Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Syrian Sister

Tens Of Thousands Syrian Pro Govt Protesters.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If the people of Syria manage to take over the government, you can probably forget about Assad. Or do you really think he would have a chance in democratic elections, after what he has done to his people? But why not trust the Syrian people? Or do you think they are all hooligans who love corruption and hate competence?

I am convinced the Syrians are no less intelligent than any other people and like any other people they also wish to live in peace. A democratic Syria would be happy to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. And Israel would not hesitate to return the Golan heights to a democratic Syria.

I agree that it depends on ones opinion what truly is a democracy. And maybe we can discuss that in another thread. No democracy is perfect. But I hope we can at least agree that the examples given in the list you provided, did not live up to the standards of modern democracies like USA or Israel - (not to mention more advanced democracies like the Scandinavian countries).

I doubt UN will recognize Palestine. But why is that necessary in order to have elections? And why was it necessary for Hamas and Fatah to kill each other instead of treating each other in a democratic civilized way?

(salam)

I think there's a miscommunication error. I'm saying that there are two options: al-Assad stays and implements reforms or the Ba'athist regime falls and some other government takes over.

Do you really think that if Syria becomes democratic, the Zionists will hand over the Golan Heights? Lebanon was and is democratic, but South Lebanon has been occupied for years. The Zionists (especially their right-wing parties) wish to continue settlements and keep current territory as long as possible.

Hamas and Fatah now have an alliance and this alliance is growing recently with greater cooperation between both parties. Why wouldn't the UN recognize Palestine? The following map shows the countries that recognize Palestine in green.

post-79598-0-65758100-1306793617_thumb.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I think there's a miscommunication error. I'm saying that there are two options: al-Assad stays and implements reforms or the Ba'athist regime falls and some other government takes over.

Do you really think that if Syria becomes democratic, the Zionists will hand over the Golan Heights? Lebanon was and is democratic, but South Lebanon has been occupied for years. The Zionists (especially their right-wing parties) wish to continue settlements and keep current territory as long as possible.

Hamas and Fatah now have an alliance and this alliance is growing recently with greater cooperation between both parties. Why wouldn't the UN recognize Palestine? The following map shows the countries that recognize Palestine in green.

Lebanon is a democracy? A system where certain politicians have to belong to certain religions in order to be elected! Where the government only can control part of the army.The other part is controlled by a terrorist organisation that starts wars without asking the government. Seems more like anarchy to me.

Israel is only occupying a small part of land - the Shaaba farms. And I am convinced Israel would gladly give back this peace of land in return for peace. But Lebanon has not even recognized Israel!

Another problem is that it is most unclear to which country the Shaaba farms rightly belong. Israel took them from Syria. So why should they be returned to Lebanon? I have a feeling this is something Hizbollah (probably encouraged by Syria and Iran) has invented in order to have an excuse for making war. But I am convinced the lebanese people want peace.

As for UN recognition of Palestine, I think USA will use veto against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt Israel will just hand over the Golan or that a democratic Syria would be pro-Israel. A non-sectarian Lebanon would benefit Hezbollah and Amal at the expense of the Christian parties. Everyone, including the Christians know this. That's a large part of what the civil war was about, the Christians fighting tooth and nail for the sectarian system. One man one vote would result in a much more hostile Lebanon as the er, less anti-Israel Maronites loose power. I don't think even the LF can be called friendly to Israel at the this point. Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and it didn't seem to bring out the peace and love, if you know what I mean. I doubt Hezbollah doubling its Parliament seats would make Israel and the Shi'ite population of Lebanon kiss and make up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I think there's a miscommunication error. I'm saying that there are two options: al-Assad stays and implements reforms or the Ba'athist regime falls and some other government takes over.

Do you really think that if Syria becomes democratic, the Zionists will hand over the Golan Heights? Lebanon was and is democratic, but South Lebanon has been occupied for years. The Zionists (especially their right-wing parties) wish to continue settlements and keep current territory as long as possible.

Hamas and Fatah now have an alliance and this alliance is growing recently with greater cooperation between both parties. Why wouldn't the UN recognize Palestine? The following map shows the countries that recognize Palestine in green.

Probably the same reason as why the UN does not recognise Kosovo, 75 out of 192 United Nations (UN) members recognise Kosovo as a state ( Iran does not recognise Kosovo though ). A vote would probably be passed, as many of those who dont recognise Kosovo would likely just abstain. But the Russians have made it clear, they would veto any UN move to recognise Kosovo. China may also likely veto such a move. I guess at least the US would veto any UN move to recognise Palestine, and probably a few other veto wielding members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt Israel will just hand over the Golan or that a democratic Syria would be pro-Israel. A non-sectarian Lebanon would benefit Hezbollah and Amal at the expense of the Christian parties. Everyone, including the Christians know this. That's a large part of what the civil war was about, the Christians fighting tooth and nail for the sectarian system. One man one vote would result in a much more hostile Lebanon as the er, less anti-Israel Maronites loose power. I don't think even the LF can be called friendly to Israel at the this point. Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and it didn't seem to bring out the peace and love, if you know what I mean. I doubt Hezbollah doubling its Parliament seats would make Israel and the Shi'ite population of Lebanon kiss and make up.

On the Christian Lebanese, I remember reading that most of the Christian population in Lebanon supported Hezbollah and if Hezbollah's policies towards Christians would be anything like Iran, Jordan, or Syria, I'd say the Christians would be well taken care of.

The trouble with occupied Zion and the independent Palestinian territories is that both cannot be so easily recognized at the same time. Like, it is impossible for me to support an independent Palestinian state and justifying the occupied territories of the Zionists as being legitimate. In my view, the two ideas are diametrically opposed. Even if Palestine in conjunction with the 1967 borders is recognized by UN, this will only solve one problem of several.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to lighten things up a bit.

Israel took the Shaaba farms from Syria. How come they should now rightfully belong to Lebanon. Why should anyone believe what Nasrallah says? Please give me a link where it is shown that Syria officially has renounced the ownership!

Another thing is; which mandate does Assad (the father?) have to give awai Syrian territory? Shouldn´t he have asked the opinion of the Syrian people first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Al-Khalifa family has not made reforms for 228 years. They are less likely to do so than Assad.

Based on current Assad ( reforms in words only, and not actions ), and his father who put all the emergency rules in place to start with, its seems unlikely current Assad will bring in reforms. His brother is still very young also and he controls the army pretty much. I dont see him wanting change either.

