The Noble Lie: LEO STRAUSS; the neo-conservatives and the March 14 Leadership,

[J. Abizeid]

The Noble Lie: LEO STRAUSS; the neo-conservatives and the March 14 Leadership,

Looking back when George W. Bush and his neo conservative Dream Team used to host Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution pioneers at the white house, how many wondered what did all of them have in common? A Jew leading the Christian right, a Born Again Christian crusader, a Sunni Saudi, a Christian Lebanese and a peculiar fellow- a Capitalist Druze head of the Socialist party living in a castle.
A simple answer can be found in Leo Strauss neo conservative philosophy that canonizes such individuals (the wise few) as Masters of the Universe using their Noble lies that (the vulgar many) the masses embrace for control and guidance.

The next report excerpts will shed the lights (for those who care to see) on the how our societies function and Why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24239
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm


Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.
What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognized that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.
Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss – and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow’s novel Ravelstein – one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.”
Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She is also the author of Alexandre Kojève: the Roots of Postmodern Politics (1994) and Terror and Civilization (forthcoming).
She argues that the central claims of Straussian thought wield a crucial influence on men of power in the contemporary United States. She elaborates her argument in this interview.
A natural order of inequality
Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganizing the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly; but these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilize American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realized that.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so.
Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss’s most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature – not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe) but the natural order of domination and subordination.
The necessity of lies
Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie?
Shadia Drury: Strauss rarely spoke in his own name. He wrote as a commentator on the classical texts of political theory. But he was an extremely opinionated and dualistic commentator. The fundamental distinction that pervades and informs all of his work is that between the ancients and the moderns. Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish. Now, it seems to me eminently fair and reasonable to attribute to Strauss the ideas he attributes to his beloved ancients.
In Plato’s dialogues, everyone assumes that Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece. But Strauss argues in his book The City and Man (pp. 74-5, 77, 83-4, 97, 100, 111) that Thrasymachus is Plato’s real mouthpiece (on this point, see also M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]). So, we must surmise that Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato (alias Thrasymachus) that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
Leo Strauss repeatedly defends the political realism of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli (see, for example, his Natural Right and History, p. 106). This view of the world is clearly manifest in the foreign policy of the current administration in the United States.
A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
The effect of Strauss’s teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution. Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lies – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
Strauss justifies his position by an appeal to Plato’s concept of the noble lie. But in truth, Strauss has a very impoverished conception of Plato’s noble lie. Plato thought that the noble lie is a story whose details are fictitious; but at the heart of it is a profound truth.
In the myth of metals, for example, some people have golden souls – meaning that they are more capable of resisting the temptations of power. And these morally trustworthy types are the ones who are most fit to rule. The details are fictitious, but the moral of the story is that not all human beings are morally equal.
In contrast to this reading of Plato, Strauss thinks that the superiority of the ruling philosophers is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one (Natural Right and History, p. 151). For many commentators who (like Karl Popper) have read Plato as a totalitarian, the logical consequence is to doubt that philosophers can be trusted with political power. Those who read him this way invariably reject him. Strauss is the only interpreter who gives a sinister reading to Plato, and then celebrates him.
The dialectic of fear and tyranny
Danny Postel: In the Straussian scheme of things, there are the wise few and the vulgar many. But there is also a third group – the gentlemen. Would you explain how they figure?
Shadia Drury:There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognize neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.
The second type, the gentlemen, lovers of honor and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honor, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.
Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realized this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.
The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise (see Strauss’s – The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws). This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.
For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts.
Nowhere is this state of affairs more advanced than in America. And the global reach of American culture threatens to trivialize life and turn it into entertainment. This was as terrifying a specter for Strauss as it was for Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt.
This is made clear in Strauss’s exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss’s On Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (reprinted in Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented the animalization of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialization of life. All three of them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.” Life can be politicized once more, and man’s humanity can be restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honor and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realized in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny.
Danny Postel: You’ve described Strauss as a nihilist.

