dexterm

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Hariri's said the suspension of his resignation is temporary, and tied with some sort of dialogue regarding Lebanon's future. If this will come about and in which form, is yet to be seen. Whether or not it will have any meaningful results is yet another unknown.

 

The authors cite sources to the effect that Hariri's resignation "shattered" Lebanon’s coalition government. Other than this being incorrect (the coalition and the government are still in place, no special outbursts of communal strife), then go on commenting on how this didn't actually happen. Unless I missed something, a bit clumsy.

 

I doubt that Saudi Arabia expected or wished that Hariri's resignation would bring about instant political chaos in Lebanon. Public opinion in Lebanon tends to be negative with regard to anything that threatens the status-quo, or heralding the return of massive political violence. Bringing about Hariri's resignation wasn't popular to begin with, and if the situation was to quickly deteriorate, support would have taken a hit. Further, if things were to go south, Saudi Arabia's allies in Lebanon are at a disadvantage vs. Hezbollah. This applies both to organization and armed might, but also to the simple fact that the point man (Hariri) wouldn't be around.

 

I think that within limitations of existing military might and political power, things as they panned out were pretty much what Saudi Arabia could have realistically wished for. The whole affair highlighted Lebanon being used as a battlefield for the Saudi-Iranian proxy war. And yes, of course, it did highlight Saudi meddling in Lebanese affairs, but at the same time, turned another spotlight on Iran's involvement via Hezbollah.

 

Saudi Arabia's mode of engagement in Lebanon is mostly economic and political, whereas Iran's also incorporates a sectarian military angle. In other words, Saudi Arabia's actions (apart from the Hariri resignation thing) is somewhat more "acceptable" with regard to international views, and to an extent, domestic ones as well.

 

If (and that's quite an if) the current move ends with a solution which either limits, slows or prevents Iran's sectarian military support, that's quite a result from a Saudi point of view. If this involves a call for all parties to "leave Lebanon alone", and countries actually comply, it still a net gain for Saudi Arabia (considering "acceptable" involvement will not be fully curtailed). On the other hand, if Hezbollah digs in, and refuses to compromise, cooperate or find any middle way, it may be seen as the party harming the country's stability. Having Iranian officials opining that Iran's support for Hezbollah or its disarmament are "non-negotiable", might not resonate all that well from a PR point of view, in this context.

 

This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight. Political betrayals and strange bed mates would not be out of character for many of those involved. Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts.

>>The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

Then you hypocritically proceed to carp at the article with your own vague speculations, as always peppering your comments with conditional language.

"I doubt  that..
I think that within limitations...
If (and that's quite an if)...
On the other hand, if ...
This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight... 
Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts."

The bottom line is neither Hezbollah nor Iran have been the least bit intimidated by the Saudi Crown Prince's mischief making. Which you may find disappointing.

If anything his attempt at destabilization has focused attention on the Saudis' trouble making elsewhere .... in Yemen. And calls for him to sort out his own backyard.

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It would be better if you carefully read the posts you respond to, and while at - the content of the links your provide.

 

If you need it spelled out: there was no general claim Saudi Arabia doesn't sponsor extremist Islamic organizations - but that with reference to ISIS, and direct Saudi Arabian state support, things are less conclusive.

 

First link: Conveniently failing to quote the first line of the same paragraph, which reads "While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar),...". Obviously that doesn't sit well with previously opinionated posts made, hence dropped. As pointed out above, most of the direct references of government support refer to other extreme Islamic organizations. This was not denied, but is not quite what you claimed, nor a whole lot to do with the topic at hand.

 

 Second link: Essentially the same, even in the bit quoted in your post.

 

Now, you may want to take the time and consider what was further pointed out on my post - that ISIS does carry out attacks within Saudi Arabia, that Saudi Arabia's security services do carry out operations against ISIS operatives, and that Saudi Arabia is a major backer of al-Sisi's regime, with little interest of destabilizing it. None of these resonate all that well with your point of view.

As usual your posts are couched in weasel words and litotes full of fence sitting demonstrating Morchspeak for..
...yes, the Saudis sponsored terrorist ISIS and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria as a counter to Iran, but the Frankenstein monster they created has come back to bite them in their own unstable backyard.

