Following an intense conversation with EDB the one and only (who vowed to re-start the writing from the Banana republic), I thought that this scene pictured below showed that Hizbullah looked like a bunch of punks compared to these dudes. Discuss amongst yourself!
And this time haqouda, it goes hand in hand with the uniform! Funny that L’Orient le Jour puts the picture on its front page and does not feel that there is something fishy about it. Here is their caption: “Une foule monstre acclamant et saluant le chef des Kataëb au cours de la 2e commémoration de l’assassinat de Pierre Gemayel”. This is what I call internalization. Say, where are we with the plan of bringing down their offices? Ask Sean.
There is a good article in Al Akhbar on the changes undergone within the party and the merging of Samy Gemayel’s Loubnanouna into Amin Gemayel (his father)’s kataeb. We are marching towards a brighter future.
Remarkz 
hehehehe bitch, havin fun at my expense.
i read the article in al-akhbar, yes, we seem to have a bright future. Federalism is becoming en vogue again. And you know what is the shittiest part? we are now gona have to convince people that the unified lebanon homeland is a good thing! hehe
I especially like the glow around Pierre.
M.
I am happy that you are especially happy with the glow around a guy who was shot down like a dog trying to run for his life and drowning in his own blood, at the aniversary of his death.
I have never seen yet something more perverse and disgusting than people who actually try to look smart and funny with things like these (even though I actually KNEW one of these pathetic people and regret it deeply, who took pride in a written menace to siniora reminding of the murdering of people), because they are so disgustingly humanless and bias.
I have my theory about these pathetic people who are so intellectually weak and manipulable that they will actually wish the death of someone and take pride in the killing of people for political purposes, because they are not capable of elaborating strategies or even imagine the possibility of elaborating them someday, to resolve a political problem. It has to go through killing for even imagining the slightest possibility for resolving and revenge. I wonder how common that is in lebanon today, in one camp and the other.
But maybe I’m too young and more perverse disgusting things are yet to come to my eyes.
Bechir (it did not concern you, but it had to come out), I hope I’m still your ‘ekh el azizé” at this moment, otherwise, what can I say. Apparentely not my crowd, since I don’t wish anyone’s death or laugh about it.
Wou on a more personal note, with a logical and not so extremely pro-hezbollah discourse, those morons from the Gemayel camp can be reduced to not so many. I think there will be confessional problems in Lebanon if this form of Lebanon goes on, but federalism (which I have yet to be sure is now defended as a Loubnanouna and a kataeb principle), in my personal opinion, is an easy way-out or shortcut on behalf of the people who prone it. They simply want to go back to the Lebanon before the war they’ve been told stories about and erase even the memory of the war, the trace of the palestinians and now hezbollah.
One way to win over this is to have a discourse about history and nation-building and resistance (eh lots of bullshit, but not such as Hassan Nasrallah’s ‘when have you ever resisted’). You don’t reject their proposition or refuse discussing it, you digest it and then reason to show them how this sadly is Lebanon, its history and its building. There are ways to go around this. Always.
To me, since I’m a lot more basic and less ‘intellectual’ than you are, if someday there is no hatred between the chias and the others which apparentely exists today in the real world that I have started seeing, then we need to transform this gradually to political competition by introducing different methods (not ones such as hezbollah or as Kataeb), then to non-competition. I’m not principally against federalism on Honolulu, but I think in our case it will generate more problems than it will solve. It’s not like I believed in a “great lebanon”. I’ve seen enough morons, pricks, racists and to-be-murderers to know that the only lebanon that will ever suit any lebanese is a lebanon to himself only. I know it’s not clear, but it probably doesn’t interest you anyway, and I’m not writing my memoirs here.
TC
Sandrine I agree with you but before saying why let me just clear one thing. I don’t think you understood M’s reaction. He’s not a guy who likes killing. I can assure you that. He is just pointing out the media use of the killing of this guy (a horrible act as such as you pointed out). But I will let M answer on his own.
Now for the rest, national dialogue etc, here is where you are totally right, but it is the kataeb who have to open up to Hizbullah and not the other way around. It is the former who has been holding a confrontational discourse. I can cite millions of examples in discourse and in practice. Just read Amin Gemayel’s last speech. And do you know what this guy represents for the inhabitants of the southern suburbs who happened to live his first presidential years? It is kataeb (along with LF) that always despised Hizbullah, the latter merely re-acting to their chauvinist, isolationist, and ‘racist’ (if such word can be used here) practices.
Just see how Aoun with a slight change in opinion became the most revered ‘maronite’ amongst the Chias. You know how Aoun bombed the hell out of Dahyeh end of the 80s? All forgotten all gone. Hizbullah only asks for cohesion, and national construction, of course while having some of their basic tenets respected, which boils down to holding a strong stand against Israel.
Yes haqoud i totally agree with you. We are stuck with teh “Lebanese” paradigm for good… and ironically we are left with hoping that Hizbullah and cie can end up stitching up this little colonial chunk of land.
Personally, I find that l’Orient le Jour’s use of “militiamen” versus “partisans” to describe SSNP and Future, respectively, is just as dishonest as al-Manar’s use of “militias” for Future/PSP and “resistance” to describe Hezbollah/Amal/SSNP.
And again, I don’t think either media outlet should be burned down.
I think you haven’t been too long in this country to understand the perverse content, the historical weight of something like L’Orient le jour.
And keep that in your records: Future party burned down offices of SSNP in February during demonstrations (February is before May).
Another thing to print in your diaries:
Hizbullah = liberation of territory. people in prison, torture, resistance, victory after long planning, years, etc.
Future = mercenaries payed on one off basis to form a counter force to perceived threat from opposition and back security structures of the State captured by people in power.
