Who gives 2 shits about this Hariri character that got blown up in Beirut?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23726502.htm

WRAPUP 4-US, UK urge action against Syria over Hariri murder
23 Oct 2005 21:04:54 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds quotes)

By Lin Noueihed

BEIRUT, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The United States and Britain ratcheted up pressure on Syria on Sunday, saying a U.N. probe implicating it in the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was very serious and the world must act.

Washington is trying to arrange a U.N. Security Council meeting to consider a response to the inquiry that named senior Syrian officials as suspects in the February truck bombing that killed Hariri and 20 others.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was confident of action, but did not specify what action she wanted the council to take.

"When the international community is united, we get the kind of response that we need to deal with serious problems," she told reporters.

And, in fact, I hadn't even heard of him until he got blown up, but chose the other option.

I'd like to know why the people who give two shits give two shits.

He was a leader fighting for democracy and to eject the invasion of his country by an occupying force with a history of using terrorism and lies as a modus operandi to sustain the invasion.

Sound familiar??

Those silly A-rabs, they're always killing each other over stupid stuff. Who the hell cares? :crazy:

Isn't there enough dying going on? Planning on enlisting yourself?

:crazy:

Yes I give shits - I care - that Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, part of a hopeful pro-democratic and pro-Lebanese independence trend, was killed. I don't think it follows that if you "care" then that necessarily entails more American troop involvement.

Given the :crazy: smiley, I was not certain how you intended that.

I mean, why is it dripping red? Sarcasm isn't really "bloody." It should be dripping ice-blue instead.

The Syrians had nothing to gain and everything to lose by killing a man who was not a big threat alive, on the other hand Hariri's own
party had everything to gain.

From the death of a Lebanese politician and former PM who happened to be very popular, talking about running for PM again, would probably win...and had very recently become very vocal about his stance of ejecting Syria from Lebanon? Yeah...that makes no sense.:sarcasm:

Wow. I'm dumbfounded. I know that nobody wants the US to invade Syria, least of all me, but using that as an excuse to stick your head in the sand isn't going to make Syria anything but a bully.

An excuse to go after Syria....

Where there are hoofbeats, think horses, is all I'm saying....

"Bush had nothing to gain and everything to lose by nominating an unqualified crony like Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

Hey, even tyrants do stupid things that blow up in their faces now and then. Nobody's perfect!

which amounts to about two cents in the world thanks to our shoot first ask if it's alright later mentality. Perhaps Ms. Rice would like to prosecute the government that has illegally invaded, occupied a sovereign nation. Perhaps she needs to see the 2000 dead American men and women in her dreams each night... the severely maimed, the blind, the walking dead... perhaps she needs to go to church or elsewhere and stop shilling for this band of criminals.

And I don't think the American public gives a shit either.

and Syria killed him.

We don't know who killed him or why.

I don't see how this killing benefits the current leader of Syria. I'm suspicious as to the motives and who pulled the strings.

One thing is painfully clear, the Bush administration will use this as an excuse to take action againsts Syria. The necons want to build an airbase in Lybia. They also want to replace the Syrian leader. They're already making inquriies as to possible replacements for him who could head the Syrian government.

Have you read the UN investigation's findings? You can read chilling accounts from it in Today's New York Times online, among other places. It reads like a Tom Clancy novel in the level of detail this reaches.

First off, killing him was "supposed" to benefit Syria because he was against Syria and was expected to put his entire political bloc against Syria and their allies in the next elections. It didn't work out that way because the killing was bungled in that they left too much evidence behind. Trust me, read some of that report and you can see that people involved are singing like birds.

The Syrian Interior minister committed "suicide" last week. He was a central figure in this case. His death was probably not by his own hand. Four TOP lebanese generals allied with Syria have been arrested and have been talking too. Its all in the report.

You saying you do not know who or why he was killed says one thing. You have not done your homework on this issue. The info is out there, go check it out.

Hamburg, 22 October - The most prestigious German political news-magazine, Der Spiegel, revealed today that the central witness, Suheir al-Sadiq on whom Detlev Mehlis had relied during his investigations into the assault on Rafiq Hariri, was a dubious person with a criminal record as a convicted felon and swindler. Even the UN Commission which had submitted the Mehlis report to the UN Security Council yesterday, is raising serious doubts about the reliability and credibility of Suheir al-Sadiq's declarations, since it was revealed that the alleged former officer of the Syrian secret services had in reality been convicted more than once for penal offences related to money subtraction.