Most of your posts are written in this quasi objective style giving the semblance of being balanced and objective, but are in fact quite one sided.

Your post when stripped of the weasel hedging language admits
...yes there is a claim that Saudi Arabia sponsors extremist Islamic organizations and that with reference to ISIS, and direct Saudi Arabian state support, some things are conclusive.

Here is further evidence of Trump's hypocrisy in condemning the terrorist attacks while supporting their sponsors.

Limited in my quotes to the 3 sentences forum rule. But the whole thing worth reading.

"A third Wikileaks file appeared to show a private speech that Hillary Clinton made in 2013. In it, she said: “The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

Indeed, the former US vice president, Joe Biden, once spoke off-message by accusing Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states of pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” He explained: “The people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world …

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-is-saudi-arabia-funding-isis

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Comes down to the same thing, sort of like your own position. Spin away.

Don't think they actually shout "Death to Zionism" on their marches, or that this what they write on their missiles.

No spin. Just fact checking and myth debunking.

There is usually a justifiable furore when Hitler [and by allusion The Holocaust..noted by JT above] is invoked to score a few cheap shots at the expense of 6 million Holocaust victims.

OP...
'"We don't want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East," the paper quoted him as saying.'

Strange silence from the Crown Prince's new buddies this time though, because of course it's a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that you can provide much solid support for claims regarding consistent Saudi Arabian state-support for ISIS. Also not expecting you to acknowledge anything which complicates this simplistic presentation, such as ISIS carrying out attacks against Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia's security forces taking relevant actions.

 

ISIL claims deadly attack on Saudi forces at mosque

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/suicide-attack-mosque-saudi-arabia-southwest-150806110739697.html

 

Travel Warning – Saudi Arabia

https://sa.usembassy.gov/travel-warning-saudi-arabia/

 

It would also be difficult to reconcile the above position with previous posts berating Saudi Arabia for its support of al-Sisi's regime, but oh well...

>>I don't think that you can provide much solid support for claims regarding consistent Saudi Arabian state-support for ISIS.

....looks like you had better take the matter up with Hilary Clinton, and the head of MI6.

'Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism, which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. In a December 2009 diplomatic cable to U.S. State Department staff (made public in the diplomatic cable leaks the following year), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged U.S. diplomats to increase efforts to block money from Gulf Arab states from going to terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, writing that "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" and that "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia

"He [head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove] does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

from the OP...
"No group immediately claimed responsibility, but since 2013 Egyptian security forces have battled an Islamic State affiliate in the mainly desert region, and militants have killed hundreds of police and soldiers."

...the same scum inspired and financed by wahhabist Saudi Arabia, Trump's new buddies.

Makes Trump's faux outrage sound somewhat schizophrenic. Nothing new there then.

from the OP...

U.S. President Donald Trump, in a post on Twitter on Friday, called the assault a "horrible and cowardly terrorist attack".
 
"The world cannot tolerate terrorism, we must defeat them militarily and discredit the extremist ideology that forms the basis of their existence," he added.

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Calling for the destruction of the world's only Jewish identified state not counting Boca Raton is definitely Hitlery. That internet law is moot if there are actual grounds for the comparison. I wouldn't put it the same way but it's not completely bonkers either.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That's a myth to call Iran Hitlery. Iran did not call for Israel's destruction. They called for the end of racist Zionism. But the mistranslation makes for better propaganda by US, Israeli and now the Saudis to stir up hatred of Iran.

From the Washington Post
 “Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html?utm_term=.5805c9244932

and from the Guardian

"Giving background to this week's controversy over remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, a story mentioned his previous call for Israel to be "wiped off the pages of history" (Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist', 20 April, theguardian.com). The translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, has been the subject of dispute. A more literal translation is: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", and this is the translation we should have used (as noted in Corrections and clarifications, 28 July 2007)."
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/apr/23/corrections-clarifications

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And you talk about obfuscations....