Shadia Drury: Strauss is a nihilist in the sense that he believes that there is no rational foundation for morality. He is an atheist, and he believes that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding. It’s all about benefiting others and oneself; there is no objective reason for doing so, only rewards and punishments in this life.
But Strauss is not a nihilist if we mean by the term a denial that there is any truth, a belief that everything is interpretation. He does not deny that there is an independent reality. On the contrary, he thinks that independent reality consists in nature and its “order of rank” – the high and the low, the superior and the inferior. Like Nietzsche, he believes that the history of western civilization has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble – something they both lamented profoundly.
Danny Postel: This connection is curious, since Strauss is bedeviled by Nietzsche; and one of Strauss’s most famous students, Allan Bloom, fulminates profusely in his book The Closing of the American Mind against the influence of Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.
Shadia Drury: Strauss’s criticism of the existentialists, especially Heidegger, is that they tried to elicit an ethic out of the abyss. This was the ethic of resoluteness – choose whatever you like and be loyal to it to the death; its content does not matter. But Strauss’s reaction to moral nihilism was different. Nihilistic philosophers, he believes, should reinvent the Judeo-Christian God, but live like pagan gods themselves – taking pleasure in the games they play with each other as well as the games they play on ordinary mortals.
The question of nihilism is complicated, but there is no doubt that Strauss’s readings of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, and newspapers). They know full well that the line they espouse is mendacious, but they are convinced that theirs are noble lies.
Who is Leo Strauss?
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 in the region of Hessen, Germany, the son of a Jewish small businessman. He went to secondary school in Marburg and served as an interpreter in the German army in the First World War. He was awarded a doctorate at Hamburg University in 1921 for a thesis on philosophy that was supervised by Ernst Cassirer.
Strauss’s post-doctoral work involved study of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, and in 1930 he published his first book, on Spinoza’s critique of religion; his second, on the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, was published in 1935. After a research period in London, he published The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in 1936.
In 1937, he moved to Columbia University, and from 1938 to 1948 taught political science and philosophy at the New School for Social Research, New York. During this period he wrote On Tyranny (1948) and Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952).
In 1949, he became professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, and remained there for twenty years. His works of this period include Natural Right and History (1953), Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? (1959), The City and Man (1964), Socrates and Aristophanes (1966), and Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968).
Between 1968 and 1973, Strauss taught in colleges in California and Maryland, and completed work on Xenophon’s Socratic discourses and Argument and Action of Plato’s Laws (1975). After his death in October 1973, the essay collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (1983) was published.

[Joumana Gebara]

FONT=Times New Roman]The Noble Lie: LEO STRAUSS; the neo-conservatives and the March 14 Leadership,[/font]

Looking back when George W. Bush and his neo conservative Dream Team used to host Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution pioneers at the white house, how many wondered what did all of them have in common?


A Jew leading the Christian right, a Born Again Christian crusader, a Sunni Saudi, a Christian Lebanese and a peculiar fellow- a Capitalist Druze head of the Socialist party living in a castle.

Dear J.Abizeid,

Thank you for the very valuable contribution. I read Strauss in German 20 years ago and also in the last few years but never had the chance to read Strauss in such a comparative with Plato's philosophy over the Middle Eastern situation and US policy, so thanks again for adding knowledge to my brain.

Before tackling the "Noble Lie", let me highlight the first part concerning Eliot Engel (the Jew leading the Christian Right) who also had diverse encounters with General Aoun.

