Hezbollah: U.S. Demands To Disarm Us "Will Not Be Met With A Positive Response"
Hussein Al-Khalil, Assistant Secretary General of Hezbollah, said that the request the United States made to Lebanon and Syria that the party be disarmed "will not meet a favorable response." In an interview with Al Hayat, he said: "I will not speak on behalf of Syria and the Lebanese government. But according to our reading of the Lebanese situation, I believe that this demand will not meet a favorable response.
With regard to Hezbollah," he added, "the U.S. and Israel carried out an aggression against Lebanon in July 1993 under that same pretext. But that aggression failed. And in April 1996, the enemy made another attempt at a larger scale, and mobilized all its supporters around the world, rallying them at the Sharm Al Sheikh summit. But in the end, Hezbollah and Lebanon came out stronger than before. Today, if the enemy repeats the same foolish action, then the party will adopt the same position, and God willing, we will have similar results."
Al Hayat asked Al Khalil about the American demand that Hezbollah withdraw from the frontiers with Israel and that the Lebanese army deploy in the area. Al Khalil answered: "there is nothing in our dictionary called the withdrawal of Hezbollah from the South. Our sons and those of the resistance are the sons of all villages located throughout the South. We are not a foreign military group in barracks. We cannot ask people to leave their villages."
|Not if we're rolling over them with tanks. Tehre's a difference between a limited incursion and rooting the bastards out and killing them... |
About the deployment of the Lebanese army in the South, he said: "there are two theories in this respect; the first is the demand that the army should be in charge of security in the South, which is already the case since the army is present throughout the area. The second theory calls upon the army to defend Israel. We don't believe the army will defend the Israeli occupation."
|Then disarm them. Maintaining an armed force in a sovreign country isn't what you'd call a friendly act... |
Posted by: Fred Pruitt 2003-05-01