There is a huge difference. Especially when the State itself sanctifies, legitimates the use of the term resistance for Hizbullah, and never ever mentions the existence of Future party thugs (that until now future party leader tries to hide from existence).
yes sean, except that not all belliquous discourses lead to systematic massacres like those perpetrated by lorient le jour and annahar and lately almustaqbal “readers” (caricature).
im not gona tell you that you havent lived enough in lebanon to see anything, since some people have always lived in lebanon and didnt change their views about anything. I will just point out that although everyone in lebanon participated in the war, and war is a social phenomena of high mesures that you could not not take part in it if you are involved in politics in a country at war, not everyone have commited “war crimes”. this is the whole point.
kataeb= systematic killings of non-christians
PSP= systematic killings of christians
Others = not (althoug almustaqbal seems on the way, go halba!)
or would you like for everyone to play it like there was some democratic arena where everyone have the same rights and the same MEANS to practice their rights and everyone is respecting the arena and no one is calling the israelis and americans to bomb the hell out of the opponent?
Bechir,
we can go on with this for days, but a few points:
1. ” it is the kataeb who have to open up to Hizbullah and not the other way around. It is the former who has been holding a confrontational discourse”
No, it’s not. It’s not a secret to anyone, I think, how I feel about Gemayel. But this is not only about pointing out fingers. I SIMPLY do not count on the Gemayel camp (which I don’t confuse with the little minority in the Kataeb that thinks differentely) to resolve anything. I know where they stand, I know how Amin Gemayel and Joyce Gemayel make their ‘speeches’ if we can call it that. I don’t count on Hezbollah either, definitely not, because I know where they stand too.
There needs to be a more intelligent discourse, a more centered discourse from a third party, that doesn’t feed on dead people, ‘resistance’ which means shit by now thanks to them, a discourse that is neither pro-hezbollah or pro-kataeb. Why does that not exist in this freaking country ?
Whenever you stear too much passion, when you despise one or the others’ “martyrs”, people become more extreme and will join one or the other with undelibile hatred.
On the left side of the story, I feel sad and actually (sorry, stupid word coming) ‘wounded’ that people laugh about Pierre Gemayel’s death, or Bechir Gemayel’s death. Everyone rewrites history, but after being rather ‘pro-left’, I stopped doing that when I read the conclusion of the disgusting letter from the SSNP after the very disgusting events in Halba, and after Nasrallah asked ‘when did you ever resist’)
What pride can I take from supporting such people ? What can I expect them to achieve in terms of national cohesion?
But I can’t be on the right either, and the reasons are as obvious. I simply KNOW Gemayel will not stop being confrontational. Watch back Joyce Gemayel’s ‘speech’ after the metn elections. You know there’s nothing to do there. The only way to kill the monster is to cut the grass under its feet by pulling away the crowds they feed on.
And that’s third discourse, not pro-hezbollah one that despises the ‘christian’ resistance back then (yes, I know we don’t agree on this on, but those people that need to be pulled away either, and you know it), but something in the middle. By being confrontational, Gemayel feeds on this, as a christian competitor to Aoun. The funny part is I sometimes wonder whether he would be so confrontational, had Aoun not been there. Would he even need to, had he had no competition.
So I’m stuck in the middle and I feel a lof of the fucked-up supporters of one or the other would also be stuck in the middle and choose a third party, if there was a coherent one with more balanced discourse, such as the one we’ve talked about earlier.
As for their history of ‘depise’ for Hezbollah, I’m not as knowledgeable as you are, I think, of the whole history there. But when did Hezbollah actually recognize the lebanese state and started working with it ? There are always two players, never one that decides what the game is, and everything has a history and a consequence. So I can’t defend kataeb on that point or agree completely with you on it either, because I need to know more about the context. I think you know me enough to know that I’m not taking Gemayel’s stand here.
“Just see how Aoun with a slight change in opinion became the most revered ‘maronite’ amongst the Chias”
Aoun is a fucked-up moron who needs to be locked-up in a mental institution, and as much as you like the guy’s position and I personally used to like it, I think you know that. When Hezbollah apologizes and surrenders the guy responsible for a military’s death, Aoun still comes out and spells shit about the army needing to be acknowledgeable to Hezbollah. Not it doesn’t need to. They’re in competition, and you know they will be in the long run, since they’re already grounding scouts to compose their future ‘anti-zionist’ armies (whatever the fuck that means today).
That, to me, means they’re not seriously considering a real national security solution with the army on the long run. If men are needed for the army to fight future wars with Israel, let them join the army if there is a real cohesion project. The point is Hezbollah does want cohesion, but only AROUND ITS OWN PROJECT. And that’s completely different from wanting cohesion as you put it earlier.
And I do not want them to keep their weapons until they ‘liberate al quds’. As much as I want the palestinians living normally, whether in Lebanon or their own
country, we don’t have the means to keep doing this. Syria is negociating with Israel, the palestinians are negociating with Israel, why the hell can’t we negociate with Israel ? The freaking Arab league will recognize Israel and I’ll keep fighting to liberate jerusalem ? Do you actually buy the pro-palestinian bullshit on belalf of Hezbollah ?
Do you think that Hezbollah will accept cohesion around that, and allow us to do that, if the shebaa farms and the prisoners are returned ? Or how about we wage also a resistance movement against Syria, since there are also prisoners there ?
So what link with Aoun ? Although I have a beef with Hezbollah (and I still don’t wish Nasrallah dead, go figure), I understand that they’re a political actor that will do anything in its means to keep its strenght. It will lose it if there’s peace with Israel. But I understand that, and I think we can work around that, just like we can work around the question of federalim. My beef with Aoun is much bigger, because the guy has no credibility left. He left his soldiers left to die when he fled to Paris, he pushed for the Syrian Accountability Act, he called Hezbollah a ‘terrorist’ (whatever the fuck that means) organization and he said syrian intelligence services would never leave Lebanon (he convienently left out the Mossad at the time), now he has a complete change of heart and he goes as far as asking the Army to go by Hezbollah’s rules, its main reason for being so weak for the last 30 years ???