"Two months ago, MP Michael Aoun paid a visit to the USA where he met with congressmen Eliot Engel and Eliana Ross-Leithnen. At this meeting, Aoun requested to address the US Congress, but his request was rejected. Congresswoman Ross-Leithnen's rejection of Aoun’s request was based on the fact that he has too many opponents in Congress due to his latest treacherous positions in Lebanon, especially his relationship with Hizbullah and Syria. Prior to the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, Aoun was praising the US Administration’s stance regarding its backing of Lebanon's freedom and for its calling on Syria to end its occupation of its tiny neighbor-Lebanon. Aoun went to the extent of portraying himself as a partner of the US Congress where he assumed responsibility for the passage of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and later considered himself behind the issuance of the United Nations Resolution 1559. This was Aoun’s position before his suspicious return to Lebanon on May 7, 2005 and before striking new alliances. Following his return, Aoun has distanced himself from the US and the March 14th independence group and allied himself with Hizbullah and the Syrian/Iranian/Hamas adding to the influence of the Shiite Crescent."The Shiite Crescent and the treacherous politics of a madman - International Analyst Network Written in 2006, Author is Pierre Maroun who is Kataeb member and compagnon of Garry Gambill (Pro-Israeli) and Elias Bejjani (Ex-radical-FPMer)


Also prior to 2006, General Aoun met with Engel and had his full support as you can read here http://www.generalaoun.org/nahar120902.pdf as reported by Annahar from a homepage which was common between Elias Bejjani and Sami Assayli, however they went apart after the MOU, Bejjani quit FPM, Assayli who is Sunnite and served in the army stayed loyal to the General. You can read under this link that Eliot Engel gave Aoun all his support.

We can simply conclude that per se the US policy whether Democrats (Engel) or Republicans both had one target: Elimination of Hizbullah and stand with whomever fights Hizbullah.

Why does the US adopt this policy?

Hizbullah was an American threat since 1982 (Marines attack which led to New Jersey to leave after a blood bath killing 300 Marines), the kidnapping of US citizens, and of course because Hizbullah represents a threat to the very existence of Israel beside being the factor which supports all radical parties fighting Israel.

Additionaly, the US worked on arising "moderate" Sunnite in order not to be short-visioned and have as a result of cancelling the Shia, the rise of Sunnite radicalism. To sum it up in short, the US is trying to cut a cancer by substituting it with another as it did during the cold war with Russia, during the war with Russia in Afghanistan by supporting Bin Laden against the Russian, then against when one has cancelled the other, the US supports another organization to eliminate Bin Laden, and etc...

This is a practice going back to 1942 during the WWII when Roosevelt publicly announced: We will not get involved in the German Russian war, let them eliminate each others then we have to deal only with one fraction.

And this is what occurred, Russia was weakened by the Germans (although Germany lost in Russia), however the US only bombed Germany (Dresden, Berlin etc...were irradicated from the map...).. this is the US plot also in the ME.

I'll come back to you with my analysis on Strauss and the wise/nobles/vulgar/gentlemen:) Thanks so much for this cerebral challenge:)

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

We can simply conclude that per se the US policy whether Democrats (Engel) or Republicans both had one target: Elimination of Hizbullah and stand with whomever fights Hizbullah.

Why does the US adopt this policy?

Sometimes it’s better to give the answer before asking the question and here is an example:
If the answer is two (2) what’s the question?
As you might have guessed, there are infinite questions that lead to the same answer i.e. what is 1+1, 4-2, 10:5, 2x1,………………………..
Here is the BIG and ONLY ANSWER: (TAWTIIN) Naturalization
Every one who stood against it became a target:
So now we can ask the questions such as:
Why the Shiites in Lebanon are on the US black list but not in Iraq?
Why the FPM is on the US black list although they’re led by a Christian?
Why Bashir Gemayel was assassinated and what did he mean by 10452km2
What did SHN mean by saying 10452km2?
Why Rene Mowad was assassinated.
Why Emile Lahoud was on the black list?
Why as far as the US, a Wahabi state for Lebanon (an extension of the state that produced most 9/11 hijackers and their leader, a state that violates all sort of human rights including religious freedom) is a non issue yet, a big deal is made out of imaginary “Wilaet El Fakih” knowing between the two, Iran has better human rights, they allow churches and they hold elections no matter how imperfect they might be.
And what about Libya Kaddafi, who bombed PanAm 103, how come the US forgot all about him?
HA never went outside Lebanon’s territory to defend it. Kaddafi and Bin Laden sure did!

