Re: The Knife in the Back

DrSMITH wrote:
josephmouhanna@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
So, it's a coencidence that they only act up when Syria has an ax to

I can't deny that Hezbollah's actions have regional implications. Is it
possible that you're misinterpreting those coincidences?

Really? because you keep insisisting that the only thing Hezballah
wanted to do was a prisoner exchange. So, if the following is obvious:

1. There will be regional consequences.
2. The response is going to be severe.
3. Hezballah has no ability to stop Israel's killing machine.

Then how can you claim that it was about a simple prisoner exchange?

BTW, in the latest of coincidence, Hezballah is backpedalling on what
it agreed it as far as the ceasfire is concerned, right after Iran and
Syria annunced similar positions. Another in a long set of
The issue is simple. I'm comparing Hezbollah's new position (after it
dissociated itself from Iran)

Really? I still see Iranian officials stopping by, long after the

to Jumblatt's who turned against his old
"friends" while Hezbollah didn't have to do so.

So, he's now talking about a pure Lebanese agenda. What's wrong with

Their allegiance to
Lebanon did not imply cutting friendly ties but only declaring
autonomy. You are refusing this and we can agree to disagree.

Interesting how you frame it, but it's based on a false premise. There
is nothing friendly toward Lebanon in those friendly ties. They are
ties to enemies of Lebanon, and that makes the overall context
non-friendly to Lebanon.

Though you'll have to explain Hezbollah's recent actions in this light.

What actions are you referring to? attacking Israel on cue from the
Assad regime and Iran?

you also disagree that their latest stances are nationalistic, there
won't be a need to proceed with this part of the debate.

What is nationalistic about retaining an arsenal which sole purpose is
to intimidate the Lebanese population. If we can agree that his arsenal
has zero effect in stopping the carnage against Lebanon, then what
other purpose does it serve?

What finger? insisting that only the Lebanese army have control over
Lebanon? Insisting that we not have a state within a state? I am still
waiting on an answer from you or anyone else on the significane of the
prisoners Hezballah is asking for.

Insisting that their position is the only one because they have the
American green light.

Frankly, I have no clue what you're talking about. Whose position? and
*who* is insisting and supporting the attack on Lebanon?

Hezbollah's demands were symbolic - the force of
symbolism is so strong it's driving Israel to self-destruction and
political suicide because of the same petty politics we had before the

What symbolism are you talking about? If they are symbolic, then they
should have stayed in the realm of fantasy and not taken military

I really hope that we have achieved unity this time - the price was
very high - with some Schadenfreude.

Unity? you have got to be kidding. As for the schadenfreude, who are
you referring to? the Assad regime?

The only difference in here is that the wasps are supposedly
intelligent and they know you didn't have anything to do with
disturbing their nest.

I picked wasps for a reason. Intelligence is out of context. The real
context is what's pre-programmed. In this case, it's the war scenarios
hatched out by Israel and the US, with the proverbial fig leaf of
Lebanese groups support. The equivalent in here is a wasp's
pre-programmed aggressive attack mechanism. It does not stop until the
pre-programmed goal is achieved. If Lebanon is destroyed in the
process, it matters very little to the pre-programmed response.

Moreover, they can be held responsible for what they did to you.

It matters very little to the wasp's pre-programmed response.

I can also add that if they stung you the first day
and stopped, I'd understand why you'd blame me. But continuing to block
your road, sting you, and sting all your family and all the neighbors
for a whole month even after promises of not bothering anymore...
wouldn't you agree that it would be time to call the firemen to remove
such a nest from its place?
I'd still be responsible, but you can't blame me while we're running to
safety, and you can't attribute their psychopathologies to me!

See above, once their pre-programmed response is unleashed, it's going
to take its course. The smart thing to do would have been not to
distrurb them when one knows full well what they're capable of,
psychopathologies and all (if you're saying that Nesrallah thinks the
Israelis are a bunch of nice guys,that goes against everything he's
been saying all along).
Yet, you have not been able to provide the significance of the
prisoners in whose names Lebanon was destroyed.

I'm not a Hezbollah member, but I'm trying to give my perspective.

No, you have not been able to provide a perspective on the prisoners,
yet you inisted that this was a normal prisoner exchange, as in
business as usual.

It was the price to give up arms and integrate in the Lebanese nation.

So, it's about national unity, and not a simple prisoner exchange?
which is it?

the final price was high, but the result, if everything goes right,
will be of historical proportion: a united Lebanon for the first time
since the declaration of independence!

Do you seriously think that where we are today, August 14, is national

So Aoun is making sectarian statements in your opinion?