Point being as much as I don’t like Hezbollah’s military issues, I understand them because they are coherent with who they are, what they stand for, and their wanting to be and being a huge political actor in Lebanon, and I think we can find something, a solution to work around that. But what coherence do you find in Aoun ?
So it’s completely normal to be the most revered maronite, in this situation. He’s as much a whore today as Joumblatt is. But he’s even worse than Joumblatt, because between both, he’s the most dishonest whore. At least, Joumblatt doesn’t even hide it anymore.
From your reply to Sean (whome I agree with on both lorient le jour and any other media outlets in the WORLD so no real point there, actually)
“Hizbullah = liberation of territory. people in prison, torture, resistance, victory after long planning, years, etc.”
When Hezbollah attacked lebanese people and seized the airport, at that moment in time, they were not a liberation of territory movement. They were plain militiamen with masks. Otherwise, reasoning this way, we should excuse any party that fought during the war, that along with its ‘resistance’ (from any sides) also commited murders, rapes and theft.
Or, also, it would be understandable that the israelis don’t second guess what their army did to homes and people in the South in 2006. Technically, there were defending their country, and whatever harm, and dirt and piss they left in homes on the way (I remember the pic of a southern home you posted at the time) is completely excusable.
There’s nothing anti-hezbollah about it, it’s just fact. They were not liberating Jerusalem or the South in Beirut. Do I believe they needed to defend themselves ? Probably yes, they were definitely attacked. But couldn’t have they been smarter, or was it actually pretty smart for future moves ?
And again, what was liberating about practically holding people hostage at the airport ?
I’m through, and I’m sorry for this being so long
Though I do agree that there is no real comparison to make between hezbollah IN GENERAL and future. As for the SSNP and amal, to me exactly same crowd as future and PSP
Actually Sandrine, I have an issue with the romanticization of any human being who was unfortunately shot down “like a dog … and drowning in his own blood,” to use your graphic description.
This time it just happened to be Pierre Gemayel.
And funny most definitely has nothing to do with it. Both the assassination and the attitudes that followed have been despicable – to different degrees.
I’m sorry about the misunderstanding then. It sounded like some of the stuff out there that I’ve read of heard before.
But it’s not a romanticization on my behalf. The violence in which someone may die does have an effect on others. An explosion where you’re gone almost immediately or when you’re standing on your feet firing a gun and expecting it any minute is not the same. At least you don’t realize it. He was shot, then he tried to run, and they followed him and finished him off. It’s almost as a horrible hunting party. I mean I can’t even imagine how someone might feel at such a moment. Compare it to Halba, probably quicker, dunno. Anyways..
The deification of any dead politician is troublesome, since it inevitably goes hand-in-hand with attaching a lesser value to the lost lives of the “other”, most importantly civilians with less stature and hereditary prestige.
To return to M’s original statement that he/she “in particular likes the glow surrounding Pierre”– how did you, Sandrine, misread this as glee at his demise?
The Phalangists have a disgusting political culture; but personally I find images of masses raising their hand in a Hitleresque salute an easy target. I can say that because I’m pretty confident that the Kata’eb power will only further wane. So its almost like watching some fringe sect in Texas saluting their prophet.
I am not fond of any movement that replenishes the future cadres of its party by militarizing children. Let them play play station and fry their brains with Melody, mindless sitcoms and other stupefying pastimes. Then they can go to Dubai and shit on browner people and be proud of their Libaneez culture.
By the way, what I am saying goes for every sect and political party, including Hezbollah.
So let me ask you guys this, then: were Hezbollah’s attacks on Amal and the Communists during the war justified and thus qualitatively different from Kataeb or LF or PSP attacks, because you believe in their ends? Were their assassinations and kidnappings not war crimes, whereas those of Geagea were?
So what if Future burned SSNP headquarters before SSNP burned down Future media outlets? I don’t see how that on the very simple idea that no one should be burning down anyone’s media outlets or headquarters. But if you think pointing fingers and saying “they started it!” is helpful, then be my guest.
Finally, we’ve had this discussion before, Bech, and I’m afraid you’ve got a huge blind spot when it comes to Hezbollah. You obviously support their goals, and when someone has a problem with their means, you never seem to address those concerns, but instead again defend their ends, or in this case, tell me that I haven’t lived long enough in Lebanon to understand things.
I appreciate that last bit, by the way, so bravo 3aleik, habibi. Mais vraiment: chapeau bas, comme on dit.
That should read, “I don’t see how that has any bearing on the very simple idea…”
Sean to make a long story short i think you confuse
“what is just” with “why certain things end up happening”
If I follow your logic then War is bad Peace is good. Sure great I’m the first who would say that. But would I be able to change anything if I just stick to such reasoning. I believe not.
Whereas if I’m more interested in “why” certain things happen, I can understand continuity how one move leads to another one how something like Hizbullah was there in the first place. Historicity that’s what’s important. And there are so many qualitative differences to note (contrary to what you think). Now I won’t go into concrete examples because that’s just too long here and you can read so many older posts.
I never “justified” Hizbullah’s actions, and any other actions. I explain how Hizbullah operates, becomes, etc. and I explain how other parties do the same. I do think kataeb etc. through their practices have harmed in many ways way more than Hizbullah, looking back at history, through WHY things happened and WHAT could be averted.
I don’t think there are abstract norms of white and black you can apply everywhere (burning buildings is bad, voting like a civilized person is good), but I believe that context matter. If SSNP burn down the building of Future then it is important to know why, because they would have probably not done it if something else would have happened. Is it bad or good? What’s the use of answering this question? It did happen and that’s what’s important.
Now a note on the side it is not clear what Hizbullah did during the war (compared to the very public daily butchering of kataeb and friends). But I’m sure they may well have done their liquidations kidnappings and stuff, but that was not the crux of what they were doing (remember context), whereas Kataeb and LF build their movement on mass murder, kidnapping and the idea of rejecting a section of the people living on the territory that happens to be called Lebanon (again context taken into consideration).