Sectarianism has been used as a tool for the above answer, and the Masters of the Universe are doing a good job with that a tool,

[Amirkani]

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Dear J.Abizeid,

Before tackling the "Noble Lie", let me highlight the first part concerning Eliot Engel (the Jew leading the Christian Right) who also had diverse encounters with General Aoun.

Are you on some kind of a pill or something? What does General Aoun have to do with the subject of the thread? And what triggered you to artificially introduce his name here.

Do you have a vendetta now that you're turning against Aoun?

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

"Two months ago, MP Michael Aoun paid a visit to the USA where he met with congressmen Eliot Engel and Eliana Ross-Leithnen. At this meeting, Aoun requested to address the US Congress, but his request was rejected. Congresswoman Ross-Leithnen's rejection of Aoun’s request was based on the fact that he has too many opponents in Congress due to his latest treacherous positions in Lebanon, especially his relationship with Hizbullah and Syria. Prior to the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, Aoun was praising the US Administration’s stance regarding its backing of Lebanon's freedom and for its calling on Syria to end its occupation of its tiny neighbor-Lebanon. Aoun went to the extent of portraying himself as a partner of the US Congress where he assumed responsibility for the passage of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and later considered himself behind the issuance of the United Nations Resolution 1559. This was Aoun’s position before his suspicious return to Lebanon on May 7, 2005 and before striking new alliances. Following his return, Aoun has distanced himself from the US and the March 14th independence group and allied himself with Hizbullah and the Syrian/Iranian/Hamas adding to the influence of the Shiite Crescent."The Shiite Crescent and the treacherous politics of a madman - International Analyst Network Written in 2006, Author is Pierre Maroun who is Kataeb member and compagnon of Garry Gambill (Pro-Israeli) and Elias Bejjani (Ex-radical-FPMer)

Also prior to 2006, General Aoun met with Engel and had his full support as you can read here http://www.generalaoun.org/nahar120902.pdf as reported by Annahar from a homepage which was common between Elias Bejjani and Sami Assayli, however they went apart after the MOU, Bejjani quit FPM, Assayli who is Sunnite and served in the army stayed loyal to the General. You can read under this link that Eliot Engel gave Aoun all his support.

Quoting Pierre Maroun and Elias Bejjani is like quoting Ghada Eid whom you seem "to fully support".

And if you want to pass yourself for an expert, get the simple facts right at least. Don't just pick up bits and pieces of garbage info from the internet and post them to give yourself undeserved credit: it is Sami ARAYSSI, not Assayli. That in itself shows how much you know about what you're trying to insinuate that you know.

And are you sure Pierre Maroun is a "companion" of Gary Gambill? And are you sure Gary Gambill is "pro-Israel"... and what does that mean? For your info Gary Gambill was and still is one of the best advocates for Lebanon, "purely Lebanon". So stop throwing his name among the other yellow rag newly-inspired writers to confuse the good with the bad. And stop throwing around names you know nothing about and adding to them your silly accusations right and left to promote nothing else but your own image. You failed at that I can tell you.

And last but not least, I want to tell you very plainly that if it wasn't for General Aoun and Eliot Engel, you (and others) would still be under the Syrian boot... and I am not sure whether you would have minded that.

l3ama wlo... they should prescribe a limit to arrogance!

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

[Joumana Gebara]

Originally Posted by Amirkani

Are you on some kind of a pill or something? What does General Aoun have to do with the subject of the thread? And what triggered you to artificially introduce his name here.

Do you have a vendetta now that you're turning against Aoun?

Quoting Pierre Maroun and Elias Bejjani is like quoting Ghada Eid whom you seem "to fully support".

And if you want to pass yourself for an expert, get the simple facts right at least. Don't just pick up bits and pieces of garbage info from the internet and post them to give yourself undeserved credit: it is Sami ARAYSSI, not Assayli. That in itself shows how much you know about what you're trying to insinuate that you know.

