Lebanese PM Hariri resigns, attacking Iran and Hezbollah

[rooster59]

Lebanese PM Hariri resigns, attacking Iran and Hezbollah

By Angus McDowall , Tom Perry and Sarah Dadouch

 

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri attends a general parliament discussion in downtown Beirut, Lebanon October 18, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's prime minister Saad al-Hariri resigned on Saturday, saying he believed there was an assassination plot against him and accusing Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of sowing strife in the Arab world.

 

His resignation brought down the coalition government and plunged Lebanon into a new political crisis, returning it to the front line of a regional competition between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran that has also buffeted Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain.

 

Hariri, who is closely allied with Saudi Arabia, alleged in a broadcast from an undisclosed location that Hezbollah was "directing weapons" at Yemenis, Syrians and Lebanese.

 

In comments directed at Iran, he said the Arab world would "cut off the hands that wickedly extend to it".

 

Hariri's coalition, which took office last year, grouped nearly all of Lebanon's main parties, including Hezbollah. It took office in a political deal that made Michel Aoun, a Hezbollah ally, president, and was seen as a victory for Iran.

 

The resignation risks exacerbating sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and returning Lebanon to paralysis in government.

It was not immediately clear who might succeed Hariri, Lebanon's most influential Sunni politician.

 

The prime minister must be a Sunni in Lebanon's sectarian system. Aoun must appoint the candidate with most support among MPs, who he is expected to consult in the coming days.

 

"We are living in a climate similar to the atmosphere that prevailed before the assassination of martyr Rafik al-Hariri. I have sensed what is being plotted covertly to target my life," Hariri said.

 

Rafik al-Hariri was killed in a 2005 Beirut bomb attack that pushed his son Saad into politics and set off years of turmoil. A U.N.-backed tribunal has charged five Hezbollah members over the killing. Hezbollah denies involvement.

 

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab television channel al-Arabiya al-Hadath reported that an assassination plot against Hariri was foiled in Beirut days ago, citing an unnamed source.

 

Lebanon's internal security force said in a statement on the reports that it had no information about the matter and denied it was the source of the news.

 

Hariri said Hezbollah and Iran had brought Lebanon into the "eye of a storm" of international sanctions. Iran was sowing strife, destruction and ruin wherever it went and accused it of a "deep hatred for the Arab nation", he said.

 

Aoun's office said Hariri had called him from "outside Lebanon" to inform him of his resignation. He has postponed a visit to Kuwait and directed military and security agencies "to maintain stability", it said.

 

Hariri flew to Saudi Arabia on Friday after a meeting in Beirut with Ali Akbar Velayati, the top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Afterwards, Velayati described Hariri's coalition as "a victory" and "great success".

 

TUSSLE FOR INFLUENCE

 

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, will address Hariri's resignation in a televised speech on Sunday, Hezbollah-affiliated media reported.

 

A member of Hezbollah's central committee, Sheikh Nabil Kawouk, accused Riyadh of being behind Hariri's resignation, saying in a speech reported by Lebanon's al-Jadeed television: "God protect Lebanon from the evil of Saudi Arabia's reckless adventures."

 

Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon's Druze minority, said Lebanon was too weak to bear the consequences of Hariri's resignation, saying he feared political and economic fallout.

 

"We cannot afford to fight the Iranians from Lebanon," he told Reuters, advocating an approach of compromise with Hezbollah in Lebanon while waiting for regional circumstances to allow Saudi-Iranian dialogue.

 

Iran's Foreign Ministry said Hariri's departure was a plot to "create tension in Lebanon and the region".

 

"Hariri's resignation was done with planning by Donald Trump, the president of America, and Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia," said Hussein Sheikh al-Islam, adviser to Iran's supreme leader.

 

Saudi Arabia's influential Gulf Affairs Minister Thamer al-Sabhan, who met Hariri in Riyadh this week, echoed the language of the Lebanese politician saying in a tweet: "The hands of treachery and aggression must be cut off."