Also Hamid ibn Al-Khalifa does not have an old guard preventing him from doing anything. Hamid ibn Al-Khalifa simply wants to keep power and "stability" within his nation and gain as much aid from the GCC and the US as possible.

The father is the 'Old Guard' and his elderly relatives are the 'old guard' as are the old rulers of neighbouring kingdoms. Maybe the Crown Prince when he takes over will make reforms, that is just as likely as Assad making reforms.

The people who fight against anti-Western governments are the heroes, while those who fight against pro-Western governments are foreign agents and terrorists.

The people who fight against anti-Western governments ( even if they are autocratic dictatorships ) are terrorists in the eyes of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran etc.., so they have no moral high ground to be shouting either about Western portrayal.

Saleh wants to paint all the protestors as helpers of Al-Qaida or "Houthis" wishing to reestablish the Zaydi caliphate in Yemen. There are some members of Al-Qaida who are using the protests as a way to infiltrate the nation, but the vast majority of protestors are not affiliated with Al-Qaida. I have a thread called "Saleh's New Hope" in this forum which shows a news article about Saleh's new attacks against tribesmen. The Yemeni government right now wishes to create a civil war to hold on to power--just days after Saleh "warned" that there would be a civil war.

Just like Assad and Gaddafi etc... wanted to do.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt Israel will just hand over the Golan or that a democratic Syria would be pro-Israel. A non-sectarian Lebanon would benefit Hezbollah and Amal at the expense of the Christian parties. Everyone, including the Christians know this. That's a large part of what the civil war was about, the Christians fighting tooth and nail for the sectarian system. One man one vote would result in a much more hostile Lebanon as the er, less anti-Israel Maronites loose power. I don't think even the LF can be called friendly to Israel at the this point. Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and it didn't seem to bring out the peace and love, if you know what I mean. I doubt Hezbollah doubling its Parliament seats would make Israel and the Shi'ite population of Lebanon kiss and make up.

You don´t seem to have high thoughts of Hizbollah and its supporters. I cannot imagine they are all aggressive, fanatics, ready to blow themseves up - as is unfortunately more and more becoming the general idea of Islam in western countries. Most muslims that I have met say that Islam is a peaceful religion. So why would the muslims of Lebanon and Syria want war?

Syria says they want the Golan back. Lebanon (at least Hizbollah - obviously even according to Nasrallah there are Lebanese who disagree) wants the Shaaba farms. If that is all they want I would be very surprised if Israel would not consider a peace agreement and mutual recognition worth returning of those pieces of land.

At least, wouldn´t it be worth a try? Or do they want more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Lebanon is a democracy? A system where certain politicians have to belong to certain religions in order to be elected! Where the government only can control part of the army.The other part is controlled by a terrorist organisation that starts wars without asking the government. Seems more like anarchy to me.

Israel is only occupying a small part of land - the Shaaba farms. And I am convinced Israel would gladly give back this peace of land in return for peace. But Lebanon has not even recognized Israel!

Another problem is that it is most unclear to which country the Shaaba farms rightly belong. Israel took them from Syria. So why should they be returned to Lebanon? I have a feeling this is something Hizbollah (probably encouraged by Syria and Iran) has invented in order to have an excuse for making war. But I am convinced the lebanese people want peace.

As for UN recognition of Palestine, I think USA will use veto against it.

Many people in the South of Lebanon support Hizbullah and its social welfare policies. And the UN considers Hizbullah to be a freedom fighter force that is legitimate in its cause to end Zionist occupation of Lebanon. Have you been to Lebanon and met its people?

Just to lighten things up a bit.

:D

That reminds me of the video where Nasrallah made a comparison of John Bolton with Geppetto from Pinnochio.

Probably the same reason as why the UN does not recognise Kosovo, 75 out of 192 United Nations (UN) members recognise Kosovo as a state ( Iran does not recognise Kosovo though ). A vote would probably be passed, as many of those who dont recognise Kosovo would likely just abstain. But the Russians have made it clear, they would veto any UN move to recognise Kosovo. China may also likely veto such a move. I guess at least the US would veto any UN move to recognise Palestine, and probably a few other veto wielding members.

Iran wishes to keep good and strong relations with Russia. That is why they have vetoed several nations that broke from Russian allies or Russia itself, but supported (but did not recognize) South Ossetia. I, personally, would rather support Kosovo than keeping it with Serbia.

If the US vetoes this move, what do you think world opinion of the US

Based on current Assad ( reforms in words only, and not actions ), and his father who put all the emergency rules in place to start with, its seems unlikely current Assad will bring in reforms. His brother is still very young also and he controls the army pretty much. I dont see him wanting change either.

The father is the 'Old Guard' and his elderly relatives are the 'old guard' as are the old rulers of neighbouring kingdoms. Maybe the Crown Prince when he takes over will make reforms, that is just as likely as Assad making reforms.

The people who fight against anti-Western governments ( even if they are autocratic dictatorships ) are terrorists in the eyes of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran etc.., so they have no moral high ground to be shouting either about Western portrayal.

Just like Assad and Gaddafi etc... wanted to do.

Lately, it seems Bashar al-Assad is stalling and his reforms are not having that great of an effect, but if he does stay in power, it is necessary for him to implement reforms to his government.

The same argument could be made for al-Assad and any despotic ruler.

I am not talking about HIzbullah's, Iran's, or Syria's view on people fighting against anti-Western governments.

Nasrallah, though, has supported the Libyan rebels in his speeches. I also believe Iran is pro-Libyan Revolution.

Just like Ibn Khalifa and King Abdullah Al-Saud wanted to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

(salam)

Many people in the South of Lebanon support Hizbullah and its social welfare policies. And the UN considers Hizbullah to be a freedom fighter force that is legitimate in its cause to end Zionist occupation of Lebanon. Have you been to Lebanon and met its people?

Salam.

So you think the Shaaba farms belong to Lebanon, or what occupation are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Christian Lebanese, I remember reading that most of the Christian population in Lebanon supported Hezbollah and if Hezbollah's policies towards Christians would be anything like Iran, Jordan, or Syria, I'd say the Christians would be well taken care of.

Hmmm, define "support". A lot of Christians support Hezbollah against Israel but nevertheless deeply distrust and dislike Hezbollah, particularly since it is linked to Syria and Iran. LF sites I have seen are vitriolic against both Hezbollah and Israel. The Future movement is more pro-Hezbollah but hardly willing to hand more power to it. And after the bloodletting of the civil war, I can assure you that the Christians will not feel even slightly comfortable under the power of anything close to Syria in particular. They are very anti-Syria. Any attempt to abolish sectarianism would almost certainly restart the civil war.