So much more to say on all that but let’s leave it there.
and sorry for the “not being in Lebanon for long” boutade. I’m just pulling your leg. Although your abstract categorizing is not helping.
And SANDRINE everyday people get killed like dogs. Don’t put one on a pedestal if you are not ready to lift all the other ghosts of history on the same pedestal.
Actually worse,
Everyday millions of people are living like dogs.
I remember how frustrated you were at not understanding why Palestinians in Nahr el Bared were not being good automates and following whatever they were ordered to do sanctified by “Lebanese State” calling.
Some of them were killed like dogs.
I remember your anger at them while their buildings were being brought down to the ground.
By the way I love moralistic statements and their double standards. This comment section is full of it.
Peace!
Madame,
I don’t think it takes much to understand why I would interpret it the way I did, so I’m just gonna guess that this is a rethorical question.
I often don’t agree with Bech, but what makes me visit here pretty often, is the fact that he’s willing to debate his ideas, sometimes review them and try to figure out how to rephrase in order to get his thoughts through. Although I do believe that he has a blind spot regarding some things, but I believe we all do, the sooner we realize it..
Which leads me to “The Phalangists have a disgusting political culture” : I’m not really interested in your “etats d’âme” regarding the “Phalangists political culture” (I knew they had one ! I knew it!!!)
Is there any logical point based on fact or on something ? An upcoming discussion ? Anything ? Otherwise, I don’t really see a point in your post.
wowowowow !!!! BECHIR !
YOU REMEMBER SHIT. Think harder, I was angry at some point, because yes, some of the attitudes were pretty difficult to understand, and even more from where I was. Like people not wanting to get out of the camp to give the army a shot at Fatah el Islam without harming them. Yes, I will not excuse that, and if you do, then we’re not talking about one blind spot, we’re talking about a fucking million.
But I recall very well when I told you I believed that it had a good chance of being planned by the government, and I recall even better telling you that I DID NOT (and STILL DO DOT) believe shaker el Abssi was an islamist that wanted to turn North Lebanon into an islamic state, which was the bullshit we were hearing about him at the time. And we discussed his whole history as a palestinian, being thrown back AND TREATED LIKE A DOG in Jordan and in Lybia. To me, it was far far away from what you’ve just described, and you convientely agreed at the time.
DO NOT PUT BULLSHIT IN MY MOUTH AFTER SMOKING (or any other time), thank you.
Wou I sanctify the government ? Seriously, is it good shit at least ?
Actually, I think it’s pretty clear who’s the moralistic one. You need to take sides, I don’t. I discuss what bothers me and what doesn’t, in each party. Try to practice on that, and again, do not say bullshit like this anymore, it pisses the hell out of me.
Just to be clear, I was of course ALSO pulling your leg (actually both) with the smoking thing (………………..)
“I remember your anger at them while their buildings were being brought down to the ground”
“By the way I love moralistic statements and their double standards. This comment section is full of it”
So I’m romanticizing Gemayel’s death, but you’re not with the palestinians ? And immediately after that, you speak of moral and double standards ? Man, you’re good.
I’m expecting an apology about the palestinian episode, and I really despise your lying about my position concerning them. There’s no point discussing this stuff with you, you’re cooked.
Hey guys, I was following your posts for a while. Are you being obtuse on purpose or something? Bech… I don’t think you understand what you are talking about!
The problem with you is that you still operate from a dirty twisted Lebanese political framework, and that is you want to completely eliminate your political oponents. It seems your whole discourse is about justifying (like Kataaeb supporters for example) the guys who you think are the good guys (because of historicity or whatever) even if these people committed as much atrocities as anyone else.
How is Hezbollah different than the PSP (in the 60s) let us say? I can go in political discussion about the similarities, both were sectarian, anti-american, anti-Israeli, pro-palestinian, and defended the Arab identity of Lebanon. Both have waged civil wars against there political opponents and both looked progressive to starry eyed partisans.
Hezbollah is actually very similar to Kataeb, like Kataeb it is a quasi fascist military organization that worships the figure of the leader, one talks about creating the new christian and another about the new southerner. Raising fists in the air and marching to military rhythms. the only difference is in the sect they belong. One wants to defend christians and another shiet…and that’s it baby.
My problem with you is that you operate in Hobbesian world…laws that can arbitrate our internal affairs doesn’t exist in your world. It’s only bad vs. good (and the bad should be eliminated). What about civil rights and liberties? what about defending the constitution that clearly speaks about freedom of expression? what about standing against anyone who breaks the rule of law?
I can imagine that you look at yourself as being very smart? don’t you? well…maybe you should read what you have written, because you are not so different than those who you are criticizing! The one who Burns media outlets (I don’t want to hear your justifications) should be put in jail. Armed civilians who ever they were should be put to jail.Would like me to go along…or you understood lesson 101 in citizenship and democratic discourse?
Hey guys, I was following your posts for a while. Are you being obtuse on purpose or something? Bech… I don’t think you understand what you are talking about!
The problem with you is that you still operate from a dirty twisted Lebanese political framework, and that is you want to completely eliminate your political opponents. It seems your whole discourse is about justifying (like Kataaeb supporters for example) the guys who you think are the good guys (because of historicity or whatever) even if these people committed as much atrocities as anyone else.
How is Hezbollah different than the PSP (in the 60s) let us say? I can go in political discussion about the similarities, both were sectarian, anti-american, anti-Israeli, pro-palestinian, and defended the Arab identity of Lebanon. Both have waged civil wars against there political opponents and both looked progressive to starry eyed partisans.
Hezbollah is actually very similar to Kataeb, like Kataeb it is a quasi fascist military organization that worships the figure of the leader, one talks about creating the new christian and another about the new southerner. Raising fists in the air and marching to military rhythms. the only difference is in the sect they belong. One wants to defend Christians and another shiet…and that’s it baby.
My problem with you is that you operate in Hobbesian world…laws that can arbitrate our internal affairs doesn’t exist in your world. It’s only bad vs. good (and the bad should be eliminated). What about civil rights and liberties? what about defending the constitution that clearly speaks about freedom of expression? what about standing against anyone who breaks the rule of law?
