Why is Russia such a cesspool?

[webfact]

Hezbollah says Saudi Arabia forced Lebanese PM to quit

By Laila Bassam, Tom Perry and Angus McDowall

 

Lebanon's prime minister Saad al-Hariri gestures during a press conference in parliament building at downtown Beirut, Lebanon October 9, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah group on Sunday accused Saudi Arabia of forcing Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri to quit, and called for calm in an effort to contain the political crisis unleashed by his resignation.

 

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran-backed Hezbollah, urged Lebanese citizens against any political escalation in response to Hariri's surprise declaration on Saturday, which he made from Saudi Arabia.

 

Hariri had said there was a plot to kill him, and accused Hezbollah and its Iranian backers of sowing strife in the Arab world.

 

"The resignation was a Saudi decision dictated to Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri and was forced on him," Nasrallah said in a televised address.

 

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, a political ally of Hariri, is locked in a bitter tussle for power across the Middle East with Shi'ite Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah.

 

Nasrallah said he would not comment on accusations levelled against Hezbollah by Hariri, describing his resignation announcement as a Saudi statement.

 

Hariri's resignation toppled a coalition government that included Hezbollah, thrusting Lebanon back into the frontline of the Saudi-Iranian regional rivalry and risking an open-ended political crisis and sectarian tensions in Lebanon.

 

The government was formed late last year in a political deal that ended years of deadlock, and last month it produced Lebanon's first budget since 2005.

 

Nasrallah said he had thought things were going well and had not wanted Hariri to quit. He urged Lebanese citizens not to hold protests in response to the resignation, saying "this will not lead to any result".

 

He said "legitimate questions" were being asked in Lebanon over whether Hariri had been detained in Saudi Arabia, adding that Lebanon's political leaders expected him to return to the country on Thursday "if he is allowed" to travel.

 

Hariri allies in Lebanon have denied suggestions that he had been detained.

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Lebanese President Michel Aoun will not accept Hariri's resignation until he returns to Lebanon to explain his reasons, palace sources said on Sunday, delaying for now the politically difficult consultations over his successor.

 

Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq al-Awsat cited unnamed sources close to Hariri as speculating that he would probably remain outside Lebanon because of the security threat against him.

 

Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh sought to calm fears the political turmoil would hit Lebanon's already fragile economy, issuing a statement to reaffirm the stability of its currency, which is pegged against the U.S. dollar.

 

In Lebanon's sectarian system the president must be a Maronite Catholic, the prime minister a Sunni and the speaker of parliament a Shi'ite. Hariri is Lebanon's most influential Sunni politician.

 

His father, Rafik al-Hariri, was prime minister after Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war and was assassinated in a car bombing in 2005.

 

A U.N.-backed tribunal has indicted five Hezbollah members for the killing but the group denies any involvement.

 

Saudi media have published reports of a plot to assassinate Hariri in recent days, but all of Lebanon's main security branches have said they have no information about such a plot.

 

A Saudi minister said on Saturday that Hariri's personal security detail had "confirmed information" about the plot. Thamer al-Sabhan said in an interview with a Lebanese TV station on Saturday that there were "threats against the prime minister and the kingdom is keen for his security".

 

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was concerned by Hariri's resignation and hoped all sides in the country would back its state institutions, his spokesman on Lebanon Stephane Dujarric said in an emailed statement.

 

(Reporting by Laila Bassam, Tom Perry and Angus McDowall; Editing by Jason Neely and Edmund Blair)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-06

[craigt3365]

And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.

 

Kinda hard for Hariri not to be worried.  Hezbollah assassinated his father after all.  Nasty group. 

 

Iran's the big problem in the ME today.

 

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

Quote

Hariri was assassinated on 14 February 2005 when explosives equivalent to around 1800 kg of TNT were detonated as his motorcade drove past the St. George Hotel in Beirut. Alleged Hezbollah supporters Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi, and Assad Hassan Sabra have been indicted^[1] for the assassination and are currently being tried in absentia by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.^[2]

 

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.

 

Kinda hard for Hariri not to be worried.  Hezbollah assassinated his father after all.  Nasty group. 

 

Iran's the big problem in the ME today.