 

Hariri has visited Saudi Arabia twice in the past week, meeting Crown Prince Mohammed and other senior officials. In recent weeks, leading Christian politicians who oppose Hezbollah have also visited Saudi Arabia.

 

ECONOMIC RISKS

 

Hezbollah's close ties to Iran and its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his war with rebels have been a major source of tension in Lebanon for years.

 

Beirut has adopted a position of "disassociation" from the conflict, but this has come under strain with Hezbollah and its allies pushing for a normalisation of ties.

 

Since taking office, Hariri had worked to garner international aid for Lebanon to cope with the strain of hosting some 1.5 million Syrian refugees, seeking billions of dollars to boost its sluggish economy.

 

The government's collapse complicates preparations for next year's parliamentary elections, Lebanon's first since 2009.

 

Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil told Reuters there was no danger to Lebanon's economy or its currency.

 

Joseph Torbey, head of the Association of Banks in Lebanon, said there was no risk to monetary stability because the central bank had large reserves and there was confidence in Lebanese banks.

 

Lebanon has one of the world's highest ratios of debt-to-GDP and last month passed its first budget since 2005, one of the few achievements of the coalition government.

 

The United States is considering new sanctions on Hezbollah, as part of a tougher stance against Iran and its allies, that Lebanese politicians have fretted could hurt the economy.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-05

 

[ilostmypassword]

"But in the streets of Tariq al-Jdeedeh, a mostly Sunni neighborhood of Beirut that is part of Mr. Hariri’s political base, anger and confusion contrasted with the posters of Mr. Hariri that festooned the buildings.

“Hariri didn’t do this for Lebanon, he did this for Saudi against Iran,” said Nabil Idriss, who was tending his son’s fabric shop."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saad-hariri-lebanon-iran.html

[ezzra]

Finally an Arab leader that call out Iran and it's stooges the Hezbulla for what they really are, a war mongers and terrorists, Lebanon use to be the Paris of the east nowadays, it's nothing but a hornets nest for terrorist activities and power base for Iran's ever expending network of control... 

[ilostmypassword]

49 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Finally an Arab leader that call out Iran and it's stooges the Hezbulla  for what they really are, a war mongers and terrorists, Lebanon use to be the Paris of the east nowadays, it's nothing but a hornets nest for terrorist activities and power base for Iran's ever expending network of control... 

Yes, thank you Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

[ilostmypassword]

49 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Finally an Arab leader that call out Iran and it's stooges the Hezbulla for what they really are, a war mongers and terrorists, Lebanon use to be the Paris of the east nowadays, it's nothing but a hornets nest for terrorist activities and power base for Iran's ever expending network of control... 

Lebanon is a country. Paris is a city, the capital of France. Beirut is the capital of Lebanon. Beirut is doing quite well and is a very safe city which draws lots of tourists. Glad I could clear this up for you.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Lebanon is a country. Paris is a city, the capital of France. Beirut is the capital of Lebanon. Beirut is doing quite well and is a very safe city which draws lots of tourists. Glad I could clear this up for you.

I was just there.  It's not that great.  You still see buildings shot up.  Security is everywhere.  And if you leave the area, you have to be careful.  Certain parts are pretty much off limits to tourists.  I spent 10 days in Lebanon this year.  Loved it, but it has issues.

[heroKK]

Without Iran's help, Lebanon could be annexed and wiped out from map already, and it was actually the main reason why Iran still holds strong hand and presence in the country, had Lebanon not been invaded and all UN resolutions respected, probably Iran wont be there in the first place. It's also the reason why it s now in Syria, Iraq and very soon in Yemen too, as the Saudis & allies are losing the proxy war very badly.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"But in the streets of Tariq al-Jdeedeh, a mostly Sunni neighborhood of Beirut that is part of Mr. Hariri’s political base, anger and confusion contrasted with the posters of Mr. Hariri that festooned the buildings.