 

Your citing of the the 70 years time frame, and coupling it with "occupation" is yet another indication for your true views - that Israel's existence to be illegitimate and unacceptable. As for citing UN resolutions, seems that you pick and choose as fits - the same UN voted favorably with regard to Israel's creation. Officially (at least) the Palestinian position is not as extreme as yours. Your views are anathema to negotiation or compromise.

I regard all land and homes of Palestinians whom Israel ethnically cleansed in 1947 and 1967, as illegally occupied land. The PLO is willing to compromise by agreeing to peace on the 67 borders. Israel gets to keep the land it stole in 1947.

And for their generosity in compromise the PLO office is now threatened with closure because of a statute passed by US lawmakers heavily influence by the Israeli lobby which could be easily abolished or waivered, while Israel steals more land and builds more illegal settlements with impunity. The US and EU have done nothing to halt this apart from 69 years of words. In frustration the PLO decided to take the matter to an independent tribunal.

My "true views" (you imply they are some sort of secret) have been public knowledge on this forum for 4 years. The racist supremacist ideology of Zionism that is the basis of modern Israel is illegitimate and unacceptable. I want all the peoples in Palestine: Jews Muslims Christians and atheists to live together in a secular democracy, just like most of the members on this forum probably do. No apologies for that. Do you want my true views any more overt than that?

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You spend a whole paragraph obfuscating and whine about "less key strokes". Just saying. Obviously much easier to go this way than to actually address things posted. There is no requirement nor obligation to fully quote all of your tiresome, repetitive tirades in order to address and debunk them.

 

As for your nonsense question, the easy answer would be that these are the terms. If the Palestinians do not wish to accept them, that's alright. Just that choosing this option comes with consequences. Another answer would be that if sides are to engage in negotiations, it would be more conductive to do so while refraining from further antagonizing each other.

 

That you make wholesale pronouncements doesn't actually make things real: Israel is not "absolved" of anything, and "war crimes" are not decided according to your views. As for "pretending", that would be, again, something injected by yourself, without necessarily being correct. But when it comes to "50-70 years procrastinatory duration" it's simply dishonesty on your part. Things haven't dragged out this long just on account of Israel - whether you care to admit it or not. And citing 70 years, rather than 50, is another telltale of your true, but often denied, view. Namely that Israel 's existence is illegitimate and unaccepted. With these kind of views, you have no business going on about negotiations, "pretend" or otherwise.

I forgot how pedantic you are.

Sorry. It's 69 years not 70 years since the first UN resolution that Israel ignored in 1948. But no penalties from US for that or any of the other international law Israel scoffs at.

The Resolution 194 defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. It resolved that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” (Article 11)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

Looks like the US is trying hard to disqualifying itself as an honest broker. The US routinely turns a blind eye to Israel's disregard for international law, puts no pressure on Israel to encourage direct negotiations, but is suddenly a stickler for its dusty rules when it comes to the Palestinians. 

"Instead of holding Israel liable for its persistent violations of international law and conventions, the U.S. administration and Congress are threatening to punish the Palestinian people because of statements made by President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations and other leaders pertaining to ICC accountability for Israel and for its war crimes in  Palestine. It is ironic that the U.S. is taking steps to punish the victim (the occupied) and not the perpetrator of the crime (the occupier). Conditioning the renewal of the waiver on the Palestinians’ sticking to ‘direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel’ is actually superfluous since negotiations are nonexistent, and the current U.S. administration has yet to present any kind of peace initiative."
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/11/administration-palestinians-
washington/

Trump has 90 days to renew the waiver. Perhaps his peace initiative will be on the table by then and this current threat will all be hot intimidatory air.

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

It would be more helpful if you'd stop making things up - there was no "selectively paraphrasing", and nothing against forum rules.

 

There was nothing said to the effect that the Palestinian may not continue their efforts on the ICC front, just that such a course of action comes with consequences. Of course, your standing position seems to be that such things do not apply when it comes to the Palestinians, but alas, reality is somewhat different - rile as you may.

 

 Laws are indeed not set in stone, but currently USA law is what it is. That you wish it to be otherwise doesn't make it so, nor is your opinion a provision allowing to ignore it. Apparently, you believe that USA laws should be optional when it comes to your adopted cause, which is again, not the case.

