Saudi Taif worries, Joumblat and Christian loyalist jerks

[Revolution1989]

Originally Posted by ya 3ali

"WE" means "Shiites".
I do support him clearing issues with the resistance , or rebuilding his relations with Syria and Iran ,

Maybe its not clear to see in the moment , but i see it coming in the next months ,

Ok, let me rephrase, if he "clears" the issues with Syria, Iran and the resistance but does not allow the christians mouhajjarin to return to their villages, keeps robbing the funds that were dedicated to them, keeps his litteral "main mise" on the mountains through his armed militia, you will have no issues with him? And you think you speak on behalf of the million or so shiites in Lebanon?

Well, then I have an issue with that, and I would consider that the million or so chiites don't give a f... about their "partners" in the opposition.

Just as relations with Syria, Iran and the resistance are critical to you, the rights of the Mouhajjarin to go back freely to their homes and recover the funds that they are entitled to are critical for us. If you don't care about them, then why should we be allies?

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by taifoon

Are the Saudis attempting to buy back Syrias partnership, via mostly Berri and other minor allies, in exchange for a renewable Syrian Ta'if protection? My guess for the immediate future is this: The Saudis sense the opposition victory coming. They need to have Sa3doun in the government, at least as a symbolic guarantee for the continuation of Taif. For this, they need Syria's influence on certain people to make them accept him. Joumblat started to pave the way months back and the Christians Valentino jerks.. well, they are busy fishing.. parliament chair legs.

Well,coming from Joumblat,I wouldn't be surprised that this would be exactly what he is trying to do:Securing his place and interests,by serving others interests,instead of turning towards his Lebanese counterparts.Because Joumblat does not believe in the efficiency of the entity called Lebanon,or that other one called the Lebanese state,nor does he believe that a day will come, when the protection of the minority he represents could be guaranteed internally,nor does he want to relinquish his grip as a feudal leader on his sect at the first place,even at the price of the destruction of his own sect,which he only cared for when his own interests became at stake.

And the Saudi new approach of the Syrians is more than probable,almost a certainty,judging by the interests KSA has in Lebanon.

But there is a missing piece:Hezbollah made a huge "cancel" note to any future political partnership,cooperation or even back up, to Joumblat,no matter what.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made it clear that a line have been crossed where no turning back would ever be possible...Which is independent from the security consensus and cooperation on the ground.

In other words,to Hezbollah,Joumblat is from now on "tolerated"...but nothing more.

He can attack the USA and then say sorry.He can attack Syria and then say sorry.Those do not care for him,as long as he plays the game and obeys to the letter.

But he cannot meet with Zionist figures and prime neo-con officials,and cooperate with them and accept to serve them as a good soldier,in a project that had for a main target the destruction and expulsion and enslavement of the whole Shiite sect (not to mention the Christian sect too)...Then after losing,just come back and apologize.

It will not work this way,besides,Joumblat plans are still,in non conformity with the strategic alliance between FPM and Hezbollah.Syria or not,KSA or not...Nothing that those 2 wouldn't deem acceptable, will pass anymore.

Lebanon is now seriously under control by Lebanese,much more than people might perceive...And more than it ever was in its history.The coming months will reveal to which extent.

[ya 3ali]

Originally Posted by Revolution1989

Ok, let me rephrase, if he "clears" the issues with Syria, Iran and the resistance but does not allow the christians mouhajjarin to return to their villages, keeps robbing the funds that were dedicated to them, keeps his litteral "main mise" on the mountains through his armed militia, you will have no issues with him? And you think you speak on behalf of the million or so shiites in Lebanon?

Well, then I have an issue with that, and I would consider that the million or so chiites don't give a f... about their "partners" in the opposition.

Just as relations with Syria, Iran and the resistance are critical to you, the rights of the Mouhajjarin to go back freely to their homes and recover the funds that they are entitled to are critical for us. If you don't care about them, then why should we be allies?

That's the other side of the story , reforms are going to be applied :
1- new electoral law in 2013 based on percentage like this no one will complaint about not being fairly represented
2- create a senator council for religions
3- the councils are going to be canceled , and a ministry will take over
4- Junblat delivered his heavy arms in 8 may , and the army took over from psp like "talit tlet tmenet" , don't worry about this matter , after 8 may he learned a lesson
4- does not allow ? how he can do that ? and when the mhajarin will take responsibility and return to their land ? They need to take action and remember their country !!

