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

Lebanon Port Explosion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

"There is no credible evidence that I have seen that Hezb was involved in the Hariri assasination."

Not that either of us would see the evidence, as we aren't involved in the trials. However those conducting the international investigations have suggested that Hezbollah is unequivocally guilty.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/the-hezbollah-connection.html

And hiding these responsible figures from trial of course doesn't help their case. They're practically run-away convicts. 

"I have never seen any evidence that they are using their weapons to undermine the Lebanese government"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-conflict/lebanon-government-denounces-hezbollah-coup-in-beirut-idUSL0742599820080509

Of course someone could say that they are "entwined" with the government. Because they're heavily armed and strong-arming the government to fit their agenda.

They're basically operating as a mafia that has more weaponized power than the Lebanese government, thereby using their power to manipulate Lebanese policies in their favor.

You asked who they are fighting against:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-may-10-fg-lebanon10-story.html

destroying opponents’ political offices and shutting down media outlets loyal to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and to Sunni leader Saad Hariri’s Future movement.

The conflict was triggered Tuesday when the government challenged Hezbollah’s de facto autonomy by outlawing its strategic fiber-optic communications network. Hezbollah fighters responded by pushing into the heart of the capital from strongholds in south Beirut and southern Lebanon, an escalation in the political crisis that seemed to catch the Siniora administration by surprise.

its not Hezbollahs position to just seize a portion of the country via armed force, because it wants to protect it's own private telecommunications.

Imagine if an armed group did such a thing in any developed country. An armed group using guns, just starts seizing political offices and shutting down media outlets and running private communication lines at airports.

This is undermining cohesion and undermining a centralized government authority, rather it's using weapons, bombs and assasination for political control.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on the souls of the departed. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant a full recovery to those who were injured. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gr

Lebanon in the 50s and 60s was already at the peakpoint of corruption. 

I was in that exact location in Beirut a year ago it’s extremely beautiful. Now I think how sad it is that lebanon never catches a break. My parents generation never did, nor does this generation

Posted Images

  • Forum Administrators
On 8/9/2020 at 10:54 AM, iCenozoic said:

It sounds like the maronites were being massacred. I don't quite understand your response.

You were only retelling part of the story.

Quote

The ‘massacres of ’60’ (madhabih al­sittin), as they are known in Lebanon and Syria, which started in April and continued until July, were premeditated in the sense that the Maronites were planning an all-out attack against the Druzes, the aim being the creation of a Maronite protectorate under France. The Maronites had been mobilized by their notables and clerics, headed by ‘Awn, the Maronite bishop of Beirut, and prepared themselves with arms in units under a commanding officer, poised to assail the Druzes. The Druzes took wind of it and organized themselves for the worst.

Sporadic violent clashes began in April 1860, with Maronites raiding a Druze village. The well prepared Druzes retaliated ferociously, burning villages (within a few weeks more than sixty villages were in ashes), sacking churches and monasteries and massacring 10,000 to 15,000 Christians (not even sparing the Greek Orthodox Arabs, with whom they were on good terms), in what was the bloodiest ethno-religious confrontation in the history of sectarian strife in Lebanon (the number of Druzes killed is unknown).

Heraclides, A. (2015) ‘Intervention in Lebanon and Syria, 1860–61’, in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century. Manchester University Press.

What the above text makes clear is that the arrival of the Europeans meant that the Muslim/Christian power balance in the Levant changed and enabled the Maronites to become politically and economically more powerful than the majority population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

You were only retelling part of the story.

 

Heraclides, A. (2015) ‘Intervention in Lebanon and Syria, 1860–61’, in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century. Manchester University Press.

What the above text makes clear is that the arrival of the Europeans meant that the Muslim/Christian power balance in the Levant changed and enabled the Maronites to become politically and economically more powerful than the majority population.

So you're saying that, because they were politically and economically more powerful, they had nothing to complain about despite them being massacred?

The Turkish Ottoman Empire slew upwards of 300,000 Maronites, forced the remaining populations into the mountains (which spawned Mount Lebanon) and let another 100,000 die of starvation while stranded with no means of self-sufficiency. The Lebanese Druze also persecuted the Maronites, and massacred in excess of 50,000 of them in the mid-1800s. 

the Maronites had little to complain about. -haji2003

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

So you're saying that, because they were politically and economically more powerful, they had nothing to complain about despite them being massacred?

No.

Did the Druze get up one day and decide to massacre the Maronites?

No.

The Maronites were about to attack them first. Something you have conveniently decided to ignore.

Why were the Maronites able and willing to do this?

Because the Europeans had put them in a new and powerful position - for more evidence of that see below.

