morning thoughts about Lebanon

Though about you immediately on hearing of the bomb, dys.

I don't know much about Lebanon presently. Looking to who might consider this act advantageous, the usual terrorist suspects line up...fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Likud. Syria seems the least likely to gain and likely to suffer. But I'm a bit of a dummy on this one so far.

Re: morning thoughts about Lebanon


How is that related to Lebanon ?

community card

Welcome. I think dys is suggesting that this single event has the potential to produce very ugly consequences.

Ohh okay, well in that case, it all makes sense.

To draw back to what you said, I will have to disagree with you. I hardly think that Syria is clean from all this, even though you might not be able to point out the advantages it might have.

Now it's really sad to see a country such as Lebanon having to fear ugly consequences in the near future, though one can envisage the worse.

TEHRAN, Feb 16 --

cc

Why would you suspect Syrian involvement here? Rice and others are pushing that line, but aren't forthcoming with any evidence or even rationale. The best they've offered up is that Syria had an occupier's responsibility to maintain a peaceful environment (we won't mention Iraq here).

Syria is a prime target of neoconservative idealogues, and they've been yakking about it for a long time. That these boys are pretty tight with Likud isn't irrelevant, though we aren't supposed to talk about that. Regardless of who might have planned the bomb, these boys will use the event for their purposes. They'll blame Syria regardless of whether there is any truth to their suggestions or none at all. And now, looking at dys' last post, they'll likely take the opportunity to suggest Iranian influence too. It'll be scattergun propaganda.

Sharon announces today that Iran will have the "knowledge" to build nuclear weapons within 6 months. Does this ring a bell in anyone's brain?

Did he? What a surprise. He also mentioned that he's going to keep a bunch of large settlements in the west bank, against 'agreements' in the roadmap, and says he'll hold Bush to his agreements allowing holding the settlements. Confusing? Not a bit of it.

jesus...Kudlow, on CNN just now talking with Mitch McConnel, talked about responses like surgical strikes on Syria. He also said, "You know, these terrorist organizations that seem to dominate Syria and Iran..."

Watch as the rightwing media in their war-crazed insanity, go over the edge.

Re: morning thoughts about Lebanon

like I said.....

All of us should fear the ugly consequences.

If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war.Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1909.

LOL

Let me give another anecdote, even if it only touches a tangent of the thread.

Piero, an Italian hippie, back from his summer 1974 vacation (all this heard in a sort of a cloud, if you know what I mean):
"Lebanon is so peaceful man. They know nothing about socialism or revolution there... you see the guys in the scooters, all careless... things are not ripe there man...
"Iran is going to be the last country in the world to have a revolution, the Americans and the Shah have all the young people on hash, man... and they thrive on the mirage of the promise of western affluency...
"Now, the place I want to live in is Afghanistan. It's awesome, man. I'm gonna buy me a small house in Kabul, and spend the whole day chewing khat..."

fbaezer

I'll bet that guy's doing really, really well now. Finger on the pulse!

fbaezer

You got me laughing as hard as I've laughed for a few days....lovely story!

Blatham,

I've never claimed to be the best reference when it comes to politics. From the little I know of international politics, I can't help but feel skeptic with a feeling that even the bluntest and given truths out there hold much too many lies and unrevealed stories. The Medias, as much as they claim honesty and objectiveness, remain for the most part untrustworthy sources of information. We, as a public, are never confronted to the facts in total accuracy.

Now if I condemn Syria, it is because of personal interpretation of the matter, and certainly not because Bush and Chirac are somehow claiming this culpability.
I totally agree with you on the fact that there are very high chances of Syria being the scapegoat in the middle of this fuss, but I would need you to look past this alternative if you want to hear my point of view. (I most certainly do not hold palpable evidence, and you can easily draw back to "ok, prove it" as to falsify my claim).

So, agreeing on that, I will say the following :
- Hariri has always been a good friend of Syria all along his years as a prime minister, and never did he claim the clearance of Syrian forces from Lebanese soil. He was the perfect politician in the Lebanese government for Syria's interests. When, a few months ago, the president was re-elected (and we all know that this person is hugely manipulated by Syria), Hariri chose to resign, and he also "joined" the revolutionary Lebanese party (which is made of different political parties) and adhered to their demand that the Syrian occupation leave Lebanon alone. A few months later, he's blown away.
- Hariri is definitely not the first person to have stood against Syria, and who has been taken out of the map. Never has Syria been condemn, and never did the Lebanese people know who was responsible for all these lives. It is sort of a tradition in Lebanon to witness the death of people and politicians, without ever knowing what happened. It makes the headlines for a couple of weeks, and then everything gets back to normal, until next time. (If you need names, try Gemayel, Chamoun, Irani, Hobeika..). What a strange coincidence.
- Syria claims that it's presence in Lebanon is to defend this country and to protect him. So unless you have something to protect him for, your presence makes no sense. Now if there is no imminent danger in Lebanon (which has been the case for the after war period, besides a few smaller incidents), they might as well fabricate one, thus claiming a renewed need to stay in Lebanon.

More points can be added, especially technical ones for instance, but it will be much more complicated to get into them.
We all know that Bush has an interest in condemning Syria, as well as Sharon, but this is definitely not what I base myself upon, since I have nothing but despise for those two figures. I am just talking from the point of view of the Lebanese people who are sick and tired of being the meeting ground of outsiders where they settle their bills. After a while, the thought of always being harmed and attacked while as you have nothing to do with it becomes unbearable.