 

Once more, that "50-70 years" bit exposes your true views - which essentially do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, and, if official versions are to be believed, is a more extreme position than that held by the Palestinian Authority. As said earlier, there quite a difference in approach when citing this or that time frame. That you cite "procrastination" or "lack of progress" without any reference whatsoever to Arab and Palestinian rejectionism is just the usual one-sided and dishonest presentation.

 

One of the main principals involved in various USA attempts to block unilateral Palestinian efforts is that going this way basically shuts the door on the possibility of negotiations. And no, it isn't that Israeli governments (particularly recent ones) were much interested - but any such action by the Palestinian side provides another credible argument for avoiding discussions. There can't be both negotiation and such legal proceedings at the same time. So, once more - if the Palestinian side wishes to go this way, that's alright - it just need to be understood that it comes with a price, something which you seem to have trouble accepting.

 

The USA is not about to radically change its foreign policy on these matters, not under Trump's administration, anyway. So while you may find interest in fantasizing or lamenting about what USA policy ought to be, it may be more to the point to focus on what it is.

 

As for your assertions regarding Israel's involvement - the two articles in your link (not the source of either, by the way) do not suggest that Tillerson was "pressured", but rather, that's the Palestinian point of view cited in one of them (the article goes on to provide another interpretation). That you quote Palestinian view as fact doesn't make it so. And if, indeed, Israel's ambassador was investing some efforts in this, well - that's sort of what ambassadors do (which is also covered in the article itself). What was that said about "selective paraphrasing"?

 

It would be helpful when criticizing my posts if you actually quoted my words, rather than paraphrasing them. I question why you don't simply click "Quote"..so easy, actually takes you less key strokes than writing @dexterm. But maybe you have a different obfuscatory agenda than simply addressing my post.

>>There can't be both negotiation and such legal proceedings at the same time. 
..why not?
Why should Israel be blanket absolved of war crimes just so that pretend negotiations (of 50 - 70 years procrastinatory duration now) should continue?

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

I don't think that what Abbas said, or the Palestinian ICC efforts are similar to your usual hateful all encompassing propaganda posts. They do not, as far as I recall, or as the OP specifies, and you yourself quoted - include the first part of your post.

 

It may be ironic that the USA does not bend it's laws in order to fit your views, but it is what it is. Ignore it all you like, spin in whichever way - the Palestinian side agreed to certain guidelines and are aware of the diplomatic penalties involved.

It would be more helpful if you quoted my words rather than selectively paraphrasing what you think I said..which is against forum rules.

How dare the Palestinians seek justice for Israeli war crimes?

>>It may be ironic that the USA does not bend it's laws in order to fit your views, but it is what it is. 
...Laws are not set in stone, especially when this particular law heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby was contrived to protect Israel's stonewalling on peace negotiations. In addition the direct negotiations that the USA apparently so vehemently and sincerely insists upon have been dragging on now for 50-70 years of illegal occupation. About time the most powerful nation in the world exercised a bit of clout...if it really wanted to. I can understand the Palestinians' frustration at the lack of progress after so many decades of procrastination.

The USA appears to be punctilious in the law it framed to protect Israel from investigation of its war crimes, especially settlement building, in the ICC.

Why is it not equally adamant that Israel should cease thumbing its nose at the spirit of the Oslo accords?

If the US wants to be an honest broker and is so keen on direct meaningful negotiations betwen Israel and the Palestinians then it should similarly insist that Israel call a moratorium on building illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank ( a condition Palestinians have been calling for for years as an act of goodwill for serious negotiations) , or otherwise threaten to close the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Bottom line as the OP suggests is that this is all talk and the office won't close. The threat is probably the result of pressure exerted by the Israeli ambassador in Washington and Netanyahu on Tillerson. If only because Trump would then schizophrenically have to close the PLO office and summon back his son-in-law Kushner who is supposedly negotiating his ultimate peace deal. 

http://jfjfp.com/?p=96533

Who knows...maybe that's what Trump wants, and could use the PLO office as a scapegoat for yet another Trump fail.