Quote

The Muslims in the region (Sunni, Shia and Druzes) strongly objected to the emancipation of the Christian subjects of the Empire initiated with the Tanzimat reforms, from 1839 onwards, which made the Christians, in law, equal to the Muslims. Equality before the law, despite far from strict adherence to it by the Ottomans in Greater Syria (or elsewhere in the Empire), benefited the Christians, who were generally better educated and made the most of new opportunities for economic and social ascendency: entry into the civil service, representation in provincial councils and prosperity, taking advantage of the European economic presence and protection in the region. The Maronites made their new-found freedoms as conspicuous as possible, building churches, establishing community schools and so on, at times with a show of superiority, or so it seemed to the Muslims, who became increasingly resentful. Another aspect of the Tanzimat was the adoption of a code which permitted Europeans and their protégés to buy agricultural land and real estate, the outcome being that property was bought from impoverished Muslim notables in Damascus and elsewhere.19 The Muslims became increasingly frustrated with this turn of events, dreading that their dominant role was slipping away for good. In this, the Christian powers had a hand, with their aid to the Christians and calls for the full implementation of the sweeping 1856 Reform Edict.20

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
5 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

It is official now. The Lebanese government just resigned. 

I really pray they vote for someone who is worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

This is the point I don't understand. Who is supposed to come now? 

Nobody knows, I’m worried, if it’s Saad Hariri then there is no change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
15 minutes ago, Diaz said:

Nobody knows, I’m worried, if it’s Saad Hariri then there is no change. 

All these protests for.... That? I hope Lebanese are not so stupid 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

The army is far stronger in the US than any militia.

In aircraft, yeah, sure. Yet there are "known" 400 million privately owned firearms in the US. Heck, the PLA has only 75 million.

So in 24/7 operations, troops becoming combat ineffective after 60 hours, they'll lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

If I am not wrong even before Syrian invasion many people were very poor in Lebanon. Shia Lebanese in particular were the poorest. 

One should not be surprised when the living standard of the average Shia population improves day by day. Shia scholars live in small mudbrick houses, while donating their money to the poor, whereas Sunni scholars and Sunni political leaders live in palaces, have luxury cars and steal Sunni and Shia money (natural ressources which belong to the people).

Edited by lover
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

In aircraft, yeah, sure. Yet there are "known" 400 million privately owned firearms in the US. Heck, the PLA has only 75 million.

So in 24/7 operations, troops becoming combat ineffective after 60 hours, they'll lose.

Owning a firearm doesn't make someone part of a militia. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Having a militia more heavily armed than a governments military is problematic, no matter what country. During civil war or during invasions, it is understandable that people pickup arms. But the truth is that these arms should be a part of an organized military, not their own side-show militia. It's the same of any nation.

They would if they could. We saw that with Hezbollah like militias in Iraq. If integrating with military wouldn't compromise Hezbollah's security, infesting it with spies, mounting pressures from the government to disarm, or lessen its arsenals, or even put them under the command of questionable military commanders, then Hezbollah would welcome it. However, we're far from that, and Lebanon is under constant threats, as Israel if in a ready state to attack, and Hizbollah needs to be in a ready state without relying on the useless military. 

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/lebanese-general-arrested-for-drinking-tea-with-idf (back in 2006 war, doubt it's different now)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

No.

Did the Druze get up one day and decide to massacre the Maronites?

No.

The Maronites were about to attack them first. Something you have conveniently decided to ignore.

Why were the Maronites able and willing to do this?

Because the Europeans had put them in a new and powerful position - for more evidence of that see below.

 

It sounds like you're trying to justify the massacre of half a million maronites and suggesting that they "had little to complain about". 

Going back to my original post, my question was, given this history of conflict, was there ever really a hypothetically successful way shape the post ottoman world? Or would it always be destined to fall into conflict (in what is now Lebanon)?

These historical events are leading me to wonder if conflict were inevitable.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

It sounds like you're trying to justify the massacre of half a million maronites

Justify in the same sense as the allies justify killing Germans in WWII. People who start wars can't complain when the other side fights back.

BTW, where are you getting these numbers from?

The sources I had showed a fraction of this and they seem to be in line with the following from wiki:

Quote

In the 19th century, thousands of Maronites were massacred by the Lebanese Druze during the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war. According to some estimates some 11.000 Maronites and other Christians were killed and 4.000 died from hunger and diseases as a result of the war

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

They would if they could. We saw that with Hezbollah like militias in Iraq. If integrating with military wouldn't compromise Hezbollah's security, infesting it with spies, mounting pressures from the government to disarm, or lessen its arsenals, or even put them under the command of questionable military commanders, then Hezbollah would welcome it. However, we're far from that, and Lebanon is under constant threats, as Israel if in a ready state to attack, and Hizbollah needs to be in a ready state without relying on the useless military. 