You don´t seem to have high thoughts of Hizbollah and its supporters. I cannot imagine they are all aggressive, fanatics, ready to blow themseves up - as is unfortunately more and more becoming the general idea of Islam in western countries. Most muslims that I have met say that Islam is a peaceful religion. So why would the muslims of Lebanon and Syria want war?

Syria says they want the Golan back. Lebanon (at least Hizbollah - obviously even according to Nasrallah there are Lebanese who disagree) wants the Shaaba farms. If that is all they want I would be very surprised if Israel would not consider a peace agreement and mutual recognition worth returning of those pieces of land.

At least, wouldn´t it be worth a try? Or do they want more?

I'm not sure where you got the idea I think Hezbollah are mindless killers. I said that none of the reasons they have for fighting Israel will change if Lebanon were to abolish sectarianism. It would probably expand their internal power in Lebanon at the expense of the Maronite, Sunni and Druze parties. The fate of Shaaba farms are a secondary issue, it would be easy enough to find a compromise if that was all that was at stake. Lebanon's hostility to Israel is mostly based on the fact Israel has messed up South Lebanon before several times and Hezbollah doesn't trust Israel not to do it again unless they have missiles pointed at their head. Golan is more important since A. Israelis live there now and wouldn't be too keen on either leaving or living in Syria B. It is strategically important ground and Israel probably doesn't trust the Arabs not to use it against them if they give it up.

(salam)

Many people in the South of Lebanon support Hizbullah and its social welfare policies. And the UN considers Hizbullah to be a freedom fighter force that is legitimate in its cause to end Zionist occupation of Lebanon. Have you been to Lebanon and met its people?

Bah, who cares about the UN? The important thing is that with the history of war there neither side trusts the other. Probably both sides are fully justified in their belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1518.jpg

MORE SURPRISING FACTS ON SYRIA...-SYRIAWATCH-Syrian Opposition(EXPOSED) to Meet amid Growing International Concern http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syriawatch-syrian-opposition-to-meet.html

In the afternoon, SAC hosted a summit to plan the group’s efforts to support the pro-democracy movement in Syria.' 'The summit began with a briefing by a high-ranking State Department official on the current situation in Syria,''

SYRIAWATCH-Seeking to Disrupt Protesters, Syria Cracks Down on Social Media(CONSPIRACY FURTHER EXPOSED) http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syriawatch-seeking-to-disrupt.html

“They are using these tactics to cut off communication for the people,” said Dr. Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies. He said the Facebook pages of at least two close friends had been recently hacked and now featured conspicuously pro-government messages.

“The only way we get information is through the citizen journalists,” said Ammar Abudlhamid, a Syrian activist based in Maryland who was one of several Syrian exiles to help organize delivery of satellite phones, cameras and laptops into the country earlier this year. “Without them, we would not know anything.

[ME:I LOVE IT,I LOVE IT,I LOVE IT,WHO IS RADWAN ZIADEH?JUST A PUPPET FOR SAME IMEPRIALIST THINK THAT PRODUCED THE FAKE RAUL REYES FILES AGAINST FARC A MONTH AGO!!!SEE...Syria’s crimes against humanity will be presented to the United Nations next week by ''IISS,A BRITTISH RIGHTWING MILITARY THINK TANK AND ROTHSCHILD PUPPET'' ''Radwan Ziadeh' http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syria-proof-of-conspiracy.html

(EGYPT ADMITS OUTSIDE AGENDA IN SYRIA) Dr. Rafat Sayyed Ahmad directs Yafa Research Center in Egypt ''Syria’s security interconnected with Egyptian revolution'' http://www.qodsna.com/NewsContent-id_37154.aspx

What takes place at current in Syria has both targeted the government and the nation. The conditions go dubious when the outlaw Abd al-Halim Khaddam asks the US to attack the Syrian army, making one to suspect a hand of conspiracy behind the riots, taking the fact into consideration that the likes of Khaddam have never sought freedom and justice in Syria.I believe that the US is going to ride the waves of protests to oust the Syrian government as a starting point for targeting the existing resistance movements in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. The Syrian protest therefore is rather a US-instigated revolution than a true popular revolution.

I warn that if the US and Israeli plot against Syria proceeds successfully, the repercussions would also affect the fledgling revolution of the Egyptian people as the revolution runs counter to the hegemonic system of the world

Syria Grand Mufti: The Conspiracy Targets Syria's Culture http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syria-grand-mufti-conspiracy-targets.html

MUST SEE...Iran-Syria Operations Group http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran-Syria_Operations_Group

MUST SEE... Regime change in Syria - SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Regime_change_in_Syria

Syrian Revolution? chanting bigoted slogans against non-Sunnis in Jableh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRL3w6KBtVk They're saying "No to shia" "No to Hezbollah" "No to Iran"

Honesty of the Syrian Revolution? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peL2CRYdlmo Syrian Revolution terrorists pretend to be dead to fluff up the death toll as they are photographed. They come back to life on video. 1:20 and 1: 49 .. GOT'CHA AGAIN!(HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION EXPOSED!)

The Siege of Syria Perception management & US-funded unrest used to justify regime change http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/siege-of-syria-perception-management-us.html

The coverage by the corporate-owned Western media exclusively relies on "activists inside and outside the country," the London-based "Syrian Human Rights Monitoring Centre" which apparently has no web presence, the Damascus Center for Human Rights which boasts memberships with the National Endowment for Democracy and Tides Foundation-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, funded by the European Union, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, and Humanity United.

SYRIAWATCH-Divisions within the Syrian Opposition(EXPOSED) on Eve of Turkey Meeting http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syriawatch-divisions-within-syrian.html

The opposition meeting scheduled to take place in Turkey in four days (May 30) has brought out divisions among leaders of the Syrian uprising. A meeting of some 400 opposition members in Washington on Tuesday also brought some unity. The opposition is divided over the proper role foreign governments should play in bringing down the Syrian regime. Some believe that only foreign action – primarily sanctions as presently articulated – will destroy the Syrian government. ''One advocates an Israeli role in the destruction of the regime.'' ''Authors at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy propose ways they believe that Sunni soldiers can been persuaded to defect from the Syrian Army''

SYRIAWATCH-Evidence Israel helps Syrian dissidents,Israel cancels Syrian opposition meeting http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/05/syriawatch-evidence-israel-helps-syrian.html

FOR FULL LIST OF FACTS PROVING GLOBALIST,ZIONIST,NEOCON,AND ITS ARAB CLIENT REGIMES(SAUDI-QATARI-JORDAN MONARCHY)CONSPIRACY AGAINST SYRIA.. http://syriafalseflag.blogspot.com/

OH AND I FORGOT,WSWS FINALLY AFTER OVER 2 MONTHS COMES CLEAN AND ADMITS A WESTERN CONSPIRACY AGAINST SYRIA..ONLY TOOK 2 AND A HALF MONTHS !!! LOL.