I can imagine that you look at yourself as being very smart? don’t you? well…maybe you should read what you have written, because you are not so different than those who you are criticizing! The one who Burns media outlets (I don’t want to hear your justifications) should be put in jail. Armed civilians who ever they were should be put to jail.Would like me to go along…or you understood lesson 101 in citizenship and democratic discourse?
“Hezbollah is actually very similar to Kataeb, like Kataeb it is a quasi fascist military organization that worships the figure of the leader, one talks about creating the new christian and another about the new southerner. Raising fists in the air and marching to military rhythms. the only difference is in the sect they belong. One wants to defend christians and another shiet…and that’s it baby.”
FINALLY !
thank you !
Two differences through,
1. Hezbollah has smarter organization (at least, seems so from the outside, I don’t know what’s happening right now within the kata’eb) and they’re more democratic WITHIN the party, they can bounce back if Nasrallah was gone, opposingly to the Kata’eb who has the Gemayel stamp on it forever and ever and ever…
2. Hezbollah has had smarter evolution
consequence, they’re much stronger than any other party.
Nice try Nizar, I actually use the same ‘tools’ to read Hizbullah or Kataeb or any other party.
Don’t get me started on ‘freedom of expression’, let alone on ‘freedom’ itself because then we’ll get really lost here…
I don’t know if there is really a point in answering all this. I think we are all talking at different levels and there is not much communication.
As for Sandrine, I stand by M’s point in terms of the use of importance of the dead and I illustrated by my example of Nahr el Bared that you re-confirmed in your answer.
And no, I don’t give more importance (except probably teh quantity of dead) for one palestinian head compared to the one of Gemayel. I nowhere said that.
If I follow your logic then War is bad Peace is good.
I’m trying to figure out how to respond to this without being a dick, so I’m going to try to keep the sarcasm to a bare minimum. I should hope that somewhere throughout your studies abroad you will have come across the “straw man.” But just in case you haven’t, Webster’s describes it as such: a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory.
So no, you obviously don’t follow my logic.
My point is and has always been that if we wish to live in a democratic system framed by the rule of law, then actions like burning down media outlets or the headquarters of political rivals have to be off limits. Likewise for the use of violence to settle internal political disputes. That, I think, is a fairly simple concept, one that I feel comfortable applying across the board, because that’s what rule of law means.
So you don’t have a problem with Future media outlets being burned down (or burning down l’Orient le Jour). You do, however, have a problem with SSNP headquarters being burned. Likewise, Hezbollah’s liquidations don’t seem to bother you too much, whereas the Kataeb’s do.
I, on the other hand, have a problem with both, because I believe in the rule of law, and I believe that when the rule of law and ideology are at odds, the former must prevail — even if that means that my ideology loses a battle or two (e.g. in the supreme court case of Bush v. Gore.)
I believe this because I think that any system that’s based on ideology over the principle of the rule of law is likely to slide into authoritarian actions that often undermine the very ideology that’s ostensibly being defended in the first place. This is what brings about the reign of terror, Stalinist purges, torture at Abu Ghraib and indefinite detention at Gitmo.
But maybe we’re arguing on false pretenses here. If you are interested in living in a state where ideology trumps the rule of law, then just say so. Then, at least, we can agree to disagree.
Finally, what really bothers me about the positions you’re continually putting forth here is that you’re intellectually dishonest about them. Given a choice between a partisan who is honest about his politics and one who continuously denies partisanship, I’ll chose the former any day of the week. You make ideological moralistic judgments on here all the time. And “historicity” and “context” are only important to you when your guys are being criticized. When it comes to the other guys, their actions can be explained away by their nature as bad guys.
By the way I love moralistic statements and their double standards. This comment section is full of it.
Actually, I completely agree with you, ya Bech, except that I have the sneaking suspicion that the irony of your statement is completely lost on you.
“As for Sandrine, I stand by M’s point in terms of the use of importance of the dead and I illustrated by my example of Nahr el Bared that you re-confirmed in your answer.”
Simply pathetic. Reply to the rest of it if you have anything honest to say and reread yourself and the irrelevance of what you posted. Lost too much time here.
See ya
ayre bi hazzak ya bech.
this is absolutly a dead end conversation, so many times repeated, so many times up to a dead end. a cliche.
i will add my comment but i REALLY dont want anyone to think im trying to argue. i simply dont care about your opinions and i tell you now that i dont want an answer. for im adding my comment to contribute to bech’s logic but not to convince those who are predisposed to not be convinced like i am probably predisosed not to care about your answer as you may think.
this is the whole problem, pre-disposition.
you see, not everyone in this forum is speaking for the same reasons, but still they are speaking. it may seem the same practice but it has not the same basis.
actually, all your contenders ya bech speak as if they have an absolute truth and that you should know it, so you should shut up and be intimidated by this absolute truth. a typical pettybourgeois behaviour of putting someone in order.
if they wanted to discuss your point, with comprehension to what you said, they should have reasonned through the ethics and theories you advance. not by telling you — as if you havent heard of it at school — that all kind of killing is bad. But by arguing with you why lorient le jour, for example, is “useless” in propagating fascism and sectarian hate, that it has no effect, so that the violence youre relating to it is not too much because of it, so it is unnecessary violence to shut down lorient le jour (that was an example, but i dont adhere to it).
they should had told you for example, no lorient le jour is beautiful and doesnt speak racist speech, these kind of distinctions are no racism.
they should have tried to adopt your ethics, that are quite democratic i must say, instead of focusing on abstract dynamics like there was a state of democracy in lebanon or something (if this is the case, i hope everyone will express his rage by voting in the village where he’s and where he doesnt live anymore for the list of his choice, voting is good, “its your duty even”)
instead of that, you get a lesson, that democracy is good and that all kind of violence is bad, as if it doesnt show that you bech are the product of a bourgeois school that probably have taught him so for many years.