“Hariri didn’t do this for Lebanon, he did this for Saudi against Iran,” said Nabil Idriss, who was tending his son’s fabric shop."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saad-hariri-lebanon-iran.html

 

This post takes cherry picking to a whole new level. Not only does it disregard the article's lengthy (if by no means complete) attempt to convey the complexities involved, but even the last bit - which is more to the point, was edited out - "Saad Hariri was never in control".

[Morch]

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

Finally an Arab leader that call out Iran and it's stooges the Hezbulla for what they really are, a war mongers and terrorists, Lebanon use to be the Paris of the east nowadays, it's nothing but a hornets nest for terrorist activities and power base for Iran's ever expending network of control... 

Finally how?

 

Unless you missed it or somehow got confused, there were and there are many Arab leaders voicing similar views. As for Hezbollah, it was labeled a terrorist organization by the Arab League, early last year. Beirut (guess that's what you meant) hasn't been "Paris of the East" for many years, way before Hezbollah appeared on the stage. While not what it used to be, it's not quite as bad as you paint it.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

This post takes cherry picking to a whole new level. Not only does it disregard the article's lengthy (if by no means complete) attempt to convey the complexities involved, but even the last bit - which is more to the point, was edited out - "Saad Hariri was never in control".

Actually, it was inadvertent but that said, my omission actually worked against me. Who do you think the local Sunnis are  referring to when they say Saad Hariri was never in control. Given that these angry sunnis were blaming the Saudis in the first sentence, who else could it be but them. Do you think that the Times would be so journalistically inept as to use the concluding sentence to contradict what went before?

 And as for what went before, clearly the gist of the article was that the Saudis were behind this. I refer you to paragraph 5 which cites the agreement of regional and lebanese analysts who believe that the Saudis were behind this. In paragraph 4, it says his staff were shocked by his resignation. Overwhelmingly, this article supports the idea that the Saudis were behind this.

Further, the article goes on to say that the Saudis pushed this to deny Hezbollah a cover and a fig leaf.

In fact, I can't even find a paragraph that impeaches what I wrote.

 

What evidence can you cite from article that  shows I somehow I distorted the gist of it? I'm genuinely curious to see what you'll come up with.

Edited November 5, 2017 by ilostmypassword
left off a word

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, heroKK said:

Without Iran's help, Lebanon could be annexed and wiped out from map already, and it was actually the main reason why Iran still holds strong hand and presence in the country, had Lebanon not been invaded and all UN resolutions respected, probably Iran wont be there in the first place. It's also the reason why it s now in Syria, Iraq and very soon in Yemen too, as the Saudis & allies are losing the proxy war very badly.

 

Black is white. White is black.

 

The above fails to address Syria's de-facto occupation of Lebanon, with Hezbollah's and Iran's support. A state of things which wasn't sanctioned or in line with the wishes of all Lebanese. If the above nonsense was a reference to Israel's past campaign - there was never a question of Lebanon being annexed or "wiped out from the map".

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, it was inadvertent but that said, my omission actually worked against me. Who do you think the local Sunnis are  referring to when they say Saad Hariri was never in control. Given that these angry sunnis were blaming the Saudis in the first sentence, who else could it be but them. Do you think that the Times would be so journalistically inept as to use the concluding sentence to contradict what went before?

 And as for what went before, clearly the gist of the article was that the Saudis were behind this. I refer you to paragraph 5 which cites the agreement of regional and lebanese analysts who believe that the Saudis were behind this. In paragraph 4, it says his staff were shocked by his resignation. Overwhelmingly, this article supports the idea that the Saudis were behind this.

Further, the article goes on to say that the Saudis pushed this to deny Hezbollah a cover and a fig leaf.

In fact, I can't even find a paragraph that impeaches what I wrote.

 

What evidence can you cite from article that  shows I somehow I distorted the gist of it? I'm genuinely curious to see what you'll come up.

 

The cherry picking was obviously intentional - no other point to quoting a comment by a local appearing at the end of the article as reflecting or representing it.