SYRIAWATCH-FALSE FLAG EXPOSED AGAIN--Syria becomes centre of struggle for regional influence http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/syri-m28.shtml

Many of the more prominent opposition spokesmen are associated with Washington, London and Paris, which seek to draw Syria away from its alliance with Iran in favour of an openly pro-Western orientation. Not a few are regime defectors and CIA operatives. A number have been funded or sponsored by Washington, including the Damascus Declaration Group, a coalition of Syria’s splintered opposition parties including the Muslim Brotherhood.

The leaders include Dr. Kamal al-Labwani, who was invited to the White House, Michel Kilo and Riad Seif, a wealthy businessman and former legislator.Another oppositionist is the former Syrian vice president and wealthy businessman Abdul Halim Khaddam, who has close links to the slain former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, his son Saad Hariri, and the Saudi regime, and now lives in exile in Paris.

Khaddam’s armed supporters and Islamists were involved in the protests in the coastal town of Baniyas that sought to overthrow Assad, a plot foreshadowed in the leaked US cables. The social website Syrian Revolution 2011, which has played a prominent role in calling the protests and posting news of the unrest, is operated from Sweden and has close links with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.The US and other major powers maintain grave reservations over any open call for Assad’s ouster for fear of destabilising the region, of which Syria is the linchpin. Nevertheless, their attitude has hardened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got the idea I think Hezbollah are mindless killers. I said that none of the reasons they have for fighting Israel will change if Lebanon were to abolish sectarianism. It would probably expand their internal power in Lebanon at the expense of the Maronite, Sunni and Druze parties. The fate of Shaaba farms are a secondary issue, it would be easy enough to find a compromise if that was all that was at stake. Lebanon's hostility to Israel is mostly based on the fact Israel has messed up South Lebanon before several times and Hezbollah doesn't trust Israel not to do it again unless they have missiles pointed at their head. Golan is more important since A. Israelis live there now and wouldn't be too keen on either leaving or living in Syria B. It is strategically important ground and Israel probably doesn't trust the Arabs not to use it against them if they give it up.

Well, I don´t know what impression you have of Hezbollah. I personally believe that most people want to live in peace. But there are some people who feel that life is meaninless without violence. Many of them are outlaws - robbers, drug dealers, football hooligans etc. But they are also found in the police or military. It is natural that such people are more frequently found in countries with social disturbances. They are often charismatic which makes it possible to dupe ordinary people. I think Nasrallah is a typical example. But even he needs a motiv for his instigation. And if you wish to stir up muslims you can always use Israel. So he needs the Shaaba farms to hide his true motiv - power. Of course Golan is more important. But I doubt Syria will ever give Golan to Lebanon. So it is useless to Hizbollah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think the Arab-Israeli wars are as simple as a football hooligan getting out of hand, you should probably read up on a little bit of the history of the region. There is much more behind it than people fighting for the fun of it, no offense.

EDIT: And I'm not sure what Syria giving the Golan, which it doesn't control, to Lebanon, which has never possessed, claimed or wanted it, has to do with much of anything. :huh:

Edited by Akritas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of the protests currently are organized or instigated by Syrians who don't live in Syria, whose political ties are questionable.

I think this is very possible. We get very little information about what happens in Syria. And logically it must also be very difficult for people inside Syria to get correct information, which makes it even more difficult to organize protests. So of course they need help from outside. And considering the desperate situation they have better accept any kind of help - no matter where it comes from.

EDIT: And I'm not sure what Syria giving the Golan, which it doesn't control, to Lebanon, which has never possessed, claimed or wanted it, has to do with much of anything. :huh:

It has to do wit Hizbollah claiming that Syria has given the Shaaba farms to Lebanon, which (as far as I know) has never claimed or wanted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shebaa farm dispute is a bit contorted if you go into the legal technicalities, but Lebanon does claim it and officially supports Hezbollahs stance. I believe the Syrians have made contradictory statements at various times. I tend to view it as a propaganda exercise since such a trivial territorial dispute could be solved if either side had any good will, but it isn't like Hezbollah is acting totally unilaterally or just annexing random land to Lebanon. Certainly they have no ambition to somehow rule the Golan. To be honest and to turn the tables a bit, I'm not sure where you get the idea Hezbollah is a bunch of yahoos killing people for the heck of it rather than a political actor shaped by the interests of the community it represents and its own history and experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shebaa farm dispute is a bit contorted if you go into the legal technicalities, but Lebanon does claim it and officially supports Hezbollahs stance. I believe the Syrians have made contradictory statements at various times. I tend to view it as a propaganda exercise since such a trivial territorial dispute could be solved if either side had any good will, but it isn't like Hezbollah is acting totally unilaterally or just annexing random land to Lebanon. Certainly they have no ambition to somehow rule the Golan. To be honest and to turn the tables a bit, I'm not sure where you get the idea Hezbollah is a bunch of yahoos killing people for the heck of it rather than a political actor shaped by the interests of the community it represents and its own history and experiences.

Yes, it seems you are right about Lebanon having claimed it. But I too see it as propaganda and a dispute that could be solved if the sides involved had any good will. As for Lebanon and Israel I believe this good will exists. Siniora was asking for British help to get UN to recognize the Shaaba farms as lebanese. I.e. he tried the diplomatic way. And I cannot imagine that Israel would refuse to give the Shaaba farms to Lebanon, if this would mean a peace agreement between the two countries. And of course it would help if Syria officially recognized that the Shaaba farms are Lebanese territory.

But would you agree that the reason Syria has not done that is that Syria would not like peace and diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Israel? And neither does Hizbollah? And then the question remains - what is the agenda of Hizbollah? Honestly I don´t know. But I think it has to do with power. And just like in any other totalitarian organisation - e.g. Hells Angels - violence plays an important role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is very possible. We get very little information about what happens in Syria. And logically it must also be very difficult for people inside Syria to get correct information, which makes it even more difficult to organize protests. So of course they need help from outside. And considering the desperate situation they have better accept any kind of help - no matter where it comes from.

Well, what I was getting at is that it seems like we hear very little from actual Syria and most of those who are voicing for Assad's complete ouster and talking about human rights abuses aren't even in Syria itself.