[chafic]

Originally Posted by taifoon

In 1989, a business contract was introduced and signed between the Saudis and the Syrians, Taif. The idea was to split up the crumbs of Lebanon's lacerated entity in two partnerships: An internal political one and a regional ditto, glued to one another through a "Financial Condom", the Hariris.

the internal partnership was defined as being second grade and day-by-day run domestic politics, assigned to be mainly run by the Saudis lackey, Rafiq Hariri. The regional one was Syrias responsibility, and contained everything else including the Syrian-Israeli conflict (Hizbollah) and demography issues (labor market, naturalizations etc.). Syria's military presence made sure the contract was tightly upheld and closely monitored.

Tai,

I find your version of history so amusing, mostly when Hariris become Saudi's lackey, While Hezbollah a resistance (while it was another lackey par excellence), and other heroes like Berri, Franjieh, SSNP and ilks disappear of the picture. Maybe I got you wrong, and you were trying to only mention big players, but I'm afraid this Jean Azizian approach to things might really convince some enthusiastic Aounist who so eagerly wants to believe that Hariri was Syria's only or main guy in Lebanon; And that....is not true.

Originally Posted by taifoon

Fast Forward the tape, comes 2009.. After 4 years of vane attempts to break the Alawits grip over the Syrian system, the Saudis finally rush in eager to mend their damaged relations with Bachar. How come? And why now?

Arab Brotherhood calling? hehehe.. In this corner of the region, there's one worry more disturbing for Godfather Ben Saud than his nagging farsi/majousi nightmares, and that is suspecting a risk to drop or amend his Lebanese Babe, Ta'if.

Hear this indiscreet voice of a kneeling Joumblat when, on his and his buddy Sa3douddine's behalf, begs for Syria's mercy

وتابع جنبلاط في حديثه للسفير: بغض النظر عن موقفي الشخصي، أنا أدرك ان لبنان كدولة لا يستطيع ان يكون على عداء مع سوريا لان ذلك هو ضد المنطق والتاريخ والجغرافيا، وبالتالي لا بد من إرساء العلاقات المميزة بين البلدين استنادا الى قاعدة اتفاق الطائف

Saudis or Americans never really sought to topple Assad's government; They knew well they couldn't afford it. They wanted at best some concessions from the Syrian side.

Originally Posted by taifoon

Did you, yes YOU, Christian Valentinos, notice how Joumblat managed to squeeze in the classic "3alaqat moumayyaza" thingee in his kneeling prayer to the Syrians? Do you recognize a seasoned shartouta when she creams up a seducing proposal to a client with what she, out of experience, learned that his ears like to hear the most? Are you aware that you are contracted to a company of political pimps who are keeping you alongside the "hourriye, siyede, este2lel" slogans only for the sake of having you as their Ta'if underdogs, till eternity loops back to singularity? ( oh, did you hear Aoun name once the "3alaqat moumayaza" during his "royal" reception in Syria? or wasn't it always about 3alaqat moumtaza for him?

My friend, Lebanon was leased back to Syria and Iran in Doha 2008; Since then, Jumblat was trying to find a place in the new game; Nobody knows, he might have to lie to them (and vice versa) for another 30 years.
Regarding whom you call "Christian valentinos" what choices do they have? A hotel with some political pimps (and sharatit) in the inside (feb 14), and a bordello (mar 8). At least, to be in the first you can "not work in" prostitution, and it's a more open space for less putrid political opinions; In the second, much less likely.

Originally Posted by taifoon

Are the Saudis attempting to buy back Syrias partnership, via mostly Berri and other minor allies, in exchange for a renewable Syrian Ta'if protection? My guess for the immediate future is this: The Saudis sense the opposition victory coming. They need to have Sa3doun in the government, at least as a symbolic guarantee for the continuation of Taif. For this, they need Syria's influence on certain people to make them accept him. Joumblat started to pave the way months back and the Christians Valentino jerks.. well, they are busy fishing.. parliament chair legs.