 

Saying Hariri was not in control is facile. The same goes for pretty much all other Lebanese leaders, each beholden to foreign powers and bound to represent foreign interests. Hariri is no different, and is probably even less toxic for Lebanon than either Nasrallah or Aoun.

 

The point isn't about denying that Saudi Arabia was involved in this move, or even orchestrated it - but that referring to it without context, or while ignoring Iranian efforts of applying their own agenda in country is either uninformed or disingenuous.

 

What you chose to quote narrowly focuses on what you wished to highlight.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The cherry picking was obviously intentional - no other point to quoting a comment by a local appearing at the end of the article as reflecting or representing it.

 

Saying Hariri was not in control is facile. The same goes for pretty much all other Lebanese leaders, each beholden to foreign powers and bound to represent foreign interests. Hariri is no different, and is probably even less toxic for Lebanon than either Nasrallah or Aoun.

 

The point isn't about denying that Saudi Arabia was involved in this move, or even orchestrated it - but that referring to it without context, or while ignoring Iranian efforts of applying their own agenda in country is either uninformed or disingenuous.

 

What you chose to quote narrowly focuses on what you wished to highlight.

Your reply is flat out false. The whole NY Times article paragraph after paragraph clearly points to the Saudis being behind this. Maybe the article is incorrect but I certainly and absolutely did not distort it or misrepresent it. I asked you to cite something from that article that shows otherwise. You couldn't come up with anything because there's nothing there to support your contention. Clearly your failure to do so is intentional. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, heroKK said:

Without Iran's help, Lebanon could be annexed and wiped out from map already, and it was actually the main reason why Iran still holds strong hand and presence in the country, had Lebanon not been invaded and all UN resolutions respected, probably Iran wont be there in the first place. It's also the reason why it s now in Syria, Iraq and very soon in Yemen too, as the Saudis & allies are losing the proxy war very badly.

Who would have annexed Lebanon?  Syria?  They occupied Lebanon for a long time and killed this guys father.  I don't know any other country nearby that threatens Lebanon.  Only Iran.  And in the past, Syria.  Which is in partnership with Iran.

 

Hezbollah is funded by Iran primarily to go after Israel.

 

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

Quote

After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel occupied a strip of south Lebanon, which was controlled by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a militia supported by Israel. Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass the Israeli occupation.^[5] Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government,^[22] which was in occupation of Lebanon at the time.

 

[Morch]

54 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Your reply is flat out false. The whole NY Times article paragraph after paragraph clearly points to the Saudis being behind this. Maybe the article is incorrect but I certainly and absolutely did not distort it or misrepresent it. I asked you to cite something from that article that shows otherwise. You couldn't come up with anything because there's nothing there to support your contention. Clearly your failure to do so is intentional. 

 

No falsehoods, other than in your argumentative mind. The article you linked references quite a wider picture than is implied by your cherry picking the last paragraph. And there is nothing in my posts which denies Saudi Arabia's part in this drama - just that I do not treat it out of context as you do. You can ask me to cite whatever you like - but I'm not about to defend made up claims I haven't aired.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No falsehoods, other than in your argumentative mind. The article you linked references quite a wider picture than is implied by your cherry picking the last paragraph. And there is nothing in my posts which denies Saudi Arabia's part in this drama - just that I do not treat it out of context as you do. You can ask me to cite whatever you like - but I'm not about to defend made up claims I haven't aired.

 

 

The quote I cited was about local sunni anger at the Saudis. It does not contradict anything in the article. Why do you think that the Times used that quote for the conclusion? Because they're journalistically inept? And the rest of the article clearly puts the onus on the Saudis. I've asked you time and time again to cite something from that article that contradicts what I wrote. And you still haven't been come up with anything from that article. It's clear that you are intentionally not citing anything from the article because you've got nothing and you know it.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The quote I cited was about local sunni anger at the Saudis. It does not contradict anything in the article. Why do you think that the Times used that quote for the conclusion? Because they're journalistically inept? And the rest of the article clearly puts the onus on the Saudis. I've asked you time and time again to cite something from that article that contradicts what I wrote. And you still haven't been come up with anything from that article. It's clear that you are intentionally not citing anything from the article because you've got nothing and you know it.