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/lebanese-general-arrested-for-drinking-tea-with-idf (back in 2006 war, doubt it's different now)

That's undermining a centralized government, if you consider it's military generals questionable, and decide to simply take up arms on your own.

It's like saying, we don't trust this government, so we are just going to do what we want to do, and if anyone has a problem with it, we will just seize political offices, conduct covert assassinations, run private communication lines, take over airports and just run our own militia outside of the power of the government. And we will do it all with the justification of resisting Israel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"There is no credible evidence that I have seen that Hezb was involved in the Hariri assasination."

Not that either of us would see the evidence, as we aren't involved in the trials. However those conducting the international investigations have suggested that Hezbollah is unequivocally guilty.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/the-hezbollah-connection.html

And hiding these responsible figures from trial of course doesn't help their case. They're practically run-away convicts. 

"I have never seen any evidence that they are using their weapons to undermine the Lebanese government"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-conflict/lebanon-government-denounces-hezbollah-coup-in-beirut-idUSL0742599820080509

Of course someone could say that they are "entwined" with the government. Because they're heavily armed and strong-arming the government to fit their agenda.

They're basically operating as a mafia that has more weaponized power than the Lebanese government, thereby using their power to manipulate Lebanese policies in their favor.

You asked who they are fighting against:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-may-10-fg-lebanon10-story.html

destroying opponents’ political offices and shutting down media outlets loyal to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and to Sunni leader Saad Hariri’s Future movement.

The conflict was triggered Tuesday when the government challenged Hezbollah’s de facto autonomy by outlawing its strategic fiber-optic communications network. Hezbollah fighters responded by pushing into the heart of the capital from strongholds in south Beirut and southern Lebanon, an escalation in the political crisis that seemed to catch the Siniora administration by surprise.

its not Hezbollahs position to just seize a portion of the country via armed force, because it wants to protect it's own private telecommunications.

Imagine if an armed group did such a thing in any developed country. An armed group using guns, just starts seizing political offices and shutting down media outlets and running private communication lines at airports.

This is undermining cohesion and undermining a centralized government authority, rather it's using weapons, bombs and assasination for political control.

That conflict ypu are talking about above had nothing to do with the Hariri assasination or being a mafia. I dont know that much about it but what i read on the Arabic press was that Hezb had their own cell towers they used for encrypted cpmmunications between their members. Another militia, the Future movement, tried to shut down these towers. It was a fight between two militias. Unfortunately this is common in Lebanon, but it is a completely different subject from what you were discussing previously

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

the massacre of half a million maronites

Here's another source to query the above:

Quote

This mixing of communities exacerbated the tensions which produced the massacres of 1858-60.when an estimated 11,000 Christians were killed, 4,000 starved to death, and 100,000 fled. (5)

Wagstaff, J. (1986). A Note on Some Nineteenth-Century Population Statistics for Lebanon. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 13(1), 27-35. 

And certainly the half million figure would not be consistent with the size of the entire population of Lebanon at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

It's like saying, we don't trust this government, so we are just going to do what we want to do, and if anyone has a problem with it, we will just seize political offices, conduct covert assassinations, run private communication lines, take over airports and just run our own militia outside of the power of the government. And we will do it all with the justification of resisting Israel. 

covert assassination is false assumption. Hezbollah doesn't do that. Nor does seize office, it runs as part of election process like everyone else. 

It's like saying, we're doing the best with what we have, and trying to keep the government intact while providing security. It's not Hizbollah related politicians that are resigning left and right, creating chaos. Stable and independent Lebanese government is in the interest of Hezbollah, but not in the interest of everyone else. Hence, all the fitnas and chaos are cause by those other than Hezbollah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Here's another source to query the above:

Wagstaff, J. (1986). A Note on Some Nineteenth-Century Population Statistics for Lebanon. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 13(1), 27-35. 

And certainly the half million figure would not be consistent with the size of the entire population of Lebanon at the time.

This is all quite disturbing, the wiki page was referring to the starvation of 300,000 (which has varying estimates of casualties) during the WW1 blockades and the Armenian 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon

But then even further, there is the 1.5 million of the Armenian genocide

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Let me bring up my original post again:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"The Maronites also experienced mass persecution under the Ottoman Turks, who massacred and mistreated Maronites for their faith, disallowing them from owning horses and forcing them to wear only black clothing. The Turkish Ottoman Empire slew upwards of 300,000 Maronites, forced the remaining populations into the mountains (which spawned Mount Lebanon) and let another 100,000 die of starvation while stranded with no means of self-sufficiency. The Lebanese Druze also persecuted the Maronites, and massacred in excess of 50,000 of them in the mid-1800s. However, agreements have been held with the Druze. Moreover, the Maronites later emerged as the most dominant group in Lebanon, a status they held until the sectarian conflict that resulted in the Lebanese Civil War.