And are you sure Pierre Maroun is a "companion" of Gary Gambill? And are you sure Gary Gambill is "pro-Israel"... and what does that mean? For your info Gary Gambill was and still is one of the best advocates for Lebanon, "purely Lebanon". So stop throwing his name among the other yellow rag newly-inspired writers to confuse the good with the bad. And stop throwing around names you know nothing about and adding to them your silly accusations right and left to promote nothing else but your own image. You failed at that I can tell you.

And last but not least, I want to tell you very plainly that if it wasn't for General Aoun and Eliot Engel, you (and others) would still be under the Syrian boot... and I am not sure whether you would have minded that.

l3ama wlo... they should prescribe a limit to arrogance!

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

So your whole insults and trials do defame will not change anything to the facts listed above. Get a life and learn how to read (yeah I mistakenly wrote Assayli it is Arayssi, and I know Sami very well, so stop your poison spitting everywhere). if you have a personal issue with me then all I can say is that you gotta live with it. Get to respect people, or leave it, your whole hysteria is a reflection of your personality not mine.

At the end you admitted my facts, that Aoun met Engel and was supported by the Jew. At the end you admitted that what I posted is fact and you have such a complex that you thought I am attacking Aoun, while I listed the reasons for US support, out of convenience. And since when does Gambill have a "purely Lebanese" policy? Well, if so, then Bejjani too and both are against Hizbullah. Get your facts right and get a life, I'm bored replying to such a low level debate. I prefer debating J. Abizeid and likes.

Bye bye hysterical Amerikani.

[Joumana Gebara]

I am really very deceived that this thread was turned by Amirkani to a personal attack while the subject is completely a different one. I was going to quote next the very adequate sentence description of J.Abizeid on the Socialist living in a castle, the top Christian claimg to be Lebanese and the Saudi Sunni claiming to be Lebanese as well as the Christian Crusader, but unfortunately Amirkani cannot leave things going smoothly but has to destroy everything.

I just wonder how Bejjani is yellow paper when he supported FPM fifteen years and when he organized General's visits to the US. It is really ashaming that people get defamed whenever they do not agree with a point or another. Would you like people to describe you as such ya Amirkani when you simply for once do not agree? 3ayb 3leyk takhanta msabet w 2elet i7tiram, grow up and get mature, debate with a logic.

The US or \Engel did not support Aoun kirmel l ke7l bi 3youn Aoun but because there was a common interest. The USA knew that Syria will not be easy to deal with while a complete puppet Lebanese government or eventually a completely divided Lebanese government would be much easier deal.
ye3ne really, what an ashaming reply you came out with ya Amirkani, completely contradictory, you even became personal without a reason, no one defamed General Aoun but you. i linked Aoun in a different perspective than you wanted to describe me. However I will not justify, your bad intentions are obvious throughout your reply.

Finally, I hope this thread can get another direction, at least as a bit of respect toward the author J. Abizeid.

[Amirkani]

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

So your whole insults and trials do defame will not change anything to the facts listed above. Get a life and learn how to read (yeah I mistakenly wrote Assayli it is Arayssi, and I know Sami very well, so stop your poison spitting everywhere).

You didn't mistakenly write anything. You just copied it from articles of other yellow writers.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

if you have a personal issue with me then all I can say is that you gotta live with it.

You're too inconsequential for me to have a personal issue with you. I have an issue with anyone accusing others I care about wrongly.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Get to respect people, or leave it, your whole hysteria is a reflection of your personality not mine.

It's hard to respect those who throw false accusations to promote themselves.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

At the end you admitted my facts, that Aoun met Engel and was supported by the Jew. At the end you admitted that what I posted is fact and you have such a complex that you thought I am attacking Aoun, while I listed the reasons for US support, out of convenience.

Admitted "your facts"? LOL what facts? that Aoun met with Engel? You just discovered that fact now? To2brini Engel has worked with the Aounists since 1993 and some of his staff since 1991. He has met with Aoun, not once, many many times. And no one tried or is trying to hide that... it used to be announced publicly since it happened. Is that your discovery?