The German news-magazine reports that the UN investigating Commission is well aware that it had been lied to by Sadiq, who at first had affirmed to have left Beirut one month before the assault on Rafiq al-Hariri, but then had to admit at the end of September his direct involvement in the implementation of the crime.

It is quite evident by now that the witness Sadiq had received money for his depositions, considering that his siblings reveal to have received a phone-call from him from Paris, in late summer, in which Sadiq announced "I have become a millionaire". Doubts regarding the credibility of Sadiq were further fuelled by the revelation that Sadiq had been recommended to Detlev Mehlis by the long-term Syrian renegate Rifaat al-Assad, an uncle of the Syrian President who more than once offered himself as "alternative President of Syria" to whomever would succeed in bringing about a "regime change".

To Detlev Mehlis the central witness Sadiq is supposed to have declared that he had put his apartment in Beirut to the disposition of the conspirators to kill Hariri, among them several Syrian intelligence officials. Of himself he had declared to have gathered intelligence for the Syrian services regarding Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. But the Syrian government, revealed Der Spiegel, had sent weeks ago a documentation regarding Suheir al-Sadiq to various Western governments, hoping that Detlev Mehlis would not get caught in the trap of a notorious imposter.

http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=11679&lang=en

The discussion you seem to have missed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1869593

Another was arrested yesteday, 2 more today. This is growing far beyond Suheir al-Sadiq. Like I said before people are singing like birds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001868.html

Lebanon's Election: Free but Not Fair

<snip>But Bush and other well-meaning Americans are ignoring a fundamental problem: With Syria gone, Lebanon's elections will be free, but they won't be fair. In Lebanon, Muslim votes, especially Shiite votes, count less than those of Christians. Literally.

This inequality dates back to 1943, when the French handed Lebanon over to the country's French-speaking Maronite Christian elite and founded what is called the confessional system, with parliamentary and executive offices parceled out among the major religious sects. In theory, it provides a balance of religious power; in practice, it's an entrenched im balance -- and a writhing rat's nest of corruption, with outside influences like Syria easily playing one sect off another.

Lebanon's election law creates a byzantine web of provinces and districts, exquisitely gerrymandered to give each of 18 sects a certain number of seats in parliament. The number of seats each sect gets bears little relation to its current weight in the population. The U.S. State Department estimates Lebanon's population at about 70 percent Muslim and 23 percent Christian. (Estimates vary, because Lebanon hasn't held a census in 73 years, but few question that Muslims are a majority, with Shiites outweighing Sunnis. ) Yet to this day, the parliament must be split equally between Christians and Muslims. During the last election, in 2000, politicians running in the primarily Muslim south had to get three times as many votes to win a seat as those running in some Christian areas.

In order to maintain this political skew, Lebanese electoral law requires all voters to return to their family's ancestral home towns to cast their ballots, regardless of where they actually live, or even where they were born. Shiites have to travel to a "Shiite area" to vote for mostly Shiite candidates, and so on. Thus my husband's parents, who have lived in the dahiya for more than 40 years, will have to travel to Bint Jubayl, almost to the Israeli border, if they want to vote. They're old and frail--most likely, they won't bother to make the two-hour journey, just to elect somebody who won't even represent them. "Nobody deserves it!" scoffs my mother-in-law, setting down plates of savory stuffed zucchini and hand-rolled grape leaves.

Another of the many ironies of the system is that Lebanon's preeminent politician can't ever be president; he's barred from running for prime minister; and he isn't even eligible to be speaker of parliament. Why? Because that politician -- opposition leader Walid Jumblatt -- is a Druze Muslim. The confessional system mandates a "troika" of leadership, where the president has to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shiite Muslim -- regardless of who has the best qualifications for any job.

I wish they would learn to settle their disagreements in a civilized way.
But no, it's always these bombings and missile attacks and so on.
And then everybody else is supposed to give a shit so they can start another stupid war.

"The Archduke has been shot! Let's start a World War over it!" spiel.

You know he just pours over international news and stays on top of all the intricacies
of Middle Eastern politics...horse shit. I never knew there could be such a dim witted, lead by the nose, dullard in the Oval Office. He is the original loose cannon.

would even care about this guy is if he was bought and paid for and was working hand in glove with the PNAC'ers & neocons. That would be my guess.

It gives them a reason to do what they were going to do anyways...Invade Syria.

Why turn down a perfectly good excuse to get into a war you were going to start anyways. It made as much sense for us to assassinate him as it did for the Syrians.