 

The quote cited referenced one person, without a clear indication if this sentiment is prevalent. There was no claim that the cherry picked bit quoted "contradicted" anything in the article, but that it completely ignored backdrop and context, which were a significant part of the article and necessary for understanding the situation.

 

I never said anything about the quoted bit having anything to do with NYT being professionally inept, that's just noise you're injecting to the argument. My point deals not with how NYT presents the story, but with how you chose to present the NYT story.

 

You didn't "write" anything, and I haven't made any comments to which "contradict" got any connection. The only thing clear is that you are either arguing for argument's sake or not grasping the point made.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The quote cited referenced one person, without a clear indication if this sentiment is prevalent. There was no claim that the cherry picked bit quoted "contradicted" anything in the article, but that it completely ignored backdrop and context, which were a significant part of the article and necessary for understanding the situation.

 

I never said anything about the quoted bit having anything to do with NYT being professionally inept, that's just noise you're injecting to the argument. My point deals not with how NYT presents the story, but with how you chose to present the NYT story.

 

You didn't "write" anything, and I haven't made any comments to which "contradict" got any connection. The only thing clear is that you are either arguing for argument's sake or not grasping the point made.

 

Trulyl bizarre. You think that the Times is going to quote a member of the Sunni community who has an atypical view of the situation. In the concluding sentences? If you think that is likely then you have some very strange ideas about journalism.

The first 3 paragraphs of this article are pretty much who what when where how why. No discernible point of view.

But starting with paragraph 4 it gets interesting. The Times says that Hariri's staff was schocked. In other words he goes off to Saudi Arabia and all of a sudden drops this bombshell.  What do you think that means?

And of course paragraph 5 lays it all out when it explicitly says the experts on Lebanon and the region, whether or not they support Hesbollah said that it looked like Hariri's resignation was caused by the Saudis. It cites no one with a contrary view. You may disagreee with that, but that's not the point. The article cites no one with a contrary opinion. No one.

Paragraph 6 gives a possible motivation for the Saudi move - it wants to keep Hesbollah from having a believable Sunni partner and deny Hesbollah the appearance of a unity government.

Paragraph 7 cites a middle east adviser to Obama who says that the Saudis believed Hariri wasn't so much a balance to Hesbollah and Iran as providing them with a fig leaf to hide the reality of the situation.

Paragraph 8 points out that how the Saudis and the US don't really have much in the way of options without Hariri in power.

Paragraph 9 points out how the resignation makes the situation more dangerous and war with Israel more likely.

Paragraph 10 is Hariri's analysis of the situation in Lebanon and how it has become more dangerous

Chapters 11-13 provide a brief history of events leading up to the present.

Chapter 14 says the political coalition has largely succeeded in keeping Lebanon out of war despite the participation of Hesbollah on one side and Sunni militants on the other, and the influx of about 1 million refugees.

From chapter 15 on up to the last 2 paragraphs there is really nothing relevant to who is responsible for Hariri stepping down.

But the next to last paragraph specifically says that there was anger and confusion in a mostly Sunni neighborhood in Beirut about what Hariri had done. Clearly the residents were not happy about it.

And finally the last paragraph, which I will now quote in full. And let's see how you can possibly justify it has a misrepresentation of what went before:

“Hariri didn’t do this for Lebanon, he did this for Saudi against Iran,” said Nabil Idriss, who was tending his son’s fabric shop. “Now with this move, the picture is more transparent than ever. Saad Hariri was never in control.”

Why would I purposely omit that last sentence when it's clearly put in there by the Times reporter or editor to sum the case? And how does it ignore the backdrop or context of what was reported on in this article? 