As for an update on Syria's situation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/31/syria.unrest/ -- Syria Offers Amnesty for Arrested Protesters

A report Tuesday on the website of SANA, Syria's state news agency, said that in addition to granting general amnesty, Assad's decree "also pardons half penalties for felonies if there was no personal claim."

The report says Article 1 of Assad's decree grants "general amnesty for all crimes committed before May 31, 2011, according to the following." It then lists changes in punishments. The death penalty will be replaced with a "life sentence of hard labor or long imprisonment sentence according to the crime," a life sentence of hard work will be replaced with "20 years imprisonment with hard labor," and so on.

Roughly 830 people have been killed in the protests, according to the Syrian Human Rights Information Link. That number does not include security personnel whom the Syrian government says died in attacks by "armed groups."

The United States has imposed new sanctions on al-Assad and other senior Syrian officials over human rights abuses, freezing any assets held in the country .

Also from Google News, we have this little tidbit:

Dialogue Committee Announced

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ith7Onkk3Yt79s46RKuAYJKoG8_Q?docId=CNG.915526f7922b483e95acaa723b7f087d.151

DAMASCUS — A senior official in Syria's ruling Baath party said on Tuesday that a committee for national dialogue in the troubled country would be set up within 48 hours, the daily Al-Watan reported.

The newspaper, which is close to the government, quoted party number two Mohammed Said Bkhetan as telling a Baath party meeting that the committee's members would be wide-ranging.

"The committee for dialogue is composed of all political currents, and people from political and economic life and society in general will take part," it quoted him as saying.

"The mechanisms of the dialogue will be announced within 48 hours," he said.

More than 1,100 civilians have been killed and at least 10,000 arrested since protests against President Bashar al-Assad's autocratic government erupted in mid-March, human rights organisations say.

Bkhetan said the number of people protesting in Syria was no more than 100,000, out of an overall population of around 22 million.

"It's the same people demonstrating every time. They protest at night, shouting 'Allahu akbar' (God is greatest) as well as every Friday, but we must bring a swift end to this as we are under enormous pressure," he added.

The government insists the unrest is the work of "armed terrorist gangs" backed by Islamists and foreign agitators.

It initially responded to the revolt by offering some concessions, including lifting the state of emergency in place for nearly five decades, but coupled this with a fierce crackdown.

Al-Watan reported that Bkhetan also ruled out abrogating Clause 8 of Syria's constitution, which states that the Baath party is the sole leader of the state and society.

"Any constitutional amendment is the competence of the council of the people" or parliament, in which the Baath party has more than half the number of deputies, he said.

"We have told the opposition that they can abolish this clause if they gain power and we become the opposition," he said.

The third parliamentary election since Assad succeeded his father Hafez in July 2000 is due soon in Syria.

This committee has been confirmed by spokesmen from the Syrian Communist Party, which helped push for this meeting of various political parties, who also voice their concerns over foreign intervention in Syrian affairs and the deaths of security and military personnel, as well as civilians, by armed protest groups.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/scp310511.html

--Excerpts--

But the course of events has changed recently. Armed gangs targeting army and police personnel, ransacking public and private properties, have emerged, killing many victims, both civilians and members of the security forces. Normal life in several cities has been brought to a standstill. The aggressive behavior of these armed gangs has overshadowed the peaceful protest movement. Syrian media have broadcast films showing terrorist fundamentalist groups who admitted to receiving money and weapons from external sources to launch attacks against security personnel and their families.
Our people take the threats to our country seriously and stand together in confronting them. The foreign plots thus will not succeed in changing the national policy of our country: Syria's opposition to the US-Israeli project; Syria's struggle to liberate the Golan Heights; Syria's support for the struggle of the Palestinian people to liberate their land, to build an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, as well as for the struggles to liberate Iraq from the US occupation and South Lebanon from the Israeli occupation.

We very much appreciate the firm positive stances of Russia and China exposing the threats to Syria and giving full support to Syria in this crisis.

Now our party is working with other Syrian parties, the Syrian national opposition forces, and various currents of civil society in order to put in practice the proposal for a conference for national dialogue.

With our best comradely wishes,

Hunein Nemer

First Secretary of the Syrian Communist Party (Unified)

What I find funny about Western media coverage is this:

1. Though death tolls are presented, many reports are unable to confirmed. Even UNICEF was willing to acknowledge due to conflicting reports concerning child casualties, that an "investigation" into these events must be done to bring whoever was responsible to justice and whether the validity of the claims of the acts being done by security personnel was true or authorized by high ranking government officials in any way.

2. When deaths of protesters are presented in the news, it is never really discussed what the circumstances of these events were. For example, there are and have been since the beginning of these protests, reports of armed groups and protesters threatening other civilians, including minorities such as the Christians and Alawites, to take part in protests resulting in abuse if they decline. So when deaths are reported, it is never taken into account whether or not the deaths were caused directly by security forces with contempt towards unarmed protesters, whether this was a result cross fire between armed gangs and security officers, whether those killed were members of armed gangs, or whether the deaths themselves are done by armed groups against other more peaceful protest groups. All we hear from US and British media is "this many people or civilians died. Oh and the government continues to disperse and crackdown on protests" with reports that cannot be confirmed or in which the exact circumstances of the events cannot be ascertained. This suggests to me that perhaps Western news media outlets are using sketchy reports of people dying and then trying to pass of the blame of the deaths directly to security forces and that the protesters could not at all possibly be responsible for instigating violence.

3. There is never any actual detail on what the protesters demand. Media coverage only says "pro-democracy movements" without any actual discussion on what protesters are demanding or any exact details on what they are calling for except when someone mentions "Assad leave." However, from what I've gathered, some groups have only called for reforms to the current regime and many high ranking politicians of Syria and other countries, including Assad himself, have acknowledged that this must take place with a national dialogue committee to discuss such reforms ready to begin soon. Yet it doesn't seem like the West is focusing on this current development hardly at all and is trying more so to discuss the deaths of citizens (in which the circumstances of such and the deaths of security personnel are not reported) in an effort to cast doubts and anger at Assad's character.

Another thing I find funny is how the USA has freezed assets to Syria...yet it has not done so with Bahrain in which the atrocities of the government security forces with US funding are well confirmed. Why is the USA willing to freeze assets and funding to Syria based on sketchy reports that even our news media outlets acknowledge can't be confirmed but not to Bahrain, where clear, traceable, and credible video and written accounts have confirmed human rights abuses for months???