"Symbolic guarantee for the continuation of Taef"..now that's quite far fetched. Saad Hariri, in the past months, claimed he wouldn't join a march 8 lead government, but then it was considered as a bad gesture by Syria's and Iran's lackeys in Lebanon, and he changed his mind?

[vegojimbo]

Originally Posted by chafic

Tai,

I find your version of history so amusing, mostly when Hariris become Saudi's lackey, While Hezbollah a resistance (while it was another lackey par excellence), and other heroes like Berri, Franjieh, SSNP and ilks disappear of the picture. Maybe I got you wrong, and you were trying to only mention big players, but I'm afraid this Jean Azizian approach to things might really convince some enthusiastic Aounist who so eagerly wants to believe that Hariri was Syria's only or main guy in Lebanon; And that....is not true.

All those you mentioned had no real say in Taef nor in its implementation.
Did u see Tai even mention HA? And how is HA concerned with Taef? U've developed an allergy or some sort hypersensibility it seems.

Saudis or Americans never really sought to topple Assad's government; They knew well they couldn't afford it. They wanted at best some concessions from the Syrian side.

that's true for the americans but not for the Saudis. They would have a loved to see a sunni pro-Khaddam regime in Syria (unless the Muslim brotherhood took over).

My friend, Lebanon was leased back to Syria and Iran in Doha 2008;

How so? I want concrete answers as to how the new electoral law leases Lebanon to these 2 countries.

Since then, Jumblat was trying to find a place in the new game; Nobody knows, he might have to lie to them (and vice versa) for another 30 years.
Regarding whom you call "Christian valentinos" what choices do they have? A hotel with some political pimps (and sharatit) in the inside (feb 14), and a bordello (mar 8). At least, to be in the first you can "not work in" prostitution, and it's a more open space for less putrid political opinions; In the second, much less likely.

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but did u just call FPM a who*e with putrid opinions?

"Symbolic guarantee for the continuation of Taef"..now that's quite far fetched. Saad Hariri, in the past months, claimed he wouldn't join a march 8 lead government, but then it was considered as a bad gesture by Syria's and Iran's lackeys in Lebanon, and he changed his mind?

So now u take every statement Saad makes as a fact? Good to know.
As well, u're also saying that he's the master of his own destiny? That if Saudi Arabia asks (orders is more fitting though) him to enter the government, he would boldly refuse and demand KSA to mind its own business? So funny.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

All those you mentioned had no real say in Taef nor in its implementation.

Actually they had a real say as much as Hariri did, and they participated in its implementation as much as Hariri did, each according to its respected role. Vego, you can defend Amal, Hezbollah, SSNP, Franjieh and the rest of your allies all you want; But that would change that they were just like Hariri during the occupation period, or mind you, much worse because they also built militias and indulged in violence.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Did u see Tai even mention HA? And how is HA concerned with Taef?

Actually tai mentioned them as a "resistance", and I find it very funny; I would have thought that for the sake of consistency that they would figure in the Syria's lackeys or Iran's stooges category.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

U've developed an allergy or some sort hypersensibility it seems.

Please excuse me vego if I'm concerned about a school of thought that I find very detrimental to any country/society, and in this case to Lebanon. Maybe you find it wise to buy Jean Azizian theories (sorry but I find the ones I read too pathetically amusing), or follow some politician's fantastic quixotic battles, overlooking or fighting along the more imminent danger. I just happen to disagree, and I'm glad I do.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

that's true for the americans but not for the Saudis. They would have a loved to see a sunni pro-Khaddam regime in Syria (unless the Muslim brotherhood took over).

Saudis may have loved to see Khaddam in power, but I doubt they weren't aware that it wasn't feasible.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

How so? I want concrete answers as to how the new electoral law leases Lebanon to these 2 countries.

The electoral law did not change a big deal; It's just one of those rotten laws big political groups thought it would keep the decision key in their hands. How did it lease Lebanon? It gave pro-Syrian/Iranian militias some form of legitimacy after they invaded the country's capital and other cities, instead of dismantling them and sending their leaders to trial; But it also gave those militias and their stooges their demands concerning the participation in the government, forced the government to go back on its very rightful decisions, and consecrated these militias as the de-facto government of the country, by military means, regardless of the outcome of parliamentary elections. To conclude, Doha gave Syria and Iran control over Lebanon through their "lackeys".

