Disgusting
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
I cannot believe it. There was a twin bus bombing today in Ain el-Alaq near Bikfaya (quite close to where I live at the moment) and so far 3 have been confirmed dead, and 19 injured.What I cannot believe is not that there was a bombing -- we all knew it was coming, our very own Nostradamus, Samir Geagea, "predicted" it. What I cannot believe is how some people find it in themselves to translate such a horrible act into political currency.
A while ago, Marwan Hmadé (Jumblatt's left hand -- or is it right hand?) was on Al-Arabiya, and he said that a few things are very clear from today's act. The first, is the timing: a day before the 2nd anniversary of Hariri's assassination. The second, is the location: the bombing took place in Murr's village (Elias el-Murr is the minister of defence) following the confiscation of the truck loaded with weapons (rockets?) and Murr's refusal to return the confiscated material to HezbAllah. He also pointed out that those who are behind this were behind all the previous assassinations.
In other words, my dear readers, Marwan Hmadé accused HezbAllah of being not only behind this bombing, but also behind the assassination of Hariri and all the others after him.
Now, it seems people are showing their true colours even more clearly. So, HezbAllah is behind these bombings; if it were, how come Marwan Hmadé did not object to coming to power with HezbAllah's votes? Or is this some new revelation that he innocently was unaware of at the time (perhaps they should contact poor old Brammertz who is still digging up golden teeth from the assassination site??)? Furthermore, if he believes his own argument, then isn't he saying that he would understand IF HezbAllah objected to the international tribunal? -- yes, IF, because H.A idiotically (yes, idiotically) does not object to the international tribunal.
It seems clear that the objective of the tribunal has shifted from hammering Syria (since Syria has managed quite well with the investigation actually) to hammering HezbAllah. And yet, the idiots in HezbAllah continue to kiss these people's asses. It is amazing, is it not? That a party that claims to be "resistance" and used to claim to be "revolutionary" is now kissing these people's asses, afraid to even accuse Hariri of stealing money; or the ISF of killing those 2 kids in Raml el-'Ali. Sheikh Subhi Tufayli did have a point when he objected to the party running in elections in 1992 -- although mind you, Tufayli himself is a wacko and a hypocrite. Well, in 1992 HezbAllah was a tad bit better than it is now, politically speaking. At least it objected to Hariri's economic terrorism.
So then Michel el-Murr (probably the most corrupt man in Lebanon) made a statement, saying that the bombing was not directed against either the opposition or the "March 14", that the sole targets were the Lebanese people. Oh, I see we are back to reviving (was it even dead? It seems to be a never-ending, ongoing obsession) the age-old myth that it is always the "foreigners" who are behind Lebanon's problems (note that this does not mean that external elements could not be responsible for this or the previous bombings; the criticism is directed at those who insist that the Lebanese would never kill each other -- during the 15-year-long civil war it was the Martians killing the Lebanese and making it look like they were killing each other). Fascinating, is it not? (Although mind you, it is even more fascinating to see Bush accuse Iran of being behind its woes in Iraq -- I would not be surprised if Bush accuses Iran of arranging the shooting in Utah).
Speaking of the investigation and tribunal, why not investigate the systematic murder of 150,000 people (that includes Palestinians, in case some people forgot the Palestinians were people) in 15 years? Maybe that will settle once and for all the Martians vs. Lebanese issue. Oh I see, the ones calling for the international tribunal for the Hariri assassination were the same ones who carried out those massacres and killings. Oh wait, sorry, I take that back. It was the Martians.
Oh, yes, tomorrow is February 14. Can't wait to see the embodiment of civilization go down to the streets. Syrian agents, infiltrators, beware, for Geagea will take matters into his own hands.
Labels: lebanon
posted by Angry Anarchist @ 2/13/2007 11:40:00 AM,
6 Comments:
-
At February 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM,
bech said...
-
very very good post
especially on:
- the Geagea case
- Tribunal as a political weapon to target hizb (and not syria anymore)
- Hizb still compromising (like Hamas) oblivious of the true extent of the game in place. I think they are just hoping that a solution will be found. -
At February 14, 2007 at 4:18 PM,
Angry Anarchist said...
-
Hey Bech,
Unfortunately HezbAllah has become just like any other party, and I think it stems from their taking part in elections. They should not have done so.
I wrote a 50-page comparative paper on HezbAllah and Hamas, and how they have been transformed. It is amazing how much they have both changed, more so HezbAllah... Hamas still holds on to many of its principles. H.A has abandoned nearly ALL.
Well there are many reasons for this transformation and I think the weapons issue and its preservation has been the major factor. In other words, because it wants to preserve the weapons, it has agreed to make any compromise to do so. That means that they would be silent on the killing of the 2 kids in Raml el'Ali. Things like that. I would say that H.A is becoming (if it hasn't already) "Amalized."