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of the protests currently are organized or instigated by Syrians who don't live in Syria, whose political ties are questionable.

I wouldn't say organized, but its known fact that most anti-Ba'athist regime newspapers and television programs are staged in the US, like the Iranian Green Movement. The US, of course, would like a new Syria that's pro-Zionist.

EDIT: And I'm not sure what Syria giving the Golan, which it doesn't control, to Lebanon, which has never possessed, claimed or wanted it, has to do with much of anything. :huh:

The Ba'athist regime in Syria wants the Golan Heights for itself. Hizbullah, which acts to regain occupied territory in Lebanon, sees Syria as an ideological supporter and thus an alliance was made since their enemy and goals were the same.

And then the question remains - what is the agenda of Hizbollah? Honestly I don´t know. But I think it has to do with power. And just like in any other totalitarian organisation - e.g. Hells Angels - violence plays an important role.

It would be best if you read the 2009 Political Manifesto of Hizbullah. Hizbullah does not have a state, therefore it cannot be considered totalitarian.

Well, what I was getting at is that it seems like we hear very little from actual Syria and most of those who are voicing for Assad's complete ouster and talking about human rights abuses aren't even in Syria itself.

As for an update on Syria's situation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/31/syria.unrest/ -- Syria Offers Amnesty for Arrested Protesters

Also from Google News, we have this little tidbit:

Dialogue Committee Announced

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ith7Onkk3Yt79s46RKuAYJKoG8_Q?docId=CNG.915526f7922b483e95acaa723b7f087d.151

This committee has been confirmed by spokesmen from the Syrian Communist Party, which helped push for this meeting of various political parties, who also voice their concerns over foreign intervention in Syrian affairs and the deaths of security and military personnel, as well as civilians, by armed protest groups.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/scp310511.html

--Excerpts--

These developments are good but al-Assad needs to do more. With his regime filled with corruption and nepotism and new accounts of brutality that reminds people of Hafez, he needs to do much more.

What I find funny about Western media coverage is this:

1. Though death tolls are presented, many reports are unable to confirmed. Even UNICEF was willing to acknowledge due to conflicting reports concerning child casualties, that an "investigation" into these events must be done to bring whoever was responsible to justice and whether the validity of the claims of the acts being done by security personnel was true or authorized by high ranking government officials in any way.

2. When deaths of protesters are presented in the news, it is never really discussed what the circumstances of these events were. For example, there are and have been since the beginning of these protests, reports of armed groups and protesters threatening other civilians, including minorities such as the Christians and Alawites, to take part in protests resulting in abuse if they decline. So when deaths are reported, it is never taken into account whether or not the deaths were caused directly by security forces with contempt towards unarmed protesters, whether this was a result cross fire between armed gangs and security officers, whether those killed were members of armed gangs, or whether the deaths themselves are done by armed groups against other more peaceful protest groups. All we hear from US and British media is "this many people or civilians died. Oh and the government continues to disperse and crackdown on protests" with reports that cannot be confirmed or in which the exact circumstances of the events cannot be ascertained. This suggests to me that perhaps Western news media outlets are using sketchy reports of people dying and then trying to pass of the blame of the deaths directly to security forces and that the protesters could not at all possibly be responsible for instigating violence.

3. There is never any actual detail on what the protesters demand. Media coverage only says "pro-democracy movements" without any actual discussion on what protesters are demanding or any exact details on what they are calling for except when someone mentions "Assad leave." However, from what I've gathered, some groups have only called for reforms to the current regime and many high ranking politicians of Syria and other countries, including Assad himself, have acknowledged that this must take place with a national dialogue committee to discuss such reforms ready to begin soon. Yet it doesn't seem like the West is focusing on this current development hardly at all and is trying more so to discuss the deaths of citizens (in which the circumstances of such and the deaths of security personnel are not reported) in an effort to cast doubts and anger at Assad's character.

Another thing I find funny is how the USA has freezed assets to Syria...yet it has not done so with Bahrain in which the atrocities of the government security forces with US funding are well confirmed. Why is the USA willing to freeze assets and funding to Syria based on sketchy reports that even our news media outlets acknowledge can't be confirmed but not to Bahrain, where clear, traceable, and credible video and written accounts have confirmed human rights abuses for months???

3. This is the result of having people's revolutions--there isn't a strong or just leader to show the way and path for the revolution. This is how the Second Arab Revolt is and will be. We will not know what the Syrian protestors truly stand for until they either voice their stand or overthrow the regime.

1 & 2. This a result of al-Assad trying to prevent foreigners from entering the country to instigate armed resistance. Also, propaganda is being spewed from both sides.

Bashar al-Assad also needs to stop the brutality of his police lately. It is getting as bad as Al-Khalifa's and Al-Ghaddafi's brutal crackdowns now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These developments are good but al-Assad needs to do more. With his regime filled with corruption and nepotism and new accounts of brutality that reminds people of Hafez, he needs to do much more.

3. This is the result of having people's revolutions--there isn't a strong or just leader to show the way and path for the revolution. This is how the Second Arab Revolt is and will be. We will not know what the Syrian protestors truly stand for until they either voice their stand or overthrow the regime.

1 & 2. This a result of al-Assad trying to prevent foreigners from entering the country to instigate armed resistance. Also, propaganda is being spewed from both sides.

Bashar al-Assad also needs to stop the brutality of his police lately. It is getting as bad as Al-Khalifa's and Al-Ghaddafi's brutal crackdowns now.

Yes, I agree he can do more, but I think what has separated him from other leaders being protested against is that he has actually wanted to do more. The problem is how can he be expected to fulfill promises for reform when people are not settling down and giving him the chance. Even members of his own party acknowledge there needs to be change and inter-party dialogue, but how can they be expected to lift a state of emergency and enact reform policies if people are burning buildings and attacking security forces?

The one problem with the accounts of police brutality is again, we can't be sure of the circumstances. The reports are shady at best and we can't be sure how many members of the security forces, if any, who are guilty of human rights abuses are doing so on the behalf of Assad. What if protesters are giving reasons for police to retaliate with force or what if some police are not acting on the authority of Assad but on their own personal judgement??The Western news paints this portrait of Assad as given orders to exterminate men, women, and children who compromise his political supremacy and that he's suppressing the majority of the Syrian people when it seems to me that there is plenty evidence to the contrary.

If there are human rights abuses by security forces, I have trouble believing it is by the will of Assad, or that it is on the scale that is being told by the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of the protests currently are organized or instigated by Syrians who don't live in Syria, whose political ties are questionable.