28 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Who says you have to have a posh office to ' find justice'? they have been

trying to find justice for 70 years now, and for 70 years 'Palestinian refugees'

are still living in squalid camps because it looks good for propaganda

purposes while the leadership lives in opulent riches.....

 

In your simplistic analysis of the pursuit of Palestinian justice you seem to have omitted one small detail...the Zionist mainly European colonizers who ethnically cleansed Palestinians 70 years ago and made them refugees, while stealing their land.

Which is the case the Palestinians want to put before the ICC
from the OP...
'In September, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations called on the ICC "to open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people."'

It is somewhat ironic that the land of the free is threatening to close down an office because the Palestinians are peacefully seeking human and civil rights through the courts.

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not even clear what you think you're on about. Why didn't I argue your point of view? Because I'm not daft.

 

I have actually mentioned Hariri's ties to Saudi Arabia, and some of the leverage they may apply, on previous posts, both recent and past. Only I refuse to ignore that affiliations to foreign powers, coercion and applying political leverage are at the core of Lebanese politics. This is not a singular instance, no matter how you spin it. Nor are such practices limited to a specific party.

 

You are not Hariri, only a poster co-opting him for an lame argument. A more honest, or balanced view, would not fail to acknowledge that Hariri may have similar misgivings mouthing off against Hezbollah or Iran, seeing how his father ended up, and not wishing to live his kids orphans (which was a sentiment he actually conveyed).

 

What am I on about?
I made a simple point about Hariri possibly being under personal pressure which you agreed "May be valid". 

Then you proceeded pedantically to argue the hind leg off a donkey, as is you wont, with straw man arguments, simply in an attempt to get the last word in.

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As opposed to your "factual knowledge" of Saudi Arabia currently using Hariri's family as leverage? There is no straw man argument, there's you unwilling to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into your contrived point of view.

If you think the leverage that Saudis hold over Hariri was so important previously. You wrote:
"If Hariri's family's presence in Saudi Arabia is used as leverage, then there is no reason to believe it wasn't the "arrangement" to begin with"
... why didn't you mention it previously? Same thing you are accusing me of.

If I were Hariri, I would naturally act in the interests of the Sunni cause in Lebanon as its Sunni PM, but I sure as hell as wouldn't go mouthing off against Saudi Arabia in the present situation knowing my kids are still there.

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Straw man how? If Hariri's family's presence in Saudi Arabia is used as leverage, then there is no reason to believe it wasn't the "arrangement" to begin with. Can't recall you ever mentioning it or objecting to it, and doubt you would have passed on the opportunity had you been aware of the situation. It has nothing to do with you "precisely" twisting my words.

 

As for you other "argument" - the Hezbollah are currently the only heavily armed sectarian organization in Lebanon, and the only one being militarily supported by outside forces. The other sectarian factions basically disarmed quite a while back. Who is "looking after" them? Well, that would be the Lebanese army and security forces. Seems like your position is that sectarianism is to be upheld over a unifying approach, while going on about destabilization etc...

>> then there is no reason to believe it wasn't the "arrangement" to begin with. 

...there's your hypothetical belief which leads to your strawman argument.

Your hypothesis, not mine.

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Back to twisting other poster's words, I see.

 

Precisely how? The point made was with regard to your current view being contrived. Doubt you were even aware of Hariri's family circumstances prior to this. Can't recall you making these sort of comments with regard to previous events related to Hariri.

 

You whine about Hariri's decisions being influenced by Saudi pressure, possibly using his family as leverage. How is pointing out that Hariri is subject to similar pressure by Hezbollah, "taking a dig"? Hezbollah is the only massively armed sectarian group in Lebanon, and that it has a history of using this as political leverage, not least of which was the assassination of Hariri's father.

 

The Hezbollah does not have any "domestic hostile neighbors" which are similarly armed, or even come close. And none of these are currently militarily supported in the way you suggest.

 

Can't have the cake and eat it too. If you object to foreign meddling in Lebanon, and to the culture of political violence that goes hand in hand with it - there is no way you can reasonably ignore Hezbollah's actions and role in this context.

Straw man argument. 
I did not make an issue of where Hariri's children were educated before now, because it was not an issue...now it is...SA's actions have made it one...as I precisely stated above.