by the way, look at the ruse everyone uses to intimidate you. they take a small comment about gemayel’s figure and they criticize your whole vision of kataeb and of hezbollah and of the most complex of situations on it. wow, now that is really low. a vision may i add, that you have gave pretty much opportunities to discuss on this blog before in other posts, much more macro-political.
and look on how one of them is so enthusiastic about jailing everyone, wow. and who is gona jail everyone may i add? (rethorical, i dont want answers) what recognized authority exists in lebanon so that law be applied. And look at the dumb use of “ideology vs law” (as if law wasnt ideological), hehe, does this actually work as “analyzing” in webster’s definitions?
on this note, i will conclude, and inform you that your offer of this morning (or was it yesterday?) i decline, for reasons i guess you now fully understand, hehe. i dont blog for arguments and discussions. war seems to be the only reasonnable way.
mwahahahahahahaha got you on this last one!
dr evil haqid
ps: i will note that you are sometime rude, with your tone (and not arguments), that is if you still think you should do your best and have a better tone in order to… convince 😉
all your contenders ya bech speak as if they have an absolute truth and that you should know it, so you should shut up and be intimidated by this absolute truth. a typical pettybourgeois behaviour of putting someone in order.
First, two questions:
1. Do you really talk like this in real life?
2. If so, how does it feel to be a caricature?
You nonetheless raise a somewhat interesting issue concerning the difference between a political party’s ideology and democratic rule of law. (You seem to think the two are obviously the same thing.) If I thought you were actually interested in looking at the difference, or honestly discussing it, I’d be happy to give you my thoughts on the question. But that’s obviously not the case:
And look at the dumb use of “ideology vs law” (as if law wasnt ideological), hehe, does this actually work as “analyzing” in webster’s definitions?
Ok I think we should stop here, nowhere were we all miles apart from each other. Sean I am not sure you even answer to anything I am actually saying. It is quite tiring. And my behavior does not help so I want to apologize if I was rude, no justification to that. I was just being very frustrated of not being understood and that’s no excuse.
Some times ‘dialogue’ and ‘freedom of expression’ does not end giving any concrete results I guess.
And Sandrine I apologize to you especially but I was just trying to make a ‘shock therapy’ type of point, which was probably displaced in this context.
No worries soon enough these points will resurface and maybe in a better formulated way, and then maybe the disposition of all of us will be to engage in these issues more seriously. Hoping that you guys will still be here at this stage.
Peace.
Sandrine wrote: “I don’t think it takes much to understand why I would interpret it the way I did, so I’m just gonna guess that this is a rethorical question.”
True. You have consistently displayed your penchant for a hysterical misreading of other people’s opinions and a paranoid mind that believes the Christians are being unfairly attacked and require your incoherent ramblings to settle the score.
Scoffing at the way someone’s death is commemorated and exploited for political ends is not necessarily predicated on delight at their demise. That’s all. Re-read in case you are already foaming at the mouth before you embark on another poisonous incomprehensible tirade. Breathe. Re-read.
Sandrine wrote: “Is there any logical point based on fact or on something ? An upcoming discussion ? Anything ? Otherwise, I don’t really see a point in your post.”
Coming from the author of the most tedious, garbled five-page rants that reiterate the same poorly-phrased point over and over again and ultimately reveal a total lack of self-reflection and self-restraint, I will let the record speak for itself.
Sean wrote, “I believe that when the rule of law and ideology are at odds, the former must prevail — even if that means that my ideology loses a battle or two (e.g. in the supreme court case of Bush v. Gore.)”
Wow, Sean. Not sure I follow you here. Which is the rule of law in this case? The rule that says the Supreme Courts word is the law or the law itself?
The rule of law that you seem to be preaching to Bechir in fact argues that a judicial opinion — regardless of the scant legal grounds upon which it is based and the ideological agenda of its practitioners– should hold more water than the principles of the law itself (in this case, universal suffrage.) Just because a judicial body ruled on a case, doesn’t mean that the disenfranchisement of thousands of people wasn’t still unlawful.
Perhaps you could pick an example that better makes your case when instructing brown people about your society’s way of doing things. The US Supreme Court probably isn’t the best place to begin a lesson on ideology vs. the rule of law, what with litmus test appointments and what not.
Mnih, no need to apologize. It was a quick shot but what pissed me is you seemed to think I gave no shit about the palestinians in Nahr el Bared, which was never my position. Bess ma bi assir, enno we’re on the same side here, even if we disagree on some stuff and get pissed occasionally. Plus you were litterally being under attack from all of us so mech machkal, and I shouldn’t get pissed so quickly even with personal attacks even coming from you.
I do agree on “Don’t put one on a pedestal if you are not ready to lift all the other ghosts of history on the same pedestal.”
It’s just that like for any other human being, the stuff that gets stuck in your head is the stuff you hear of. I never cared about Pierre Gemayel but what makes me tick is the fact that it’s too common in Lebanon to feel like you’re scoring a point if your adversary is killed, just like the FL for instance that wish Aoun dead, or the Future people who actually practised it in Halba. Someone, I don’t recall who, a long time ago made fun of the lebanese culture by saying our culture was tabboulé. Actually, it’s worse than tabboulé, it’s murder.
Regarding some stuff I asked you about earlier (the long and boring post), I hope you can reply to it even from a very superficial point of view (I only need a feedback for more info on this stuff), like for instance the Mahdi Scouts, the dead military helicopter, the potential spread of Hezbollah in certain areas that are not strategic to fighting with Israel, the future of the weapons and the competition between H. and the army. I’d also like to know what you really think of Aoun (genuine hero ? Fucked up politics ? Credibility or not? ) and about the negociations between Syria and Israel (mostly, are we missing a huge opportunity by not negociating side by side with Syria)
Maybe in another post I hope.