Plus, I am not sure if I like this personality cult woven around Nasrallah lately. I mean, yes, he is obviously an excellent and smart 'leader' and he has great oratory skills etc etc but it seems he is now being idolized, in a different way than for e.g. Ragheb Harb and Mussawi. More in the manner of Nasser... I think this is very dangerous. Dangerous because it will doom the resistance(s) too failure. In ideology there might be pan-Islamism or pan-Arabism, but once put into practice, it will go through many challenges and crack under their weight. It seems H.A is investing in that track and not in the track of separate resistance movements in different countries -- the latter would be much more effective and would not be subject to the problems of inter-Arab/inter-Muslim strife.
One more thing, those who say H.A is an arm of Iran have NO idea what they are talking about, and I would say, you REALLY do NOT want to even see that day. It seems rather easy to throw around words and accusations without knowing their weight.
If H.A is an extension of what Iran is, then Iran must in reality be a heaven, compared to what we KNOW about the regime there...
I would not be surprised if H.A even changes its name in the near future. In fact I am pretty sure they will. -
At February 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM,
bech said...
-
Unfortunately HezbAllah has become just like any other party, and I think it stems from their taking part in elections. They should not have done so.
I wrote a 50-page comparative paper on HezbAllah and Hamas, and how they have been transformed. It is amazing how much they have both changed, more so HezbAllah... Hamas still holds on to many of its principles. H.A has abandoned nearly ALL.
I don’t know how much ‘principles’ (if not grounded in a social and political reality) have any importance in the behavior of parties and movements, but I would like to see the paper you wrote. As for Hamas you may be right, but this has more to do with the fact that Hamas first is not one voice, is extremely factionalized (especially security-wise) and has fewer experiences with social and political institutions. Plus Hamas does not know where to give attention. It is attacked from everywhere, whereas Hizbullah has many more cards in its hands.
Well there are many reasons for this transformation and I think the weapons issue and its preservation has been the major factor. In other words, because it wants to preserve the weapons, it has agreed to make any compromise to do so. That means that they would be silent on the killing of the 2 kids in Raml el'Ali. Things like that. I would say that H.A is becoming (if it hasn't already) "Amalized."
Yes true re the weapons, but as for the kids, Hizbullah has been keen on not responding through the creation of internal disruptions (Lebanese vs Lebanese), this is consistent with their interests.
Plus, I am not sure if I like this personality cult woven around Nasrallah lately. I mean, yes, he is obviously an excellent and smart 'leader' and he has great oratory skills etc etc but it seems he is now being idolized, in a different way than for e.g. Ragheb Harb and Mussawi. More in the manner of Nasser... I think this is very dangerous. Dangerous because it will doom the resistance(s) too failure.
I would agree with you that personality cults are not such a good thing. But it is interesting to note who/when/how is idealizing Nasrallah, and how this constitutes a very new type of affiliation in Lebanon, let alone in the Middle East. In turn how new constituencies form around Hizbullah will impact on the priorities, political agendas, and thus “principles” (as you call them) of the party.
In ideology there might be pan-Islamism or pan-Arabism, but once put into practice, it will go through many challenges and crack under their weight. It seems H.A is investing in that track and not in the track of separate resistance movements in different countries -- the latter would be much more effective and would not be subject to the problems of inter-Arab/inter-Muslim strife.
I don’t really get your point here.
One more thing, those who say H.A is an arm of Iran have NO idea what they are talking about, and I would say, you REALLY do NOT want to even see that day. It seems rather easy to throw around words and accusations without knowing their weight.
If H.A is an extension of what Iran is, then Iran must in reality be a heaven, compared to what we KNOW about the regime there...
Without going into a big argument of why Hizbullah is not an arm of Iran, suffice it to say that one should look at how policy gets done in Iran, and see that the process is a complex one. Divisions in Iran cloud possibility of controlling a remote organization in another country, especially when this organization is strong, self-sufficient, popular, and very well organized. Also, one has to look at the historical evolution of Hizb-Iran relations since the eighties before uttering such non-sense.
I would not be surprised if H.A even changes its name in the near future. In fact I am pretty sure they will.
Good point. But not soon though. The confrontational symbolic element of the name for now serves crucially important political purposes. -
At February 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM,
Angry Anarchist said...
-
Bech,
1) The emergence of such movements as HezbAllah and Hamas ARE necessarily grounded in social and political realities. Hamas was directly the product of political realities, not so much social realities, as the Muslim Brotherhood already existed to take care of that.. But today it has to pay much attention to social realities as well, since its popularity and translation of this popularity into votes hinges on them. A starved population is highly unlikely to vote for the same people that indirectly brought starvation upon them. In this respect I think the situation in Lebanon and the '67 territories differ significantly, and I think the political sectarianism has a huge role to play in that.
Hamas has a huge experience with social institutions, in fact it is the most experienced in that respect in the "territories" owing to its "parent" organization al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen...
Hamas is in fact much less factionalized than you think. I think in the past year or so it has largely been able to instill some sort of order into its ranks (although by no means comparable to H.A). The problem is that with the arrest of most of its figures at one point in time, there was a shift to the "outside", meaning Hamas activists in exile, people like Khaled Mesh'al and others before him. The inside-outside dynamics was not very smooth, and the reason Hamas did not run in the previous elections was because the "outside" did not want to. Otherwise they were ready to do it till the last minute. The "inside" has proven to be much more pragmatic since they have a better idea of what the situation in the "territories" is like, etc.