You can't even come up with anything specific from the article. Instead you just engage in empty generalities. Please, cite something from the article that shows how my quote ignores the context and backdrop of the article. But if you can't cite specifics, then it's obvious your criticism of my citation is just bloviation.

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What's bizarre is your inability or unwillingness to comprehend a rather straightforward comment made, and the amount of energy invested in rejecting it.

 

Once more - the article you linked covers the backdrop and places the story in context. Your cherry picked quote did not fully reflect the article's content. There is no need to "cite" anything in order to point that out - enough reading the article and realizing it cannot be summed by the cherry picked quote or that it misses out on much of what's germane to the issue.

 

Now, in light of the above post, may I suggest getting a life?

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What's bizarre is your inability or unwillingness to comprehend a rather straightforward comment made, and the amount of energy invested in rejecting it.

 

Once more - the article you linked covers the backdrop and places the story in context. Your cherry picked quote did not fully reflect the article's content. There is no need to "cite" anything in order to point that out - enough reading the article and realizing it cannot be summed by the cherry picked quote or that it misses out on much of what's germane to the issue.

 

Now, in light of the above post, may I suggest getting a life?

The big takeaway from that article is that this wasn't Hariri's decision but the Saudis'. The whole article was built around substantiating that premise and the consequences that would follow. Your contention that I purposely omitted the last sentence, when, it would, if anything reinforce the point I made was nonsense. As was your assertion that the quote from a resident of that Sunnis neighborhood was "without a clear indication if this sentiment is prevalent". The previous paragraph and journalistic convention both give the lie to your assertion.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The big takeaway from that article is that this wasn't Hariri's decision but the Saudis'. The whole article was built around substantiating that premise and the consequences that would follow. Your contention that I purposely omitted the last sentence, when, it would, if anything reinforce the point I made was nonsense. As was your assertion that the quote from a resident of that Sunnis neighborhood was "without a clear indication if this sentiment is prevalent". The previous paragraph and journalistic convention both give the lie to your assertion.

 

Yawn.

 

The main issue I had was with the quote used, by yourself, to present the linked article - and not with the article itself, an angle which you falsely keep pushing. Now, anyone familiar, even to a minimal degree, with Lebanese politics would not consider Hariri operating under Saudi Arabia's influence as a revelation. And the same goes for pretty much all political leadership in the country - most come with foreign allegiances and patrons.

 

Implying that the average Lebanese would be unaware of this or surprised by it, is as bogus as they come. In was in this sense which the comment regarding the value of the quote was made.

 

The article address (if not fully, that wold require a much longer piece) the backdrop of Lebanese politics and the context in which current events are unfolding. Picking (or rather, cherry picking) the quote used as representing the article is misleading - because it condenses something complex into a simplified, sensationalist "account".

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

The main issue I had was with the quote used, by yourself, to present the linked article - and not with the article itself, an angle which you falsely keep pushing. Now, anyone familiar, even to a minimal degree, with Lebanese politics would not consider Hariri operating under Saudi Arabia's influence as a revelation. And the same goes for pretty much all political leadership in the country - most come with foreign allegiances and patrons.

 

Implying that the average Lebanese would be unaware of this or surprised by it, is as bogus as they come. In was in this sense which the comment regarding the value of the quote was made.

 

The article address (if not fully, that wold require a much longer piece) the backdrop of Lebanese politics and the context in which current events are unfolding. Picking (or rather, cherry picking) the quote used as representing the article is misleading - because it condenses something complex into a simplified, sensationalist "account".

 

"Operating under Saudi Arabia's influence?..Is that what you would call it? Pretty weak tea. As the Times article makes pretty clear it was not just "influence" but control.  And you may think it's widely known about this control, but if you look at the Reuters article posted here, the only assertions that Hariri is under the control of Saudi Arabia come from Iran and Hesbollah sources. Nothing from the opposition to them. So clearly it has not yet attained the status of received wisdom.