 

it sounds like there has been continuous conflict, even going back before the formation of Lebanon.

maybe the maronites should have been given their own country? Or maybe just left to the wolves to continue in being oppressed? I wonder if there ever truly could have been a successful way of reshaping the middle east, or if all efforts were destined to fail due to these sectarian divides."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I would say the above post still poses a fair question. We have these sectarian groups battling literally for hundreds of years (5-10+ generations), but then we have the Ottomans just crushing these Christian communities, my word. 

The Armenian genocide sounds like something akin to Nazi Germany in killing of Christians. 

With this, maybe the maronites were justifiably given protections as reparations for their own massacre.

But I do wonder, was there ever really a way that the ottoman empire could have been left, that would have been successful for the people of this region? I get the impression that these artificial countries were carved up based on pre existing conflicts.

If these sectarian borders didn't work 100 years ago, then it shouldn't be too surprising that they aren't working today in Lebanons political structure.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
2 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

brittish too* with indians from india not native americans.

The British rendered great service for the development of India. The British are also to be appreciated for their special favors to us the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. They liberated Punjab from the tyranny of the Akalis and Nihangs, fully restoring the religious liberty of Muslims, and they gave us the gift of Pakistan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Iran's Judiciary Chief: No conspiracy can ignore Lebanese Resistance

Quote

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Referring to Hezbollah's measures during the 33-day War, Iran's Judiciary Chief Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi said that no conspiracy can ignore the Lebanon's Resistance.

Referring to the Beirut explosion incident, Raeisi said that it is a humanitarian and universal duty to try to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the Lebanese explosion.

Hezbollah Resistance Movement portrayed Lebanese as a resilient nation in the world during the 33-day War (2006 Lebanon War), he added, saying that no conspiracy can ignore the Lebanon's Resistance and be organized against Lebanese people.

https://en.abna24.com/news//irans-judiciary-chief-no-conspiracy-can-ignore-lebanese-resistance_1061714.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, realizm said:

Suppositions brother, suppositions.

In the last 80 years, there was hardly a single moment where Lebanon was not under state of war or Coup d'etat. 

You mean until the PLO put their filthy hands in Lebanon and interfered in its internal affairs and broke the stability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Justify in the same sense as the allies justify killing Germans in WWII. People who start wars can't complain when the other side fights back.

BTW, where are you getting these numbers from?

The sources I had showed a fraction of this and they seem to be in line with the following from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites

Same argument the Zionists use when you question their occupation and oppression of Palestine.

"The Arabs started the wars, and lost".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

This is all quite disturbing, the wiki page was referring to the starvation of 300,000 (which has varying estimates of casualties) during the WW1 blockades

I think you've missed out the bit about the blockades imposed by Allied forces.

Bear in mind that famines were a feature of the period (Ireland, Iran and Bengal being big ones), partly due to neoliberal economic ideologies (pursued by Christians). On the other side of the secular socio-economic spectrum would be the famines of the Soviet Union throughout the early and middle part of the 20th century.

The Turkish (Muslim) attempts to use the same tool, was quite pathetic in terms of scale of suffering compared to the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The British rendered great service for the development of India. The British are also to be appreciated for their special favors to us the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. They liberated Punjab from the tyranny of the Akalis and Nihangs, fully restoring the religious liberty of Muslims, and they gave us the gift of Pakistan

Yes the brittish did a lot of good things, how dare I undermine that good by saying that they did bad things!!!

Their good contribution defently excuses the brittish from actions like thesehttps://images.app.goo.gl/bLKS7EhrJjsTCMB76

and this https://www.google.com/search?q=brittish+oppression+of+india&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwj7p76qvpLrAhWZZjABHdcLDZgQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=brittish+oppression+of+india&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIECB4QCjoHCCMQ6gIQJzoFCAAQsQM6AggAOgQIIxAnOgQIABADOgQIABBDOgcIABCxAxBDOgcIIxCwAhAnOgQIABANUNDAIFjhsyFg7rUhaAhwAHgAgAGKAYgB9xySAQQ3LjI3mAEAoAEBsAEFwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=yjUyX_uaOJnNwbkP15e0wAk&bih=560&biw=360&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=inv#imgrc=UsRHXr1i_FFVqM

The audacity and arrogance that I have displayed is dispicable!!!:ranting:

The brittish only had good intentions when they drew the line of pakistan and india, nothing to see here !! :clap:

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
1 hour ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Yes the brittish did a lot of good things, how dare I undermine that good by saying that they did bad things!!!

Best to ignore the OT.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...