That could be as well. I agree.

I asked you a question. "Are you an insensitive clod or you being rhetorically obtuse?" Your answer shows that you are both.

I am not part of any wing.

All you have proven is that it takes no brains or courage to write inflammatory statements.

For your next trick, try something actually useful.

that's like saying Plame "got her own cover blown, and made herself useless to the CIA. Dumb broad."

Especially if you spent any time reading the UN investigation's report.

1. He was important to the people of Lebanon and in the cause of democracy. He rebuilt the heart of Beirut after the end of the war. He was the former Prime Minister and a leading candidate to become the next President. He wanted Syria out...His assassination by Syria and its allies was the catalyst for tremendous change in that country.

2.Syria's conduct in all this is disgusting and against all international norms. Now please somebody do not come and try to mention all the bad things other countries do and have done, including us. Its always wrong, and when caught should be dealt with sternly. This time, they did not get away with it, and because of that alone it is important.

...yet no Muslim is allowed to be the pesident? What kind of democracy is that?

Don

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html

Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant), other 1.3%
note: seventeen religious sects recognized

when you don't even read your own posts. The Prime Minister has to be a Muslim - a Sunni Muslim. The President must be a Christian; the Speaker a Shiite Muslim.

Yes, it's imperfect democracy. Just as the electoral college system of the USA is imperfect. Both systems were designed to help minorities. Why you're outing yourself as an isolationist who can't read their own links, I can't tell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001868.html

Lebanon's Election: Free but Not Fair

<snip>But Bush and other well-meaning Americans are ignoring a fundamental problem: With Syria gone, Lebanon's elections will be free, but they won't be fair. In Lebanon, Muslim votes, especially Shiite votes, count less than those of Christians. Literally.

This inequality dates back to 1943, when the French handed Lebanon over to the country's French-speaking Maronite Christian elite and founded what is called the confessional system, with parliamentary and executive offices parceled out among the major religious sects. In theory, it provides a balance of religious power; in practice, it's an entrenched im balance -- and a writhing rat's nest of corruption, with outside influences like Syria easily playing one sect off another.

Lebanon's election law creates a byzantine web of provinces and districts, exquisitely gerrymandered to give each of 18 sects a certain number of seats in parliament. The number of seats each sect gets bears little relation to its current weight in the population. The U.S. State Department estimates Lebanon's population at about 70 percent Muslim and 23 percent Christian. (Estimates vary, because Lebanon hasn't held a census in 73 years, but few question that Muslims are a majority, with Shiites outweighing Sunnis. ) Yet to this day, the parliament must be split equally between Christians and Muslims. During the last election, in 2000, politicians running in the primarily Muslim south had to get three times as many votes to win a seat as those running in some Christian areas.

In order to maintain this political skew, Lebanese electoral law requires all voters to return to their family's ancestral home towns to cast their ballots, regardless of where they actually live, or even where they were born. Shiites have to travel to a "Shiite area" to vote for mostly Shiite candidates, and so on. Thus my husband's parents, who have lived in the dahiya for more than 40 years, will have to travel to Bint Jubayl, almost to the Israeli border, if they want to vote. They're old and frail--most likely, they won't bother to make the two-hour journey, just to elect somebody who won't even represent them. "Nobody deserves it!" scoffs my mother-in-law, setting down plates of savory stuffed zucchini and hand-rolled grape leaves.

Another of the many ironies of the system is that Lebanon's preeminent politician can't ever be president; he's barred from running for prime minister; and he isn't even eligible to be speaker of parliament. Why? Because that politician -- opposition leader Walid Jumblatt -- is a Druze Muslim. The confessional system mandates a "troika" of leadership, where the president has to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shiite Muslim -- regardless of who has the best qualifications for any job.

and edited your earlier mistake. Why you decided to give us post #20 again, I can't tell.

So, you agree that it's an imperfect democracy, just as the United States is? Since you didn't comment on that, I presume you've nothing to add to it.

Apartheid is not an imperfect democracy. It is crap you are spewing. Just like Bush and his minions do and you know it.

Don

What do you mean by "Just like Bush and his minions do and you know it"?

It involves the troubled history of Lebanon, the main area which was the territory taken in the crusades by european armies.

For recent history the arrangement you speak of is a way of keeping the peace. Did you know they will not even conduct a census there? The idea of who makes up what % of the population is just too explosive an issue.