 

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

 

Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese. So leaving doesn't seem an option. And they are very popular with the Shiites who compose about 40 percent of the Lebanese nation.

And the assassination claim is very suspect. None of the Lebanese services caught wind of it. The claim comes from Saudi Arabia. 

And if there was a threat against Hariri, it would make no sense that it was coming from Hesbollah. By all accounts, the current political situation was favorable to them. Why would they want to blow it up?

According to the NY Times Hariri's staff had no inkling that he was going to quit. All of a sudden he's in Saudi Arabia and he makes this announcement out of the blue.

Very suspect.

Edited November 6, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[craigt3365]

44 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese. So leaving doesn't seem an option. And they are very popular with the Shiites who compose about 40 percent of the Lebanese nation.

And the assassination claim is very suspect. None of the Lebanese services caught wind of it. The claim comes from Saudi Arabia. 

And if there was a threat against Hariri, it would make no sense that it was coming from Hesbollah. By all accounts, the current political situation was favorable to them. Why would they want to blow it up?

According to the NY Times Hariri's staff had no inkling that he was going to quit. All of a sudden he's in Saudi Arabia and he makes this announcement out of the blue.

Very suspect.

Iran provided many troops for Hezbollah initially.  Wouldn't doubt for a second there are "advisors" in Lebanon working with them.

 

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

Quote

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.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by craigt3365

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Iran provided many troops for Hezbollah initially.  Wouldn't doubt for a second there are "advisors" in Lebanon working with.

 

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

But what you said was "If Iran wants Hesbollah to leave..."  You don't seem to understand how deeply ingrained Hesbollah is in the country. It's not only a militia it's also deeply involved in social services. 

"Hezbollah social services are social development programs organized by the Lebanese paramilitary group, Hezbollah. Hezbollah's popularity among the Lebanese Shiite population, historically one of the poorest communities in Lebanon, comes partly from the social services it provides. Social services have a central role in the party's programs, closely linked to its military and politico-religious functions."

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

 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

But what you said was "If Iran wants Hesbollah to leave..."  You don't seem to understand how deeply ingrained Hesbollah is in the country. It's not only a militia it's also deeply involved in social services. 

"Hezbollah social services are social development programs organized by the Lebanese paramilitary group, Hezbollah. Hezbollah's popularity among the Lebanese Shiite population, historically one of the poorest communities in Lebanon, comes partly from the social services it provides. Social services have a central role in the party's programs, closely linked to its military and politico-religious functions."

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

 

Having recently spent several days in the "capital" of Hezbollah, I probably understand it better than you do.  It was only a few days, but I experienced it first hand.  They are popular, but again, without support from Iran, wouldn't be where they are today.  Causing problems in the region....along with their cronies Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Having recently spent several days in the "capital" of Hezbollah, I probably understand it better than you do.  It was only a few days, but I experienced it first hand.  They are popular, but again, without support from Iran, wouldn't be where they are today.  Causing problems in the region....along with their cronies Syria.

Journalists who visit a foreign nation where they don't speak the language  and stay for a short  and then pose as authorities on the subject,  are often rightly mocked for their pretensions.  If one of those journalists wrote "And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.", that probably wouldn't earn them a whole lot of respect,  So far the evidence doesn't show you understand it better but rather the opposite.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Journalists who visit a foreign nation where they don't speak the language  and stay for a short  and then pose as authorities on the subject,  are often rightly mocked for their pretensions.  If one of those journalists wrote "And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.", that probably wouldn't earn them a whole lot of respect,  So far the evidence doesn't show you understand it better but rather the opposite.

Never said I was an expert.  Just that I visited there, experienced it, saw the propaganda, had to deal with massive security, crazy checkpoints, etc.  So, I might know a bit more about this than you.  Sorry that doesn't sit well with you.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Never said I was an expert.  Just that I visited there, experienced it, saw the propaganda, had to deal with massive security, crazy checkpoints, etc.  So, I might know a bit more about this than you.  Sorry that doesn't sit well with you.

Yes, you know more about what it's like to live there. That's not the issue here.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.

 

Kinda hard for Hariri not to be worried.  Hezbollah assassinated his father after all.  Nasty group. 