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but did u just call FPM a who*e with putrid opinions?

In the political sense, after some time in 2006, absolutely yes; FPM did indulge in the new form of political prostitution (regardless of the job, or job title); Regarding the advocated political opinions: quite putrid.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

So now u take every statement Saad makes as a fact? Good to know.

Unfortunately, very much NOT. But I hope he sticks to his word this time.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

As well, u're also saying that he's the master of his own destiny? That if Saudi Arabia asks (orders is more fitting though) him to enter the government, he would boldly refuse and demand KSA to mind its own business? So funny.

*Scrolls up* I didn't say that. I think though that he wouldn't have made that statement if Saudi Arabia disagrees.


Rgds

[vegojimbo]

Originally Posted by chafic

Actually they had a real say as much as Hariri did, and they participated in its implementation as much as Hariri did, each according to its respected role. Vego, you can defend Amal, Hezbollah, SSNP, Franjieh and the rest of your allies all you want; But that would change that they were just like Hariri during the occupation period, or mind you, much worse because they also built militias and indulged in violence.

First, a few those are not my allies. You're becoming a real loyalist. Cutos.
Second, Hariri was in a higher league concerning Taef than all the rest since he was the real caretaker of internal politics in Lebanon (with a help from Berri of course).
Third, Hariri's policies led to the emigration of more than a million lebanese. Nothing can top that.
Firth, he may not have had armed thugs as his own henchmen, but he didn't need to as the syrians came handy there. As well, remember how ppl were kicked out of their homes by force 09-his legacy, the FM, is already a militia. so as far as militias and violence go, they all fall in the same category.

Actually tai mentioned them as a "resistance", and I find it very funny; I would have thought that for the sake of consistency that they would figure in the Syria's lackeys or Iran's stooges category.

I did not locate the word, so if u could help me out.
For you, HA is no resistance, for some it is. I don't appreciate u trying to ridicule it. Still, I stand by my earlier statement that u introduced HA in a thread where it doesn't belong, a symptom of obsession, or maybe an indication of dirty debating strategies. Too much loyalist tactics surfacing in your techniques.

Please excuse me vego if I'm concerned about a school of thought that I find very detrimental to any country/society, and in this case to Lebanon. Maybe you find it wise to buy Jean Azizian theories (sorry but I find the ones I read too pathetically amusing), or follow some politician's fantastic quixotic battles, overlooking or fighting along the more imminent danger. I just happen to disagree, and I'm glad I do.

There are far more dangerous issues to Lebanon's existence and future than HA's weapons (which is one of the major issues but not the only one). For instance, many care more about the quality of the life and the services provided to them, then caring about an issue that is in the hands of regional powers.
The irony is that u are too involved in Machiavellian don Quixotic windmills that u charge with no real spear in hand. Frankly, how do want to realistically remove HA's weapons? by force? by empty speeches? by sitting behind a PC and unleashing ur dismay? And what about the rest of the pressuring issues? Should we put them on the sidelines until we find a solution to this problem?
In plain terms, I care more about my phone bill not being a pain to my wallet than about HA surrendering its arms. And I'm sure many lebanese share the same feelings.

Saudis may have loved to see Khaddam in power, but I doubt they weren't aware that it wasn't feasible.

They could have known, and they could have been too stupid to realize it. After all, the Saudis are no Kissinger.

The electoral law did not change a big deal; It's just one of those rotten laws big political groups thought it would keep the decision key in their hands. How did it lease Lebanon? It gave pro-Syrian/Iranian militias some form of legitimacy after they invaded the country's capital and other cities, instead of dismantling them and sending their leaders to trial; But it also gave those militias and their stooges their demands concerning the participation in the government, forced the government to go back on its very rightful decisions, and consecrated these militias as the de-facto government of the country, by military means, regardless of the outcome of parliamentary elections. To conclude, Doha gave Syria and Iran control over Lebanon through their "lackeys".

