Castro Cuban and Cuban-American terrorists and in the rare occasion of prosecution treats them with utmost leniency. Many of them are openly celebrated in Miami and receive praise from U.S. politicians. For the United States, there is pro-American and anti-American terrorism and they are to be treated differently by an otherwise self-righteous state.

But what about Lebanon? Why is Lebanon on the watchlist? The Lebanese state is certainly furious about the dishonor and has publicly protested:

Lebanese President Michel Sleiman voiced concern on Friday about a US decision to tighten security measures for airline passengers traveling from Lebanon and 13 other countries. Sleiman made the remarks during talks with visiting US congressman Alcee Hastings, a Democrat and co-chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a statement from the president’s office said.

Sleiman told Hastings “of his concerns over the security measures announced by the United States.”

“Lebanon enjoys a climate of stability and has shown that it is capable of combating terrorism,” the statement added.

To be fair, two of the 9/11 hijacker-terrorists (brothers) did come from Lebanon and the nation is not exactly a bastion of stability; furthermore the Lebanese state, security police and army lack sufficient resources and legitimacy to ensure that terrorists do not maneuver throughout the country. Lebanon was a requirement point for al'Qai'dah in Iraq (and openly so, and, for the record, not all those requireted should be called terrorists. That designation should be in accordance with their chosen targets. Attacks against Iraqi civilians clearly constitute terrorism, but an attack against U.S. occupation troops is legitimate resistance against a foreign war and occupation). And, finally, it was not long ago (2007) that the Lebanese army combated for months an al-Qai-dah offshoot in northern Lebanon (Tripoli) and at great cost in life and resources to the nation's army (the Palestinian refugee camp Nahr al-Bard was horribly and often with cruel deliberation destroyed during the war, and camp residents were made double-refugees and many of them have yet to be allowed to return to their homes. The "victory" of the Lebanese army, which took the lives of over 100 Lebanese soldiers against amateur fighters numbering in the tens, was greatly celebrated in the country all the while Israel continues to occupy the Sha'aba Farms and engage in nearly daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty. The Lebanese excuse for an army only seeks to "prove" its courage and bravery against a rag-tag, 50-men militia and by, naturally, biting the heads of snakes. The defense of the homeland has been outsourced to youth from south Lebanon).

c1 n3 nnQaJ 19672

These buffoons are literally biting the snakes. They think it is uber-macho. This is how idiots with small dicks "prove" their manhood. Go prove it against Israel!

Even in light of all of this, the inclusion of Lebanon may be unwarranted. The nation has not exported the al-Qai-dah-type terrorism (not against the U.S. homeland, anyway) in a long time and there is no record of Lebanese having a strong presence in Islamic extremist organizations.

My theory is that the addition of Lebanon has very little to do with U.S. interests, since the nation does not constitute a threat; and more with Israeli interests. It is probably the work of the Israel lobby that Lebanon is on the list. Israel always seeks to convince the United States that both nations have identical enemies, and therefore America should aid Israel in fighting its and therefore their enemies if not fight them on Israel's and thus America's behalf. The Palestinians during the Cold War were made to be part of some Soviet conspiracy in the region, and now the Palestinians are made to be part of some 'Jihad International' and under the influence of "rogue" Iran. An old Zionist gimmick: parallel Israeli wars to U.S. foreign policy.

By including Lebanon, Israel seeks to falsely highlight the Lebanese party-cum-militia (supported by Iran and Syria) Hezbollah as a common enemy to be jointly combated. While Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel, it is not now an enemy of the United States. Unless, that is, American aggression of behalf of Israel turns it into one. Lebanon's inclusion is an effort to attack and disarm Hezbollah by stating that the presence of Hezbollah constitutes a threat to America, and therefore Lebanon is on the watchlist because Hezbollah may very well send its agents to attack Americans. Only with the end of Hezbollah (which serves in the government that the U.S. considers an ally) will Lebanon be removed.

It is empty logic with no precedent, but if the U.S. government acts on it only one nation will be the victor: Israel.

Another day in the Israel lobby, or that's my theory.