They are starting to move in a better direction though so there is hope that one day they will learn to live together without their tribal or religious identity coming before their national identity. The correct way to identify them is that they are on the right road to democracy, a road that only a few years ago looked to be not possible. So lets see where they go from here.

so he could plant evidence against Syria?

When Lebanon's billionaire prime minister travels around Beirut, everyone takes notice. His limousine is equipped with a device designed to thwart would be car bombers by deactivating nearby cell phones, leaving a continuous trail of irritated bystanders in its wake. Whenever he leaves his residence, three decoy motorcades roam the streets to confuse would be assassins.

Most Lebanese feel a peculiar sense of pride toward Rafiq Hariri, though many will not readily admit it. In a country where political power has been thoroughly monopolized by outsiders, economic power commands a great deal of grudging respect and admiration. That Hariri is not a member of the traditional political elite and built his financial empire from scratch makes his ostentatious displays of wealth even more captivating.

However, the prime minister is also regarded by many as having sold the country to Syria and destroyed its economy during the course of his life-long drive to enter the ranks of Lebanon's political establishment.

---

Conclusion

Hariri, for better or for worse, can be counted on to single-mindedly advance his own political interests at the expense of all other considerations. In the past, this has led him to appease the Syrians and silence internal dissent. Today, however, his political future depends on his success in implementing economic reforms and obtaining loans and investment from the international community. While Syria can, in principle, terminate Hariri's tenure at will, Damascus is depending on a Lebanese economic recovery to breath life into its own moribund economy. In short, despite the serious obstacles that Hariri faces, the prime minister probably has more leverage over the Syrians than any previous leader in Lebanon's Second Republic.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0107_ld1.htm

Much can change in a few short years and if you have been reading the NY times over the past few years he went through a political transformation, especially after his chilling 15 minute meeting with the Syrian president in 2003. He started to agitate for real democracy and for the Syrians to leave, and thats what did him in.

Well thats that I guess?

Don

And many of the articles over the years are AP or other international sources that the Times just re-prints. You could read or have read the same stuff at other good papers like the LA times or Washington Post.

The point is there is enough stories out there about the man and the facts leading up to his death. The idea of this thread is "is it important?"

If you are interested in internation affairs then yes. If you do not care then no. I happen to care about international affairs, politics and the UN so for me its a story I have followed closely.

Unfortunately I rarely read the NYT for reasons that
ought to be obvious with the brouhaha over Ms. Miller's
lack of journalistic integrty.

Unlike many people here I actually read the link you provided because it was interesting.

I don't really have an axe to grind as far as who
killed him or why or that it was a good or bad thing.
He just looks like another ambitious politician to
me, one who's luck ran out. And I don't find the
notion that some Syrians were involved strange at all.

But I was not impressed with the UN report, and I find
the sainting of Hariri ridiculous, and I think the
notion of another war to avenge his death, or whatever
it is supposed to accomplish, a really bad idea. If
they can find the killers and prove a case against them,
fine. If they want to start a war with Syria over it,
they will not have my support.

but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter; the Syrian government had reasons to kill him, along with others, and has a reputation for brutality. To say "one whose luck ran out" seems a bit dismissive when someone is murdered.

The point is that the piece from Daniel Pipes's bulletin is severely out of date, and updates, whether from the NYT or Robert Fisk, should be taken into account, and not dismissed.

It is true that I rarely post Mr. Pipes "information".

I have read a good deal on Mr. Hariri, and the attitudes
expressed towards him were all over the place. There was
some interesting stuff on Asia Times too, IIRC. Mr. Pipes
screed is one example of that. For politicians like Mr.
Hariri, in a place like Lebanon, saying "his luck ran out"
is just stating the facts, however much you think it is
dismissive.

I have far more faith in Mr. Fisk than in anything I might
see in the NYT (or MEIB).

I have a friend who is from Lebanon
and still has family there .

that old man dead in the wheelchair at the Superdome after Katrina. That's what I care about. Maybe we should ask the fucking UN why he had to die.

he did.

If he was a "bad" guy I'd feel different but this guy was supposed to be ok....

that this case should be used as pretext to start another war. We all know the PNAC agenda and we all know that "regime-change" in Damascus is very high on their list.

The Mehlis report relies in central parts on some very dubious and unreliable witnesses:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1869593

leader they didn't like. They just tag someone as a "terrorist" and kill them wherever they want to and have said they would do it in the US. So how can these "unproven" allegation against Syria lead us into sanctions and possible conflict? America WAKE THE HELL UP!!

at least.

I guess he is a politician too?

Don