 

And where did I imply that that the locals were surprised by his "resignation"  and why would that be relevant? And how does this quote support that it was a surprise:

“Now with this move, the picture is more transparent than ever. Saad Hariri was never in control.”

 It was just confirming on a local level the main point of this article. that Hariri was under the control of the Saudis. And you still haven't explained why I would purposely omit the last sentence "Saad Hariri was never in control."  when it absolutely supports the point I was making.

 

Do you understand that the NY Times is first and foremost about news? In other words, what's new. And what's new was covered in the first 6 paragraphs. And because it's the Times and not some tabloid rag it also provided  background information.. What you call "something complex". But that's not news. And nothing in that background info qualified, complicated or detracted from the fact that the Times reporter/editor  was clearly siding with those who said this "resignation" was the work of Saudi Arabia.

 

I'm not surprised you're yawning. It seems likely that the weakness of  your reasoning is due to lack of sleep..

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

"Operating under Saudi Arabia's influence?..Is that what you would call it? Pretty weak tea. As the Times article makes pretty clear it was not just "influence" but control.  And you may think it's widely known about this control, but if you look at the Reuters article posted here, the only assertions that Hariri is under the control of Saudi Arabia come from Iran and Hesbollah sources. Nothing from the opposition to them. So clearly it has not yet attained the status of received wisdom.

 

And where did I imply that that the locals were surprised by his "resignation"  and why would that be relevant? And how does this quote support that it was a surprise:

“Now with this move, the picture is more transparent than ever. Saad Hariri was never in control.”

 It was just confirming on a local level the main point of this article. that Hariri was under the control of the Saudis. And you still haven't explained why I would purposely omit the last sentence "Saad Hariri was never in control."  when it absolutely supports the point I was making.

 

Do you understand that the NY Times is first and foremost about news? In other words, what's new. And what's new was covered in the first 6 paragraphs. And because it's the Times and not some tabloid rag it also provided  background information.. What you call "something complex". But that's not news. And nothing in that background info qualified, complicated or detracted from the fact that the Times reporter/editor  was clearly siding with those who said this "resignation" was the work of Saudi Arabia.

 

I'm not surprised you're yawning. It seems likely that the weakness of  your reasoning is due to lack of sleep..

 

I'd call going on about whether I used "influence" or "control" nitpicking. And more of your lame attempts to associate my post with a point of view which I do not subscribe to. As for the rest - I do not "think it is widely known", it is. That you seem to define reality according to what appears or doesn't appear in a specific article, is indicative of your lack of familiarity with the subject at hand, nothing more. The assertion that Lebanese aren't widely aware of who pulls Hariri's strings is amusing, at best. That such comments to this effect are more often made by those opposing him is trivial - the same applies in reverse.

 

The quote you cherry picked from the article, is aimed at highlighting disappointment and indignation. If you wish to argue how these relate to "surprise", by all means - go on yet another nitpicking tour. IMO, these sentiments are more to do with anxiety over the country's political issues taking their toll on the economy (and if taken further, political violence). That would be somewhat more in line with the scant details provided regarding the sole person quoted. W

 

The only way in which saying "Hariri was never in control" carries any meaning is by addressing the fact that the same applies for leaders of other factions. It doesn't support any point, as you do not have one nor did you really make one.

 

I honestly don't need your pathetic lectures on journalism, thanks. If you wish to present tidbits without context in order to support a point of view which you've been pushing for quite a while, that's totally up to you.

The yawn was in expectation of more drivel in the same vain coming from your side. No doubt a new shipment of BS is on its way...

[billd766]

I found this on  the BBC News website this morning.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41878364

 

 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I found this on  the BBC News website this morning.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41878364

 

 

Hardly credible evidence.  It's a quote from a leader of a terrorist organization! LOL

[billd766]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Hardly credible evidence.  It's a quote from a leader of a terrorist organization! LOL

 

Don't tell me, tell the BBC.