And you know about why Engel supported the Aounists since 1993 as much as I know why that French airliner disappeared. I have no clue.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

And since when does Gambill have a "purely Lebanese" policy?

Since I experienced how he worked and still works for Lebanon since the nineties. What did YOU base your accusation that he works for Israel on? Here, I am all ears... nothing!

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Well, if so, then Bejjani too and both are against Hizbullah. Get your facts right and get a life,

YOU get your facts right. You have no clue what you're talking about... sha2e3 7aki just for the heck of it.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

I'm bored replying to such a low level debate. I prefer debating J. Abizeid and likes.

Trust me it's not part of my mission to pull you out of your boredom. And you can debate whomever you like. But if you throw false accusations about issues or people I care about, you can be assured that I will call you on it.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Bye bye hysterical Amerikani.

If you are desperate to get rid of me, stay away from false accusations against people or issues I care about and you will get your wish... otherwise, as you said, you will have to live with me, or my hysteria rather :)

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

[Amirkani]

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

I am really very deceived that this thread was turned by Amirkani to a personal attack while the subject is completely a different one. I was going to quote next the very adequate sentence description of J.Abizeid on the Socialist living in a castle, the top Christian claimg to be Lebanese and the Saudi Sunni claiming to be Lebanese as well as the Christian Crusader, but unfortunately Amirkani cannot leave things going smoothly but has to destroy everything.

You could have kept Aoun out of this... where he didn't belong in the first place and avoided Amirkani destroying your opportunity to shine.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

I just wonder how Bejjani is yellow paper when he supported FPM fifteen years and when he organized General's visits to the US.

Once again, stop talking about things you know nothing about. Bejjani has to do with Aoun's visits to the US as much as I have to do with the Pope's visit to Lebanon. Nothing. As a starter, Bejjani lives in frigging Canada... and I don't know if he's ever even visited the US.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

It is really ashaming that people get defamed whenever they do not agree with a point or another. Would you like people to describe you as such ya Amirkani when you simply for once do not agree? 3ayb 3leyk takhanta msabet w 2elet i7tiram, grow up and get mature, debate with a logic.

Darabni w baka, saba2ni w shtaka? Have you read your own polite posts?

I won't get into a debate with you about Bejjani here... you obviously don't know anything about him... you just throw his name around... it's not fair to him that you would be representing his side.

Anyway, I could have good or bad things to say about Bejjani since I know him quite well... but I won't debate him with you.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

The US or \Engel did not support Aoun kirmel l ke7l bi 3youn Aoun but because there was a common interest. The USA knew that Syria will not be easy to deal with while a complete puppet Lebanese government or eventually a completely divided Lebanese government would be much easier deal.
ye3ne really, what an ashaming reply you came out with ya Amirkani, completely contradictory, you even became personal without a reason, no one defamed General Aoun but you. i linked Aoun in a different perspective than you wanted to describe me. However I will not justify, your bad intentions are obvious throughout your reply.

I said what I wanted to say about both Aoun and Engel. No need to add anything.

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Finally, I hope this thread can get another direction, at least as a bit of respect toward the author J. Abizeid.

I already told you how you could accomplish that.

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

[Tsunami67]

Originally Posted by Joumana Gebara

Before tackling the "Noble Lie", let me highlight the first part concerning Eliot Engel (the Jew leading the Christian Right) who also had diverse encounters with General Aoun.

So why did u bring Aoun to this debate... it is well known by all Lebanese that GMA worked hard and did all he can to make Syrians leave Lebanon.. so what are u insinuating at?

2nd Hizbollah radically changed over the years, from a terrorist mvt to a leberation and resistance mvt, so dont bring words from the eighties and nineties to compare with what is said now...
exp: Syria was an occupier in the 80s and 90's until 2004 but now it's just a neighbour country...
so i blame u for deviating the discussion and Amirkani had the right to respond the way he did bcoz he thought u were doing it on purpose.
Cheers

[Joumana Gebara]

Romans 1:22, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."