Really? You can't make a statement like that without substantiation. I don't know if it is true or not but I can understand it because only those outside Syria have freedom of speech similar to Iran in 1979 when Khomeini operated from France.

Yes, I agree he can do more, but I think what has separated him from other leaders being protested against is that he has actually wanted to do more. The problem is how can he be expected to fulfill promises for reform when people are not settling down and giving him the chance. Even members of his own party acknowledge there needs to be change and inter-party dialogue, but how can they be expected to lift a state of emergency and enact reform policies if people are burning buildings and attacking security forces?

The one problem with the accounts of police brutality is again, we can't be sure of the circumstances. The reports are shady at best and we can't be sure how many members of the security forces, if any, who are guilty of human rights abuses are doing so on the behalf of Assad. What if protesters are giving reasons for police to retaliate with force or what if some police are not acting on the authority of Assad but on their own personal judgement??The Western news paints this portrait of Assad as given orders to exterminate men, women, and children who compromise his political supremacy and that he's suppressing the majority of the Syrian people when it seems to me that there is plenty evidence to the contrary.

If there are human rights abuses by security forces, I have trouble believing it is by the will of Assad, or that it is on the scale that is being told by the West.

Assad has had years to make reforms and hasn't done so, talking about reform when he is under the gun is disingenuous. The man is a butcher just like his father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

It would be best if you read the 2009 Political Manifesto of Hizbullah. Hizbullah does not have a state, therefore it cannot be considered totalitarian.

Why can´t an organisation be totalitarian? Besides Hizbollah controls most of south Lebanon.

But I read the Manifesto. I was of course not surprised that Hizbollah dislikes Sionism and american hegemony. But I find it interesting seeing that "The fact that the Lebanese political system was established on a sectarian basis constitutes in itself a strong constraint to the achievement of true democracy where an elected majority can govern and an elected minority can oppose, opening the door for a proper circulation of power between the loyalty and the opposition or the various political coalitions. Thus, abolishing sectarianism is a basic condition for the implementation of the majority-minority rule."

So it seems Hisbollah wanst Lebanon to become a secular democracy!

But:

"Hence, we emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria as a political and security and economic need, dictated by the two countries and two peoples and the imperatives of geopolitics and the requirements for Lebanese stability and common challenges. We also call for an end to all the negative sentiment that have marred bilateral ties in the past few years and urge these relations to return to their normal status as soon as possible." If they really want democracy - why support a dictatorship? Hypocrites!

And: "In this context, Hezbollah considers Iran as a central state in the Muslim world, since it is the State that dropped through its revolution the Shah's regime and its American-Israeli projects, and it's also the state that supported the resistance movements in our region, and stood with courage and determination at the side of the Arab and Islamic causes and especially the Palestinian one."

Iran is a Muslim theocracy. Don´t we have reason to fear that this is actually the political system on Hizbollahs agenda?

Finally:

"We categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy," Sayyed Nasrallah concluded. "This position is definitive, even if everyone recognizes Israel."

As far as I understand, this means that Hizbollah does not want peace. So it doesnt`t matter what Israel does - Hizbollah wants the war to continue.

Well, this was about the idea I could get of Hizbollahs agenda from reading the Manifesto. Not much really. And maybe I have misunderstood it. In any case I am grateful if anyone would try to make me understand better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll sum it up as best I can, though as usual it is complicated.

Hezbollah would like to see the sectarian system abolished, as would most Muslim communities. This isn't totally altruistic since, like I said before, it would increase their power. Lebanon was formed by France as a Christian refuge or enclave or whatever you want to call it. and the system was set up so Christians would have a majority. The Shia in particular are badly underrepresented, having 30-40% of the population and something like 15% of the seats in parliament, I forget the exact number but you can google it easily enough. The Christians, for mostly selfish reasons, want it to continue and this was one of the several factors leading to the civil war. Hezbollah is not a supporter of what a European would call 'secular' democracy. It is unashamedly an Islamist, religious party and has close ideological as well as material, ties to Iran. I don't know their exactly position on things like vileyet-e-fiqh or even if they have one, but they are not a European secular party. Syria is much more an ally of convenience than an ideological one, the Ba'ath party ideology has little in common with Hezbollahs and while they happen to have a common enemy they aren't really a mutual admiration society.

Also, this no longer has much to do with Syria so if we want to continue it, it might be wise to open a thread in the Lebanon subforum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this no longer has much to do with Syria so if we want to continue it, it might be wise to open a thread in the Lebanon subforum.

Maybe we should have another thread. But I think this has a lot to do with Syria and actually the whole ME. So maybe we could have a thread about democracy vs theocracy. Or about which role religion should be allowed to affect the political system. I would also like to discuss the agendas of Hizbollah, Hamas, Israel etc.

What about the Israelis who love their country but whish to live in peace with arabs? Should they also be exterminated etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are at least half a dozen different topics, none of which are more than tangentially related to what's going on in Syria, so you might want to start several new threads to talk about all of those, haha.

On topic, my personal opinion is that as long as the military doesn't crack, the government will survive. Too many among the urban people and minorities are nervous, apathetic or hostile for a mass uprising to really work and he who has the guns wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Really? You can't make a statement like that without substantiation. I don't know if it is true or not but I can understand it because only those outside Syria have freedom of speech similar to Iran in 1979 when Khomeini operated from France.

(salam)

I wouldn't say organized, but its known fact that most anti-Ba'athist regime newspapers and television programs are staged in the US, like the Iranian Green Movement. The US, of course, would like a new Syria that's pro-Zionist.

Why can´t an organisation be totalitarian? Besides Hizbollah controls most of south Lebanon.

But I read the Manifesto. I was of course not surprised that Hizbollah dislikes Sionism and american hegemony. But I find it interesting seeing that "The fact that the Lebanese political system was established on a sectarian basis constitutes in itself a strong constraint to the achievement of true democracy where an elected majority can govern and an elected minority can oppose, opening the door for a proper circulation of power between the loyalty and the opposition or the various political coalitions. Thus, abolishing sectarianism is a basic condition for the implementation of the majority-minority rule."

So it seems Hisbollah wanst Lebanon to become a secular democracy!

But:

"Hence, we emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria as a political and security and economic need, dictated by the two countries and two peoples and the imperatives of geopolitics and the requirements for Lebanese stability and common challenges. We also call for an end to all the negative sentiment that have marred bilateral ties in the past few years and urge these relations to return to their normal status as soon as possible." If they really want democracy - why support a dictatorship? Hypocrites!