 

All I did was post the link.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd call going on about whether I used "influence" or "control" nitpicking. And more of your lame attempts to associate my post with a point of view which I do not subscribe to. As for the rest - I do not "think it is widely known", it is. That you seem to define reality according to what appears or doesn't appear in a specific article, is indicative of your lack of familiarity with the subject at hand, nothing more. The assertion that Lebanese aren't widely aware of who pulls Hariri's strings is amusing, at best. That such comments to this effect are more often made by those opposing him is trivial - the same applies in reverse.

 

The quote you cherry picked from the article, is aimed at highlighting disappointment and indignation. If you wish to argue how these relate to "surprise", by all means - go on yet another nitpicking tour. IMO, these sentiments are more to do with anxiety over the country's political issues taking their toll on the economy (and if taken further, political violence). That would be somewhat more in line with the scant details provided regarding the sole person quoted. W

 

The only way in which saying "Hariri was never in control" carries any meaning is by addressing the fact that the same applies for leaders of other factions. It doesn't support any point, as you do not have one nor did you really make one.

 

I honestly don't need your pathetic lectures on journalism, thanks. If you wish to present tidbits without context in order to support a point of view which you've been pushing for quite a while, that's totally up to you.

The yawn was in expectation of more drivel in the same vain coming from your side. No doubt a new shipment of BS is on its way...

You honestly maintain that it's nitpicking say that there's a big difference between influence and control? Control can be anywhere from influence to command. Influence means to have an effect on.

I did not assert that the Lebanese didn't know the score. It was about the representation of the situation in the press. The difference between the Reuters article and the Times article is quite stark. 

Really, no point about Hariri being forced to resign? The Reuters article represents Hariri's resignation as a decision. The only people it quotes to question that are Iran and Hesbollah. If that's all the evidence that readers have to go on, they would probably question the accuracy of that assessment. I brought in the Times article to remedy the deficiency.  

And nice try at deflection. Where in either of these articles is the question of who pulls the alleged strings on leaders of other factions raised. It's not about them. It's about Hariri.

Before you maintained that I was quoting this local Sunni person to show that the "resignation" was a surprise to the community. That is clearly nonsense given that the person quoted said 'more transparent." In other words it was clear before and even clearer now.  And it would be truly bizarre for the times to conclude an article with a local person whose views don't jibe with what the reporter reckons to be the majority view of the community. On this count alone it seems you do need - maybe not mine, but somebody's - "pathetic lectures on journalism."

And you still haven't explained your accusation that I purposely omitted that last sentence of the article. In other words, that I lied. "Saad Hariri was never in control" Why would I purposely omit something that sums up the point I was making? The quote that the Times used to sum up the point that it was making.

 

 

 

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I found this on  the BBC News website this morning.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41878364

 

 

 

What Nasrallah said may very well be true. Then again, would anyone expect him to come clean if it wasn't? And when considering he presents the actions taken by his own organization as representing Lebanese interests (rather than being dictated from abroad), a bit of the pot and kettle thing there.

 

As for the Lebanese Army/Internal Security not discovering, bring unaware or otherwise blind to whatever it doesn't want to get involved with (or rather, told not to get involved with), nothing new there. Doesn't mean that there was such a plot, but then again, being Lebanon, even if there was one, that's hardly earthshaking.

 

Doesn't really matter if Hariri stepped down due to Saudi pressure or Iranian threats. All boils down to the same thing - Lebanon being used as a battleground in the ongoing proxy war between the sides.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Hardly credible evidence.  It's a quote from a leader of a terrorist organization! LOL

Read the NY Times article. And really, all you have to do is consult your common sense. Hariri's staff knew nothing about an impending resignation. Hariri has a meeting with an Iranian official without fireworks. He goes to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis announce that there was a plot to assassinate Hariri. A plot that would work against Hesbollah's interests. Hariri makes his announcement from Saudi Arabia. How many dots do you need?

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

All boils down to the same thing - Lebanon being used as a battleground in the ongoing proxy war between the sides.

Spot on.  The #1 problem in the ME.  This violence between Iran and SA.