Absolutely. When he talks about the Sunni agenda being in lockstep with
the Saudi, and attempts to formulate a sectarian-based balance, it's
all about sectarianism thinly disguised. If he drops that disguise, I
would have more respect for him. The answer to Lebanese unity is not
some memorandum of understanding, it's one-person one-vote and
completely abolishing sectaranism, not creating a sectarian-based

I don't deny it's interference. But let's not forget that you're
comparing the Mexican society's will to the UN draft which is basically
foreign countries deciding what to do in Lebanon! I'd say it's a
conflict of outside interferences. Instead of backing, I should have
said parroting since their position didn't count as much as the
internal Lebanese consensus bravely held by Siniora.

You chose the example, and I'm responding to it. Foreign interference
is foreign interference. Period.

Cheap comments is pointing the finger at me and implying lack of
patriotism on my part. Two can play that game, as illustrated above. Or
can you only dish it out and are incapable of taking it (another

Cheap comments are clear when you do know that I have family in
Lebanon. As for patriotism, I can't be the judge of that. I'm only
pointing out your position as backing the American-March 14 agenda to
the detriment of the majority in Lebanon part of which has recently
shifted sides after the obscure positions of some politicians and their
double standards were revealed.

This was a very simple test, and you failed it miserably. You started
*your* responses out to me by including a number of *you* and
insinuations that I am with backing the American-March 14 agenda
(whatever that is). When you don't see that in the same caliber, or
even harsher than me saying that I have family in Lebanon that I am
concerned about, then you show that you can unfraily dish it out, but
cannot take it.

Cheap comments are clear as day when your post is full of *you*. This
should be lesson number one for you. That is unless you want to adopt
the following position: you strike first, and then you tell me that I
can only respond in a certain way.

1. how me where I support the March14-American agenda.

2. Show me what the March14-American agenda is.

3. Show me what the problem is with me wanting to protect my family
(and you should know better than to insinuate that all areas of Lebanon
received the same level of destruction).

History doesn't stop or begin according to particular dates.

You think?

It's a fact. Historians have to present it in time chunks, but
timelines and events continue no matter what.

You missed the obvious sarcasm.

The key term here is that he *knew* what the Israeli response would be
like, so it negates your statement above about this being just another
prisoner exchange.

I *know* what you'll say... Now let's evaluate how absolute is the key

The response scenario is the only thing we can be
certain of (and this does not come from him, it comes from a magazine
artible he was quoting). The other part is conjecture on his part, and
he is not a credible source at this time.

But he's credible when referring to his knowledge beforehand about the
response? Can't it be a statement that is part of psychological war?

Credibility is irrelevant and out of context. I am picking an chosing
which part to believe, I am calling it out of context. War scenario of
not, Hezballah's philosophy and indoctrination (and that of their
masters Iran, and I say masters because it is an undisputed fact that
Iran started Hezballah and has been its primary supplier and financier,
even as we speak), is that of an unprincipled, and murderous Israel.
That alone is the basis I use for my response and that should be the
only context, not some "he said, they said" argument over a military
scenario. The core of Hezballah's belief system is enough to believe
that he should have expected this type of response, so stop playing
with words and re-connect with Hezballah's reality.

As for the psychological war, if you mean the psycholigical effects
this war is going to have on the people of Lebanon, then I agree, he
does wage a good psychological war. If you mean it differently, then I
agree, it's a good psychological tool to control the Lebanese
population, especially when he presents his *victory* to the Lebanese
people. I'll sit on the edge of the destroyed Madfoun bridge and have a
drink to that, and thank him for this *victory*.
You're judging them by their own propaganda but then again, I wonder
which politician in the world can be judged against his publicity and
come out a winner!

OK, so I can't judge them by their propaganda, and I can't judge them
by their actions. What should I rely on?

He doesn't need to save his behind. He has been able to resist for a
whole month and that's far more than anybody ever imagined.

Everyone, but Israel's wanna-be soldier Prime Minister, and the US
wanna-be soldier (who could not cut in a cushy US-side assignment
during the Vietnam war) President, and his yes people (all of whom
managed to avoid miliary service), was aware that Hezballah is well dug
in, and nothing short of a costly infantry campaign will dislodge him.

I'm sorry but you miss the Arabic poetic license. I heard his comment,
and it was directed at the outcome. He definitely did not mean the
military part of this war.

Enough with the poetic licenses, and psych war, and anything else that
stops short of making things right for those who lost their homes and
loved ones or lived with anxiety for the past five weeks. BTW, how do
you know he did not mean the military part? more propaganda? is his
meorandum propaganda as well? what should we believe or not believe? is
his promise to shop off the hands that come close to his arms not be
believed? how do you partner up with someone when you need a
combination of a psychologist, astrologer, and mind reader to

The retaliation should have been
against them, and the Lebanese know that, which is why they do support

Saying that the Lebanese support them is a fallacy,

I'm relying on published statistics. (The latest is that 93% of the
Shiites back Hezbollah.) You seem to have numbers of your own.