And: "In this context, Hezbollah considers Iran as a central state in the Muslim world, since it is the State that dropped through its revolution the Shah's regime and its American-Israeli projects, and it's also the state that supported the resistance movements in our region, and stood with courage and determination at the side of the Arab and Islamic causes and especially the Palestinian one."

Iran is a Muslim theocracy. Don´t we have reason to fear that this is actually the political system on Hizbollahs agenda?

Finally:

"We categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy," Sayyed Nasrallah concluded. "This position is definitive, even if everyone recognizes Israel."

As far as I understand, this means that Hizbollah does not want peace. So it doesnt`t matter what Israel does - Hizbollah wants the war to continue.

Well, this was about the idea I could get of Hizbollahs agenda from reading the Manifesto. Not much really. And maybe I have misunderstood it. In any case I am grateful if anyone would try to make me understand better.

Hizbullah considers itself a "state within a state." It implements several social services and welfare programs for the people of Southern Lebanon.

Hizbullah supports a non-sectarian democracy in Lebanon. It wishes to have rights for all religious groups (Sunnis, Shias, Maronites, etc.) but also supports Islamic values and rule.

Hizbullah supports Syria because Syria supports it vocally and with land-based aid. They have the same enemy, so Hizbullah is favored by Syria. This alliance really came about in the long, brutal Lebanese Civil War.

And finally, Hizbullah does suport Wilayat ul-Faqih and Sayyid Nasrallah himself gave a speech on it in the '80s.

I'll sum it up as best I can, though as usual it is complicated.

Hezbollah would like to see the sectarian system abolished, as would most Muslim communities. This isn't totally altruistic since, like I said before, it would increase their power. Lebanon was formed by France as a Christian refuge or enclave or whatever you want to call it. and the system was set up so Christians would have a majority. The Shia in particular are badly underrepresented, having 30-40% of the population and something like 15% of the seats in parliament, I forget the exact number but you can google it easily enough. The Christians, for mostly selfish reasons, want it to continue and this was one of the several factors leading to the civil war. Hezbollah is not a supporter of what a European would call 'secular' democracy. It is unashamedly an Islamist, religious party and has close ideological as well as material, ties to Iran. I don't know their exactly position on things like vileyet-e-fiqh or even if they have one, but they are not a European secular party. Syria is much more an ally of convenience than an ideological one, the Ba'ath party ideology has little in common with Hezbollahs and while they happen to have a common enemy they aren't really a mutual admiration society.

Also, this no longer has much to do with Syria so if we want to continue it, it might be wise to open a thread in the Lebanon subforum.

Hizbullah is not only a religious party--it is also a political party that institutes social services that the government cannot provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Hizbullah considers itself a "state within a state." It implements several social services and welfare programs for the people of Southern Lebanon.

Hizbullah supports a non-sectarian democracy in Lebanon. It wishes to have rights for all religious groups (Sunnis, Shias, Maronites, etc.) but also supports Islamic values and rule.

Hizbullah supports Syria because Syria supports it vocally and with land-based aid. They have the same enemy, so Hizbullah is favored by Syria. This alliance really came about in the long, brutal Lebanese Civil War.

And finally, Hizbullah does suport Wilayat ul-Faqih and Sayyid Nasrallah himself gave a speech on it in the '80s.

Hizbullah is not only a religious party--it is also a political party that institutes social services that the government cannot provide.

I have the impression the leaders of Hizbollah are very pragmatic. Hizbollah supports dictatorship in Syria, advocates democracy in Lebanon. But the final aim is to make Lebanon a theocracy like Iran. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the impression the leaders of Hizbollah are very pragmatic. Hizbollah supports dictatorship in Syria, advocates democracy in Lebanon. But the final aim is to make Lebanon a theocracy like Iran. Right?

Every religious organization promotes theocracy in some manner, whether they say it or not, because every religious establishment would prefer it if those in the world judged according to their values and wishes to convince enough people to make its values the predominate. If by theocratic rule you mean that Hezbollah wants to force people to follow religious guidelines they don't want to, no. But if by theocratic rule you mean that Hezbollah wishes to convince people towards its religious beliefs as well as political and establish a government around the moral principles of that ideology, then yes, but that's the agenda of any religious movement whether it is politically active or not.

With Syria, Hezbollah simply doesn't believe the hype and thinks the regime should stay while still making reforms. Why throw out the whole car if only the tires are flat??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Syria, Hezbollah simply doesn't believe the hype and thinks the regime should stay while still making reforms. Why throw out the whole car if only the tires are flat??

The same regime that has been extremely friendly and helpful to Hezbollah, but has yet to make any concrete reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same regime that has been extremely friendly and helpful to Hezbollah, but has yet to make any concrete reforms.

If you think Hezbollah's too biased, then how can you or anyone else trust all that you hear about Syria from Britain and the USA who have as much to gain from Assad's removal as Hezbollah has to lose?

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Hezbollah's too biased, then how can you or anyone else trust all that you hear about Syria from Britain and the USA who have as much to gain from Assad's removal as Hezbollah has to lose?

Journalists are not allowed to report. Doesn´t this proove that Assad is guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Hezbollah's too biased, then how can you or anyone else trust all that you hear about Syria from Britain and the USA who have as much to gain from Assad's removal as Hezbollah has to lose?

Amnesty International has lots of reports from insiders as to what is going on in Syria. Its also has lots of similar reports for Bahrain. UN has asked Assad to allow in a small group to access what is happening. Syria said yes as it has nothing to hide, UN asked at 1st of May, and Syria has been stalling on granting access ever since. Yeah, nothing to hide. This group would be escorted around to where they asked to go, so we can stop all this 'they would be spies, or they would instigate more protests' rubbish.

If you think Hezbollah's too biased, then how can you or anyone else trust all that you hear about Syria from Britain and the USA who have as much to gain from Assad's removal as Hezbollah has to lose?

Are you applying similar rules to all Iranian, Al Manar ( Hezbollah channel ) news etc.. you hear about Bahrain?.. They have much to gain by removal of Sunni monarchy, as the US might have about losing its Naval base there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if by theocratic rule you mean that Hezbollah wishes to convince people towards its religious beliefs as well as political and establish a government around the moral principles of that ideology, then yes, but that's the agenda of any religious movement whether it is politically active or not.

Many immigrants came to the secular USA because they suffered religious persecution in their countries with theocratic rules.But on US money is written "in God we trust" and american presidents usually end their speeches with "God bless America". So even USA could be seen as a theocracy. Right?

Would you be happy if Obama ended a speech with "Allah bless America"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...