If the Shia in Lebanon do not look after themselves with the help of Iran, who will...Israel? Sunni Saudi? Phalangists?

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It may be a valid point, but still trivial in the context of Lebanese politics.

If his kids were in Saudi Arabia prior to his resignation, and yet no objections (such as yours) were raised, then it would imply it wasn't much of an issue up to now, and that it is currently used to score some imaginary points.

 

As for his family being out of harm's way, you seem to skip the part where his father was assassinated, where it happened and by whom.

 

If one was to follow the "logic" of your post, then removal of the Hezbollah's persistent threat may have encouraged exposure of details as to Iran's "destabilizing intrigue in Lebanon".

 

 

That would be a task meant for the Lebanese army, rather than a sectarian organization often operating under foreign instructions and agenda. The same weapons were used against fellow Lebanese, in service of agendas which are not Lebanon's or run against Lebanon's interests as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

>> it would imply it wasn't much of an issue up to now
...precisely! Up until now Saudis were not summoning Hariri to SA and pressuring him to resign.

The only one trying to score imaginary points seems to be you.
.."It may be a valid point, but..." then you take a dig at Hezbollah to further your own agenda. I sometimes think you argue just for the sake of arguing.

"They need to be armed to the teeth to defend themselves against their hostile armed to the teeth neighbors."
....applies to both their hostile neighbors to the south and their domestic hostile neighbors, supported again by that power to the south.

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think his children were in school there before his resignation. Funny how this seems like a credible threat, whereas the presence in country of an armed-to-the-teeth organization which was involved in killing his father, is apparently a non-issue.

They need to be armed to the teeth to defend themselves against their hostile armed to the teeth neighbors.

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, it's a trivial one. Pretty much all leading figures in Lebanese politics have a history of family members being killed over politics.

Of course it's a valid point. 
Whether his children were in school there before his resignation is irrelevant. When all his loved ones are out of harm's way, perhaps we may hear the truth about Saudi destabilizing intrigue in Lebanon.

Glad that Mugabe lived long enough to witness his comeuppance.
Sad that he didn't go years ago having caused so much suffering for Zimbabweans.

4 hours ago, BuaBS said:

From one muslim country to another . He'll be right at home in France.

Ignorant redneck Islamophobic troll that contributes zilch to the discussion. 

Back to OP..

"He left two of his children behind in school in Riyadh when he flew to Paris."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42034563

Will Hariri be able to speak as freely as He may have wanted to?

10 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Its the same cap people who profess to be sanctimonious wear ,just like yourself , "oh look at me i am so rightious and love the underdog" well many times the underdog is not so good ,the Rohingyans are and always have been nothing but trouble ,wanted by no one ,not even other muslim countrys . as for gay people ,i couldnt care less if two people of the same sex want to make out ,they can beat each other with rhubarb as far i  am concerned ,just dont go on about wanting to adopt and your "rights" and as for wearing hijabs etc , why come to the west if you dont want to conform ,stay in a country that likes to dress like that ,the same as if i wanted to walk around in religous Christian gear i wouldnt go to live in Saudi , so please get over yourself ,and as for Geldof , dont see him spouting off about Christians or Buddists being killed in Muslim countrys .

come to that ,oh forget it ,its a waste of time discusing it .

Your personal flame shows a complete inability to offer logical arguments to address issues raised.

The Burmese army this week investigated and exonerated itself of any blame for what the United Nations has called "a textbook example of ethnic cleansing".

I suggest you view the photos in this article....children scarred by the Burmese military bullets, burnt by their rockets and torched houses.

"One of them started beating me, saying, 'If you have no money, then we will kill you.'" They then locked her inside her house and set the roof on fire. When she finally escaped, she found her three sons dead and her daughter beaten and bleeding."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42022546  

These are the crimes you are defending.

Your Islamophobic whitewash of such crimes against humanity and attacks on people such as Geldorf who highlight them demonstrate the same blind hate as the Burmese army. I find such attitudes unbelievably disgusting.

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Sorry, I don't buy the BBC versions of anything per se anymore. Along with many others. Needs to be a consensus of media outlets. The BBC certainly have their own agenda as do some of their reporters.