You said the *Lebanese*, and now you're saying the Shiites. The two are
not the same, even though in a unified society they should, but in this
case one party (Hezballah) is making unilateral decisions.

Here's an easier version: accusing a guy of his neighbor's death
because some nut shot her while looking for him.

Completey out of context.

both parties are equally guilty.

Do I understand that you're holding Hezbollah responsible for its

Where on earth (or in my posts) did you think I am not hloding
Hezballah responsible for its actions.

If so, then we are in agreement - no Iran and no Syria.

No, we are not. One of Hezballah's actions is being a tool for Iran and
the Assad regime. This is part of holding them responsible for their

You minimized Israel's guilt by omission - you don't give a rat's
ass... (maybe a misinterpretation on my behalf where if true, I'd owe
you an apology).

A gross misinterpretaion, and deliberate omission of evething I said
here about no one having clean hands. Not to mention you ignoring the
context of me saying that I do not give a rat's ass about Israel.
Israel is going to do what it's going to do, and Arab regimes (and
Hezballah) have been asking us to put our lives on hold in anticipation
of what Israel may or may not do. There's an American saying that goes
like this "careful what you wish for, you may get it". In the
meanwhile, Israel has been busy building its economy, educational and
technology sectors. Guess what, this very tool you're using to write
your posts had its most important parts (the CPU, the networking
hardware) designed in Israel. What is Hezballah teaching in its
Iranian-financed schools: martyrdom. Lebanon deserves better.

Using the March 14 politicians' anti-Hezbollah
arguments with the support of the American agenda (which only concern
was Israel's well-being) might have been the source of confusion.

What anti-Hezballah arguments? If Bush said "the moon orbits the earth"
(assuming he knows that), then would it be his position, or the obvious
fact? This would be different from him saying that he liberated
Lebanon, which is fiction. Which part of the March 14 politicians'
statements do you disagree with? why don't you start with that before
accusing me of using their arguments (and I asked you multiple times to
show me where I do that).

Your anti-Hezbollah bias doesn't help either.

I did not know that I needed to justify my pro-Lebanon bias, which you
know very well, and which is based on rejection of military solutions
and a one-person one-vote sectarian democracy and a rejection of both
Israel's destructive pre-programming and Hezballah's missile-assisted
blackmail of the rest of Lebanon. When you accuse me of something, get
the obvious facts right, else don't complain about my responses.

OK, so when your first argument fails, you switch gears. What does it
matter? a full page ad was run in the New York Times, and not some
local small town paper.

My argument didn't fail. Those groups you talk about have been opposing
the State of Israel for years (and some opposed even the existence of
Israel). Now they got to first page, good for them.

Wrong again. These are not the Orthodox Jews opposed to the State of
Israel. These are people concerned about the destruction to Lebanon,
and this is what the full page ad was about. The ad was of course
opposed by the Christian right, and a represntative of one of the
Christian groups had the audacity of saying that he visited Israel a
few times, so he knew more about what Jews wanted than the
American-Jewish group placing the ad.

I'm talking about
those who should have seen the change in Lebanese internal
understanding - as Siniora did - and are keeping the same line of

I don't know what that is. Saniora, and most of us, were calling for an
immediate cessation of hostilities (something I said many times on this
thread, but you kept splitting hairs with me on). Everything Saniora
said is based on a Lebanese agenda that's been on the table from day
one, except that Lebanon (and Saniora) in particular has been pursuing
diplomatic channels to resolve. The Hezballah and Aoun camps are now
attempting to make us believe that this is a new Saniora position. This
*is* propaganda. I am specifically talking about Saniora's agenda of
resolving the Shebaa issue with Syria and the prisoners issue, and the
mines issue with the UN, etc.. Only problem is that Syria refused to
meet wih him on these issues, but was receiving Hezballah and its
allies to discuss *alternatives*. Nothing new here, except five weeks
of war (which I hope is over), more than a housand Lebanese dead,
billions of $s in damage, a bleaker economic outlook for Lebanon, and a
stronger Israel (a step backwards for Lebanon's economy and technology
sectors represents a lower threat level for the same Israeli sectors).
Way to go Hezballah. Are you going to accuse me again of having
anti-Hezballah bias?

A non-representative government with a Lebanon missing a part and a
will to subdue a resistance movement without integrating it
appropriately in the decision process is no news to you. There are also
conjectures about the price to pay concerning the Palestinian refugees
and the possibility of nationalizing them.

The Lebanese government is non-representative by definition: it is a
sectrain-based regime. This is the only thing I am interesting in
fixing, anything else would amount to nothing more than a reshuffle of
the deck chairs on the Titanic.