Peace achta
One last point, I read the article in Akhbar. If it is true that all the people who worked on 14th of March and Pakradouni are being isolated, then I don’t think you need to worry much about the party gaining more power with radicalization. They’ll be isolated and soon we’ll watch the Loubnanouna project slowly pass away. Samy is an ‘ideologue’ not a politician, I don’t think he’ll make it. Withing, he would have needed more than his crowd of young puppies to make it and he would have needed the 14th of march platform more than he seems to think.
Madame: I was going to respond to what is actually an interesting question. That is until I got to this self-righteous tidbit:
Perhaps you could pick an example that better makes your case when instructing brown people about your society’s way of doing things.
Stay classy.
Look Sean, regardless of the fact that you get me wrong on all counts (like the fact that you think that if I say the SSNP got their building burned then they are ‘justified’ in burning a building, or that this means that I am ‘defending’ SSNP), the point is clear, the way you tend to render abstract your ethical conceptions of what is right and wrong without really taking into account ‘what’s actually happening’ is making you blind of the fact that you just re-iterate a liberal ideology that you think can be called ‘rule of law’.
Of course, under every ideology there are rules of law. But it is ideology that dictates law. Law is ideological. You just aren’t noticing (and you won’t be aware of it I’m pretty sure) that you are ideological (contextual and borrowing from one worldview) when you brandish your ‘rule of law’ argument. The main problem is not that you are ideological (we all are), but it is the fact that you think you are not, that you think that you are on the safe side when you say ‘ok this is the territory of the rule of law, don’t touch’.
Now lest I may sound still more fussy I will try to clarify, law is contextual, only justice is ‘universal’: the movement towards justice. But law is never just, because it always addresses a context, a history and it is endlessly changing (thanks to legislative structures that all societies have and which is inscribed in their histories). Once you move from justice to law then you already have committed an act of violence. Law can approach justice by constantly being reformed to take into account the context. Every time there are new laws then there are new ideologies, new violent acts to ‘the other’ that is outside this ideology (through his practices for example).
I don’t know if you see how this all relates to what has been discussed, if I assume that we really discussed something, which is not really the case. I am just trying to save the face of these different monologues.
Sean’s choice of expression was maybe poor in this contect with “Rule of Law”, but this (and before) is taking an easy shot at it, and not reading what the content is. Nothing he said was based on his strict rigid definition of “rule of law”, but on what he perceives as justice.
I understand how easy because his choice of words also bothered me. He was not bothered by the “rule of law” being broken when media outlets were being burnt, he was bothered by the injustice of it. And you do tend to perceive justice as belonging to certain camp.
“Madame: I was going to respond to what is actually an interesting question. That is until I got to this self-righteous tidbit.”
Oy vey iz mir.
Self-righteous would be your department. Or to borrow a phrase from you: How does it feel to be a caricature of the all-knowing American who lectures about the “rule of law” trumping ideology, and chooses to illustrate his example with the most pathetic excuse for “free and fair elections” a “Western democracy” has seen?
Just saying. Stay honest, Sean.
Here, I think you’re confusing the rule of law with actual laws. These are two very different things, the latter being a manifestation of the former.
So while particular laws can be ideological (the decision to ban or allow abortion), the conceptual underpinning (that banning or allowing abortion would apply equally to everyone) is not, or at least not at all in the same way. The basic principle of rule of law is that government should be the rule by laws, not men. This holds that there is a balance of power kept in place by certain checks, that all people are equal before the law, there can be no retroactive law, and that habeas corpus must always be enforced. (Many systems also include the presumption of innocence.)
Here, when I speak about ideology, I’m talking about the goals that one might have about which direction a society should go: moving toward a more Islamic or Christian country, or one with less government intervention or more social welfare, for example. (These ideologies can operate in either systems that have rule of law or ones that do not.) Finally, the rule of law is fundamentally a conception of the rules of the game in which different ideologies compete to further their worldview.
Without a clear notion of the rule of law, we are back in the jungle, where might makes right. This means that whichever party is militarily capable of destroying its ideological enemies will do so, because it can. This means that as a matter of due course, the strong will dictate to the weak. This means that the king is the law, and not the other way around.
This is what makes the Bush administration’s understanding of the unitary executive so dangerous. Now ideologically speaking, I could applaud that executive muscle flexing now that there’s a president I prefer in the White House and those mechanisms could be used to further a worldview more in line with my own. But I’m fundamentally with any political representative, regardless of party, having the right to lock me up without me having recourse to a court of law to be able to plead my case and know the charges being brought against me.
Finally, the rule of law is not off limits. There is an alternative, and that is the state of exception, which pushed to its logical conclusion, is the opposite of the rule of law. (Not to say that there aren’t many shades of gray between.) This says that for the good of [insert your cause here], I am exempt from the rule of law. It says that I can create laws that don’t apply to me and that I can choose to rule arbitrarily as I see fit in order to enforce my ideological worldview. In this system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with SSNP burning Future offices or vice versa, so long as those who do so are strong enough to get away with it.
I don’t see how this makes me blind to “what’s actually happening.” Especially since “what’s actually happening” today, is Omar Harqous being beaten until he’s hospitalized by SSNP thugs in the streets of Hamra.
Finally, if I’m so often misrepresenting what you’re saying, let’s try something different. What exactly are you saying? Because if all you’re saying is that SSNP burned Future media outlets as revenge for past acts, then that’s neither interesting nor provocative. Right. So what?
So I’ll ask you a simple question: do you think their doing so was legitimate? And would Future burning SSNP locales in revenge for that in turn also be legitimate?
Madame: I chose the Bush v Gore decision precisely because it’s so disgusting. Gore clearly won that election, and voters were clearly disenfranchised. Justice was not done. And to my mind, it’s the cases like these that test a society’s adherence to the rule of law the most.
The process went through legal channels up to the final legal arbiter in the American system: the Supreme Court. And let’s be completely clear here: I think the vote was politicized, that the Supreme Court Justices betrayed their duty as judges.