Quite an entertaining version. U should be writing a novel instead.
As for the "very rightful" decisions, I say that they were sinisterly conceived and irrealistic. That was surely not the correct way to deal with HA's weapons and communication network. The decisions effectively meant fully exposing HA to the israeli assassinations and infiltration, which is nothing short of treason in my book before HA's.
U want to deal with HA's weapons, go to the roots and fix it. Do not make matters worse and issue decisions that could lead to war.
There's an old saying that goes by: Corner a cat and u will receive its claws.

In the political sense, after some time in 2006, absolutely yes; FPM did indulge in the new form of political prostitution (regardless of the job, or job title); Regarding the advocated political opinions: quite putrid.

what did FPM do to have its actions labeled as political prostitution? Share a few examples.
As for the political opinions, some are wrong I concur, but most are far more superior than anyone else's in both camps.

Unfortunately, very much NOT. But I hope he sticks to his word this time.

Me too. I hope he stays out of the gov this time around. Good riddance.

*Scrolls up* I didn't say that. I think though that he wouldn't have made that statement if Saudi Arabia disagrees.
Rgds

He would have made it anyway since his words actually count for nothing, for he's not bound by them. And many times in the past, he gave his word only to go back on it few days later.
His move is nothing short of an electoral stunt in my opinion. And I've made a long post a while ago on the forum explaining why Saad and Joumblat would demand the 1/3 +1 in case they lose more vehemently than the opposition ever did.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

First, a few those are not my allies. You're becoming a real loyalist. Cutos.

Who's not your ally vego?

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Second, Hariri was in a higher league concerning Taef than all the rest since he was the real caretaker of internal politics in Lebanon (with a help from Berri of course).

He wasn't in a higher league, he just played his role; Others were assigned small or different roles.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Third, Hariri's policies led to the emigration of more than a million lebanese. Nothing can top that.

Again, those were Syria policies, and behavior, which Hariri, Hezbollah, Amal, Franjieh and others were integral part of.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Firth, he may not have had armed thugs as his own henchmen, but he didn't need to as the syrians came handy there. As well, remember how ppl were kicked out of their homes by force 09-his legacy, the FM, is already a militia. so as far as militias and violence go, they all fall in the same category.

Again, I don't remember him indulging in violence; He didn't stand against it. Right, but that's different. Nonetheless, I think he should seriously start thinking about building a militia.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

I did not

You did not what?

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

There are far more dangerous issues to Lebanon's existence and future than HA's weapons.

No, there isn't, it's the most critical danger. And I'm not talking merely about Hezbollah's weapons, but also its ideology; Certainly the first is a priority.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

The irony is that u are too involved in machiavellic don Quixotic windmills that u charge with no real spear in hand. Frankly, how do want to realistically remove HA's weapons? by force? by empty speeches? by sitting behind a PC and unleashing ur dismay?

You don't need to lose your nerves vego. I already explained expressed my opinion many times.
1- You don't need to have a cure for cancer to admit it's fatal. So supporting Hezbollah's apocalyptic ideologies is not the answer to the how to disarm it question. It's like increasing your alcohol consumption because you figured out you're diagnosed with cirrhosis. I remind you of the days of Syrian occupation: Did the opposition have a sure weapon in hands?
2- To face Hezbollah, you need to refute its ideology, and propose the alternative. Of course the first level is politics then.
3- Regarding the military side, there are few options:
a- Hezbollah willingly disarming. (which is unlikely)
b- Disarming Hezbollah by force. I'm not sure what are the options available for that at the moment.
c- All other parties re-arming until the moment everybody disarms (to create a form of justice).

I would opt for choices a or c, but, in any case, any kind of support for Hezbollah is certainly the opposite of wanting them to disarm.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

They could have known, and they could have been too stupid to realize it. After all, the Saudis are no Kessinger.

Okay.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Quite an entertaining version. As for the "very rightful" decisions, I say that they were sinisterly conceived and irrealistic. That was surely not the correct way to deal with HA's weapons and communication network. The decisions effectively meant fully exposing HA to the israeli assassinations and infiltration, which is nothing short of treason in my book before HA's.
U want to deal with HA's weapons, go to the roots and fix it.