You have to also keep in mind that while Hamas is indeed attacked from everywhere, HezbAllah also emerged under occupation and in the midst of a brutal civil war and Israeli invasion. I mean, of course, you don't have to have completely identical situations to do a comparison, unless you are trying to do a mathematical/statistical study...
2) I disagree regarding the internal disruptions. How would criticizing the ISF for a blatant crime lead to internal disruptions? What about HezbAllah's incitement against the various parties (accusing them of militia behavior)? Don't they lead to disruptions? So if it is doing that, I don't see why it is not criticizing the ISF. The problem is that for H.A it is "OK" to put such issues as the militia accusation to political use, whereas when there is no gain for the party, it is willing to abandon ALL its principles, the most BASIC of its principles, to accommodate the violence of the state institutions. This is BEYOND political accommodation/compromise. This is puppetry.
3) Well I guess you are referring to the multi-sectarian support that Nasrallah enjoys. But my point was not that. My point was about NASRALLAH per se. I think it is far more understandable to "idolize" the H.A fighters, or leadership in general, vague terms; but I suppose the people always have a herd mentality and so they look up to one "leader" to save them or whatever.
As for support of H.A from diverse backgrounds, I think that is indeed a new phenomenon in the past decade or so, but I think H.A is largely incapable of transforming it into huge political capital across the region, as Nasser was able to do for e.g.
Moreover, I think that it does not necessarily lead to different "perceptions" of "the other", in this case I am referring to the Sunni-Shi'ite divide. Plus, there are huge forces - Arab forces - trying to fight this. You guessed it, Saudi Arabia. In a recent interview with Al-Seyassah, the crown prince of KSA warned some "forces" against trying to convert Sunnis to Shi'a... Saudi Arabia in this respect is the head of the snake, if one can call it that. And you know, it IS a huge problem, look at how much sympathy Saddam gets these days. And look who are the ones who repeat his name on every occasion. Are they Shi'a?? In fact, whether you like to admit it or not, there are huge divisions in that regard between Hamas and H.A, although the circumstances have necessitated the shelfing of the issue (for now).
4) Let me explain with an example. Until pretty much the 70s, the Palestinians (in the territories) had very much relied on the "outside", i.e. the Arab world, to fight for them. In the 80s and the 90s and up till 2005, Syria had largely been dependent on H.A, using it as a card for the Golan... I am saying that IF the Palestinians want to liberate their land, they cannot possibly rely on Arab armies (even if they were under the command of courageous leaders and not puppets) as history has shown its results. IF the Syrians want to liberate their land, they cannot possibly rely on HezbAllah. Such policies are doomed to failure and open the way for external forces/"enemies" to put into use possible cracks, and there would be many in this case, to defeat the enemy from "within". If Iran wants to fight whatever/whoever it wants to fight, it cannot possibly rely on HezbAllah, because as we can see, the "enemies" of Iran will put much pressure to cause internal (i.e. Lebanese) cracks and fissures, and pretty much neutralize H.A.
In other words, given the present state of the Arab and/or Muslim world(s), and the absence of a truly uniting ideology or slogan, embarking on such "adventures" or relying on such a vision, or working along such a track, is a waste of time, money, effort,etc. At such a time, it is the best policy that each would work on liberating "its" territories, and/or toppling its dictators.
Pan-Arabism is dead. It was a fake slogan anyway. There is too much tribalism for any pan-ideology to work in the region. Even under the umbrella of Islam. People who talk about political Islam being a huge force, are MISTAKEN. There isn't ONE political Islam, there are multiple political Islams, and often these political Islams CLASH.
5) I don't think HezbAllah is totally self-sufficient, especially not in the wake of the July war..... I don't think H.A could have mustered up the sums it did to pay for the damage and carry out reconstruction. So yes, in this respect, Iran does exercise influence and determine the prospects for H.A. H.A might not be an arm of Iran the way people make it look, but I can also see some logic in the following argument: Since H.A follows the judgements of Wali al-Faqih, even if the Wali does not intervene politically, nevertheless H.A does ask for arbitration/judgements on political issues sometimes, and indeed they do admit this, and they also follow the Wali's judgement on who is deemed a 'friend' and who is deemed an 'enemy'. At face value it might not sound like a big deal, but when you have an armed party (however much it claims to be a resistance -- which in my opinion it IS; or to be Lebanese and serving only Lebanon's interests, etc.) following another country's judgement about who is an enemy, then that is a huge problem.
6) I actually meant that it might even go as far as removing the "Islamic" part from its slogan "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon".
Keep in mind they did change the "Revolution" into "Resistance", take a look at their old flags. That IS a huge shift. And another shift would not surprise me. At all. That is rather unfortunate, in my opinion. -
At February 17, 2007 at 2:19 PM,
bech said...
-
Hey i answered a huge text and it seems to be all gone!
well.. in any case, you raise important points, i now don't have the strength to talk about everything! But we will eventually these along posts.
Keep up the good work!
b. -
At February 19, 2007 at 4:53 PM,
Angry Anarchist said...
-
Damn, don't you hate it when that happens? It's happened to me quite a few times too.