But the opposition respected the final say of the highest court, and I think there’s a lesson there. Instead of taking up arms or installing a second government, Democrats accepted their legal defeat, despite the injustice of the matter.
Al Gore, presiding as head of the Senate in his post of Vice President, summed it up when the House movements to continue the recount were stymied by the lack of a senatorial signature. One congresswoman cried out in frustration when asked by Gore if she had a Senator’s signature: “I don’t care about the rules,” to which Gore replied that the rules did care.
That is what I respect. Had one side not accepted the ruling of the court, that would have had much worse and longer-standing repercussions on the institution of the rule of law in the US. It’s hard to see it now, especially with the absolute disaster that the last 8 years have been, but I’m convinced that the alternative would have been even more destructive in the long run.
But you’re probably right, Madame, this reasoning is actually just a crude caricature of a hypocritical American imperialist lecturing “sand niggers” on “Western Democracy,” making the caricature of someone hurling epithets like “petty bourgeois” in 2008 pale in comparison. I’m obviously just a racist who’s intent on lecturing “brown people.”
Are you seriously still trying to genuinely debate with a poor soul whose sole argument to counter what you say is to call other people either christian racists or white racists ?
Seriously… Let it go
Hmm, Sean. I sense that you are trying to defend your initial botched analogy. How is a “politicized” decision in this case not an “ideological” one? Why are you mincing your words here?
Let’s get back to the point where you used the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore as an example of the “rule of law” trumping ideology. And I am not arguing that “the rule of law” is synonymous with actual laws here, so spare me the textbook lecture.
What I sense however is that you are saying that faith in the “rule of law” (yours, other Americans) in accepting the sham decision by the Court was in fact better than any alternative. But wouldn’t the alternative, appealing and protesting a decision that as a consequence undermined not only American but also international faith in the US democratic process, have been better if we are in fact pursuing a society where the rule of law is decisive? Why is faith in a system that is failing its citizens more important than its actual implementation? If the implementation procedures no longer serve their intent, isn’t there a point where their sanctity should be called into question?
If it is only faith in the decisions of a Court that we are told holds are best interests in mind that makes the rule of law, then you are advocating a rubber stamp democracy. And in this particular case, I don’t see how this was better than the “alternative”, because it was at that decisive point that the system finally failed its citizens and the principles of its democracy. [What irritates me here is how typical this is: too many Americans want to believe that they are the perpetrators of good and an example for the rest of the world; any evidence to the contrary is an “exception.” They have to be spoon-fed criticism of their “democracy” with a whole lot of sugar (not brown sugar, no.) Ditto for your vision of the exemplary victory of the “rule of law” in Bush v. Gore. It stinks and I don’t buy it.]
To get back to your preferred sport of lecturing brown people, try telling a million dead Iraqis (not to mention the millions of others for whom Bush’s illegitimate victory and subsequent rule was a disaster) that your continued naivety and confidence in American democracy was the better alternative.
And Sean, your discomfort with the term “petit bourgeois” makes perfect sense, since you were inevitably raised in a “class-less” society where 90% of the population consider themselves middle-class (but at least 30-40% are struggling to make ends meet.) Why it strikes you as funny to use the term in 2008 only further exemplifies why you’re unable to back up your ideas (that may make good sense in a vacuum– legitimacy and the rule of law in Lebanon in 2008! Sheer brilliance!) with concrete examples that don’t completely bungle you intended point.
Sandrine, I’m afraid the poor soul is you, since your paranoia senses your “Christianism” is being attacked at every twist and turn; in your head, probably their are beer halls full of cackling masses punch drunk with glee at your poor Pierre’s demise. Fight the madness.
I know that you can’t stand up for yourself in an argument substantively and probably aren’t following a conversation that veered off from your preferred topics of the Shia and Palestinians are undermining Lebanese statehood. Go hug a Cedar.
Seriously, cedar hugging has been known to soothe people with your condition. Its all yours. And don’t forget– from its wholesome roots grows “coherent national statehood.”
Yeah, do “fight the madness” 🙂
Poor thing… If you ever need to talk…
Laws are meant to be broken.
Ok, just kidding. Maybe.
Seriously though, leave the ad hominem out of the arguments. They are ruining what can be an interesting comment section.
Well, too bad you won’t see your wishes exhausted. Too many low lives here whose sole interest is to attack others rather than to discuss ideas in order to prove them wrong. So I’ve got a freak who lives on another planet who calls me a palestinian and shia hater, solely based on the shit she sucked into her brain though her nose, instead of simply talking, or asking questions to try to find out.
When you’ve got such low spirited poisonous bipedes, you can’t expect to achieve anything.
And MADAME just for the record, before I leave for fresher air, I vomited after reading in disbelief what a creep like you can write. Who are you to tell me who I am, and what I stand for ? So you, and the likes of you, crawl back to the shit hole you came from because the stink of your sick and imaginative mind has become unbearable. Go educate your own fucked up people before telling me how to live in my own country or how I perceive my people and my region. You can laugh at Kata’eb all you want, and you’d be right, but they’ll never beat ‘USA ! USA!’ at both conventions like the complete morons your people are, all parties included. You go work on your signing the kyoto protocol, closing Guantanamo Bay, and the assassinations conducted in the name of your people so you can open your fucking mouth and spit on the rest of the world, before you worry about me and my country.
As for this blog, well, keep spreading your poison under the cover of litteracy, so that you personally attack other people. Good tactic. Not very innovative.
Oh this is the last post for good, but Sean and whoever dared question Bechir and the moron’s positions, here’s a treat for ya if you read french : a journalist from future TV beaten up by SSNP. That’s a guy who fought the Israelis during the occupation.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jYSFNjnLUO4e71iljt1hyOg4Rwlg
Enjoy
http://abouhashem.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_27.html
for those who read arabic:
http://abouhashem.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_27.html
for those who dont, a journalist in almanar was beaten up too, but do you often hear about it?
http://abouhashem.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_27.html
Sandrine, get yourself you own soapbox. How very boring.