I think the governmental decisions were very important in dealing with Hezbollah's weapons. Those illegal networks and weapons are exposing all Lebanese to assassinations and infiltrations. Only the Lebanese official security forces have the right to have any sort of secret telecommunications networks.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

what did it do to have its actions labeled as political prostitution? Share a few examples.
As for the political opinions, some are wrong I concur, but most are far more superior than anyone in both camps.

Please refer to my earlier posts, to avoid repetition.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Me too. I hope he stays out of the gov this time around. good riddance.

I do hope feb 14 win the elections, but if they don't, he should for sure not participate in the government.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

He would have made it since his words actually count for nothing since he's not bound by them. And many times in the past, he gave his word only to go back on it few days later.
His move is nothing short of an electoral stunt in my opinion.

Could be.

[vegojimbo]

Originally Posted by chafic

Who's not your ally vego?

SSNP. As for Amal, it's the ally of my ally.

He wasn't in a higher league, he just played his role; Others were assigned small or different roles.

His role was much bigger than the rest. So he is to be judged on that basis.

Again, those were Syria policies, and behavior, which Hariri, Hezbollah, Amal, Franjieh and others were integral part of.

Now now, the economical policies were entirely his. Do not minimize his responsibility in it, by lumping others into the mix. Surely, they (syrians +their puppets in Lebanon) benefited from it, but Hariri had full control over the economical policies, as long as syrian pockets wee kept full.

Again, I don't remember him indulging in violence; He didn't stand against it. Right, but that's different. Nonetheless, I think he should seriously start thinking about building a militia.

What happened in Solidere was typical of what any militia could do (not saying that the enforces were militiamen, but the acts were of the same type).
As for his legacy (FM), it's just as militia as HA and Amal. The Beirut and North events, as wel las Halba Massacre, indicate so.
There's really no need to start something that already exists.

You did not what?

I fixed it. You may check it again.

No, there isn't, it's the most critical danger. And I'm not talking merely about Hezbollah's weapons, but also its ideology; Certainly the first is a priority.

And I think otherwise. The economy, thefts, services, rights, etc... concern me much more than HA's weapons, knowing I, as a lebanese, can't remove those weapons by force. Dialogue is within my capabilities though, and I'm doing that.

You don't need to lose your nerves vego. I already explained expressed my opinion many times.
1- You don't need to have a cure for cancer to admit it's fatal. So supporting Hezbollah's apocalyptic ideologies is not the answer to the how to disarm it question. It's like increasing your alcohol consumption because you figured out you're diagnosed with cirrhosis. I remind you of the days of Syrian occupation: Did the opposition have a sure weapon in hands?
2- To face Hezbollah, you need to refute its ideology, and propose the alternative. Of course the first level is politics then.
3- Regarding the military side, there are few options:
a- Hezbollah willingly disarming. (which is unlikely)
b- Disarming Hezbollah by force. I'm not sure what are the options available for that at the moment.
c- All other parties re-arming until the moment everybody disarms (to create a form of justice).

I would opt for choices a or c, but, in any case, any kind of support for Hezbollah is certainly the opposite of wanting them to disarm.

It's you who think I've lost my nerves, while I'm just as calm as ever. I, however, don't appreciate don Quixotian attitudes, that keep repeating something but offer no solutions to it.

1- I see HA's weapons and ideology as loss of weight, which is one symptom of cancer. However, there are far more worrying symptoms like fever, hemorrage, metastases, organ perforation, anorexia, etc... Treating the loss of weight and ignoring the rest of the symptoms would make a lousy doctor and would jeopardize the patient's life for failing to present a proper diagnosis and setup a precise treatment parameter. A good doctor would start with the most alarming symptom (being hemorrage then perforation), then move on to the rest in a comprehensive global treatment which deals with the root of the problem. If I treat a symptom, another one might pop up in its place, or even my treatment can have side effects that could worsen the prognosis.

2- and the alternative being the loyalists? The alternative is FPM, and this is clear in its performance in the ministries it was given charge of.

3- a- the only real solution. However, the problem lies in how to convince HA to do that. Maybe, removing the reasons for those weapons to exist, and assuring HA that without their weapons they will still be treated like equal citizens, might just convince them. Though I admit it's a bit more complicated than that since there are also regional factors involved.
b- a catastrophic solution as civil war will erupt
c- another apocalyptic scenario, and anyone who advocates it does not really consider HA's weapons as being the antagonism of the state, and his reason to despise those weapons is just due to selfish hatred reasons. Those who support the state and only the state, would never call for an increase in rearming.