 

Geldorf is an irritating arse whose only compassion is for his ego. Perhaps if he'd paid some attention to his family his time might be better spent.

 

I doubt, form the smiling lady in the photo, Dublin's administration gives a shit. Probably glad to see the back of him. 

 

Like I said, he comments selectively and only on the PC topics. 

Your pathetic hatchet job on Geldorf, capitalizing on his family losses is disgusting.

History is littered with examples of  "we didn't know it was happening". No excuse for that this time.

>>Needs to be a consensus of media outlets. 
....How much consensus do you need?
BBC, CNN, The Independent,  the British government,  the EU,  the UN Commissioner

I think in your case and other racists on this forum it's worse, you actually do know what is happening, but the truth doesn't fit your Islamophobic agenda.

"Accounts of rape, burning children and murder
How a Rohingya massacre unfolded at Tula Toli

Discarded and left for dead, Mumtaz says she found herself on top of a mound of charred, entangled bodies.

"They killed and killed and piled the bodies up high. It was like cut bamboo," says Mumtaz, a Rohingya woman from the village of Tula Toli in western Myanmar.
"In the pile there was someone's neck, someone's head, someone's leg. I was able to come out, I don't know how."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/12/asia/myanmar-rohingya-tula-toli-massacre-testimony/index.html

"The British government has said the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar "looks like ethnic cleansing," Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesman said Monday."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/13/asia/myanmar-rohingya-uk/index.html

"Government Minister calls Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim killings a 'textbook example' of ethnic cleansing
Foreign Office Minister Mark Field said he agreed with the UN High "Commissioner that the situation now amounts to 'ethnic cleansing''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/myanmar-rohingya-muslims-textbook-example-ethnic-cleansing-mark-field-a8005836.html

"EU to cut ties with Burma over the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/eu-burma-cut-ties-rohingya-muslims-crisis-ethnic-cleansing-myanmar-rakhine-state-a7997161.html

Good news if it is the beginning of the end of the Mugabe dictatorship.

Hope it isn't a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for the long suffering people of Zimbabwe.

29 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Agree that she should have been much more proactive. Have not seen any real evidence other than PC sympathetic reporters interviewing illiterate refugees, and the usual UN followed by usual countries who always comment on such things. Don't believe the Rohingya never lie, never do anything wrong, were always law abiding, etc etc. Nor do I believe the Burmese army above such actions they are accused of. But hard to tell the actual truth from the biased hearsay being reported as gospel.

 

However, a professional charity jump on the band wagon, look what a good guy has-been tosser like Geldorf, who very selectively chooses his causes, adds nothing to it. As some one else posted, he hasn't been at all interested in the massacres and persecutions of Coptic Christians; or the plight of unmarried mothers, their babies, and orphans at the hands of warped sadistic Catholic clergy and nuns in his home country. But alleged persecution of a Muslim minority, just right for a champagne socialist charity campaigner to try and get back in the public eye.

 

 

 

 

>>But hard to tell the actual truth from the biased hearsay being reported as gospel.
...It's also easy to muddy the waters and turn a blind eye by saying it's all too hard.

The fact that the Burmese army generally wont allow free access to reporters and UN officials speaks volumes.

Resistance movements don't begin and 624,000 Rohingya dont flee because their lives are all sweetness and light under the Burmese military junta.

I will take the word and video of BBC reporters who enable a glimpse of what's going on. He and others came across a village that was just being torched.

"As we walked in, a group of young, muscular men carrying machetes, swords and sling-shots were walking out. We tried to ask them questions but they refused to be filmed.
However, my Myanmar colleagues did speak to them away from the cameras and they said they were Rakhine Buddhists. One of them admitted he had lit the fires, and said he had help from the police."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41189564

The reason Geldorf chose this gesture is because he and Suu Kyi had both been honored by the  city of Dublin.

All the other stuff about persecuted Coptic Christians and abusive clergy is just deflecting whataboutery.

Geldorf, judging by his compassion, probably has strong opinions condemning those too, as I do.

But returning his Dublin honor is a more conducive platform for criticism of Suu Kyi, and is also what the OP topic is about.