I think the governmental decisions were very important in dealing with Hezbollah's weapons. Those illegal networks and weapons are exposing all Lebanese to assassinations and infiltrations. Only the Lebanese official security forces have the right to have any sort of secret telecommunications networks.

So HA are now involved in the assassinations? What more jewels should we expect? There are intelligence services from all countries around the world on lebanese soil, and they really don't need HA for that.
The governmental decisions were disastrous and short-sighted as they would have exposed HA to israeli assassinations and to the exposure of HA's entire infrastructure. That is a defacto-direct aid to Israel, hence a treasonous act.
And besides, the reasons behind those decisions were not to impose the rule of law and empower the state, as the man behind them (dear ol' Joumbi) is now praising the weapons of HA. Ironical or what?

Please refer to my earlier posts, to avoid repetition.

Nice evasion.

I do hope feb 14 win the elections, but if they don't, he should for sure not participate in the government.

Good for u. The main thing is that u remain obsessed with HA and its weapons, and forget about improving ur quality of life, forget what the loyalists have done during their past 4 year rule (which has been nothing but lies, fueling sectarianism, fabrications, shahid this, abusing blood of that, my dad is more important than all of u, etc..), forget about the increase in debt, forget that FPM has been the only side that presented laws that help improve ppl's lives and the only party that did something beneficial in the government, etc...
Yalla go masochist on urself, just for the sake of stopping the big bad HA. And as a cheery on top, FPM is an evil conniving bi*ch of a wh*re.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

SSNP. As for Amal, it's the ally of my ally.

We'll see soon regarding SSNP, same for Amal. At least your part of the same political gathering; The political principles would join what parliamentary seats might have separated. Don't you worry about that.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

His role was much bigger than the rest. So he is to be judged on that basis.

He's to be judged on the negative he did; That's it.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Now now, the economical policies were entirely his. Do not minimize his responsibility in it, by lumping others into the mix. Surely, they (syrians +their puppets in Lebanon) benefited from it, but Hariri had full control over the economical policies, as long as syrian pockets wee kept full.

Oh I see, and the Syrian pockets being fulled had no consequences on the policies. That is just a tiny details. And you can simply assume that his economical policies were a failure regardless of the context.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

What happened in Solidere was typical of what any militia could do (not saying that the enforces were militiamen, but the acts were of the same type).

So much not, but hey, how could anyone contest such fanciful sayings.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

As for his legacy (FM), it's just as militia as HA and Amal. The Beirut and North events, as wel las Halba Massacre, indicate so.
There's really no need to start something that already exists.

I really am not interested in changing the way you view things, so let's just say FM has to manage to build an organized and capable militia.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

I fixed it. You may check it again.

.....

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

And I think otherwise. The economy, thefts, services, rights, etc... concern me much more than HA's weapons, knowing I, as a lebanese, can't remove those weapons by force. Dialogue is within my capabilities though, and I'm doing that.

What you call dialogue is actually blackmail by Hezbollah, and playing the role of a stooge feeding on the remains of the big guy's meal from the other side. It's the same dialogue others used to have with Syrians while serving as their puppets. And please keep in mind, that Hezbollah and ilks are directly and indirectly responsible for economy failures, thefts, services and rights deterioration...

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

It's you who think I've lost my nerves, while I'm just as calm as ever. I, however, don't appreciate don Quixotian attitudes, that keep repeating something but offer no solutions to it.

You're offering the solution Assaad Hardan (for example) used to offer during the Syrian occupation if you get my point. In other words, what FPM is doing is integral part of the problem and an aggravation of it, so you still have to move from the problem category to the solution category.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

1- I see HA's weapons and ideology as loss of weight, which is one symptom of cancer. However, there are far more worrying symptoms like fever, hemorrage, metastases, organ perforation, anorexia, etc... Treating the loss of weight and ignoring the rest of the symptoms would make a lousy doctor and would jeopardize the patient's life for failing to present a proper diagnosis and setup a precise treatment parameter. A good doctor would start with the most alarming symptom (being hemorrage then perforation), then move on to the rest in a comprehensive global treatment which deals with the root of the problem. If I treat a symptom, another one might pop up in its place, or even my treatment can have side effects that could worsen the prognosis.

Sorry vego, but you went round and round to basically say nothing. Regardless of what symptom you assume Hezbollah's weapons to be (although it's certainly not a symptom but a disease), you're actually working on making it worse; Sort of prescribing for the patient some Zain al Atat weight loss pills.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

2- and the alternative being the loyalists? The alternative is FPM, and this is clear in its performance in the ministries it was given charge of.

Oh, it's sad how you constantly have to limit yourself to this small frame of loyalists vs FPM. By alternative I meant alternative political ideas or principles.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

3- a- the only real solution. However, the problem lies in how to convince HA to do that. Maybe, removing the reasons for those weapons to exist, and assuring HA that without their weapons they will still be treated like equal citizens, might just convince them. Though I admit it's a bit more complicated than that since there are also regional factors involved.

The idea is laughable. I have no more to say.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

b- a catastrophic solution as civil war will erupt

Not necessarily. Under proper circumstances, I think it would be possible to disarm Hezbollah by force. Not the best solution? Certainly, and probably too costly. But one of the few available. But as Jefferson said, timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

c- another apocalyptic scenario, and anyone who advocates it does not really consider HA's weapons as being the antagonism of the state, and his reason to despise those weapons is just due to selfish hatred reasons. Those who support the state and only the state, would never call for an increase in rearming.

I totally disagree, that is probably the most pragmatic and just solution. Of course, it will undermine the power of a unitary state in its current form, toward more power to smaller states, as the one Hezbollah has already established, but it will at least re-establish some sort of justice. In other words, instead of having one mini state, imposing its will on a weak central government, we will have multiple military capable mini-states sharing power in a central government. Of course that should ideally evolve toward a unification of these mini-states, but until that happens, this approach of hybrid political system seems the only just one.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

So HA are now involved in the assassinations? What more jewels should we expect? There are intelligence services from all countries around the world on lebanese soil, and they really don't need HA for that.

Hezbollah is the most powerful militia in Lebanon, so it can very much be behind any of the assassinations; That doesn't mean they couldn't have been carried by others. But your attitude is like one telling the other: We have to deal with this major gang in the city because the crime level is alarming; The second replies: There are other gangs, why should we deal with this one.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

The governmental decisions were disastrous and short-sighted as they would have exposed HA to israeli assassinations and to the exposure of HA's entire infrastructure. That is a defacto-direct aid to Israel, hence a treasonous act.

Regardless of the above commercialized mumbo jumbo, Hezbollah is not an agreed national institution, but a militia, so weakening it (as a military organization) is anything but a treasonous act; It's rather a duty.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

And besides, the reasons behind those decisions were not to impose the rule of law and empower the state, as the man behind them (dear ol' Joumbi) is now praising the weapons of HA. Ironical or what?

I'm impressed by how some Aounists use some febers to justify themselves. Let Nasser Kandil be behind the decisions, they would still be right. Aren't you really bored of this low political quibbling?

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Nice evasion.

If I'm evading repetition, let it be.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Good for u. The main thing is that u remain obsessed with HA and its weapons, and forget about improving ur quality of life, forget what the loyalists have done during their past 4 year rule (which has been nothing but lies, fueling sectarianism, fabrications, shahid this, abusing blood of that, my dad is more important than all of u, etc..), forget about the increase in debt, forget that FPM has been the only side that presented laws that help improve ppl's lives and the only party that did something beneficial in the government, etc...

Do you really expect anyone to buy that? Hezbollah, and subsequently FPM and others, were over the past four years the pillars of the worst possible political behavior: extremism, sectarianism, violence, and propaganda. The febers behavior was pretty bad too, but nothing beats turning the whole idea of a state, of a social contract upside down. Hezbollah and its friends are not only bad players, they are actually violating the rules of the game.

Originally Posted by vegojimbo

Yalla go masochist on urself, just for the sake of stopping the big bad HA. And as a cheery on top, FPM is an evil conniving bi*ch of a wh*re.

Youchka style . Entertaining.