 

Iran's the big problem in the ME today.

 

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

 

 

Hezbollah will never "leave" Lebanon, as it's mostly a grassroots outfit, if a sectarian one (as is the norm in Lebanon). If Iran was to pull the plug on support for the Hezbollah, it would still remain a formidable militia (or rather, pretty much an army by now), certainly with respect to Lebanon's internal power struggles. It would also mean that Hezbollah would be free to act according to an agenda other than Iran's. But this imaginary scenario aside, another pillar which supports Iran's hold on the Hezbollah rests on religious authority. It's somewhat outside the scope of this topic, but there are distinctions and "casts" among Muslims. Initially, both Syrian Alawis and Lebanese Shia were frowned upon by Iranian clergy. This sense of inferiority was well cultivated over the years, side by side with the material and political support provided. For Hezbollah to directly oppose Iranian edicts would be quite a monumental shift.

 

Whether or not the plot was real or not, is hard to assess. Assassination plots and attempts are a dime a dozen in Lebanon's political landscape. Hariri being who he is, guess that such threats were always a consideration, even before he became Prime Minister. Another aspect of Lebanese politics is that alliances shift about in very unexpected ways - like Hariri playing along with Hezbollah, or Aoun partnering up with the pro-Syrian camp. Many other examples. Whether this implies pragmatism, opportunism, lack of spine or moral fiber is a good question.

 

Iran definitely doesn't play nice, but Lebanon is a wee bit more complicated than putting all of its troubles on Iran's tab.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese. So leaving doesn't seem an option. And they are very popular with the Shiites who compose about 40 percent of the Lebanese nation.

And the assassination claim is very suspect. None of the Lebanese services caught wind of it. The claim comes from Saudi Arabia. 

And if there was a threat against Hariri, it would make no sense that it was coming from Hesbollah. By all accounts, the current political situation was favorable to them. Why would they want to blow it up?

According to the NY Times Hariri's staff had no inkling that he was going to quit. All of a sudden he's in Saudi Arabia and he makes this announcement out of the blue.

Very suspect.

 

The current political situation may be favorable as far as Hezbollah is concerned. But if they had reason to believe that Hariri will not be as accommodating to their interests (or rather, Iran's), then his value as a poster boy would diminish. Hariri was under some pressure for quite a while now - both with regard to Hezbollah's role/actions, and the ongoing refugee crisis in Lebanon - both issues relate both to foreign influence and to his base's support. These may have had something to do with events.

 

The circumstances of Hariri's resignation are obviously not straightforward, but little in Lebanese politics is. The same would apply with regard to him taking the post.

 

It is quite probable that Saudi pressure was a major part of how events unfolded, because at the very least, Hariri would have consulted them beforehand (and perhaps he did, there were two visits made to Saudi Arabia). That it means nothing concrete was behind it is guesswork. And not immediately clear, perhaps, what Saudi Arabia stands to gain from such a move. One thing that may be connected, is the recent (almost simultaneous) political purge going on in Saudi Arabia. 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Journalists who visit a foreign nation where they don't speak the language  and stay for a short  and then pose as authorities on the subject,  are often rightly mocked for their pretensions.  If one of those journalists wrote "And if Iran wants Hezbollah to leave, they'll do the same.  Hard to operate with no money and no support.", that probably wouldn't earn them a whole lot of respect,  So far the evidence doesn't show you understand it better but rather the opposite.

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah will never "leave" Lebanon, as it's mostly a grassroots outfit, if a sectarian one (as is the norm in Lebanon). If Iran was to pull the plug on support for the Hezbollah, it would still remain a formidable militia (or rather, pretty much an army by now), certainly with respect to Lebanon's internal power struggles. It would also mean that Hezbollah would be free to act according to an agenda other than Iran's. But this imaginary scenario aside, another pillar which supports Iran's hold on the Hezbollah rests on religious authority. It's somewhat outside the scope of this topic, but there are distinctions and "casts" among Muslims. Initially, both Syrian Alawis and Lebanese Shia were frowned upon by Iranian clergy. This sense of inferiority was well cultivated over the years, side by side with the material and political support provided. For Hezbollah to directly oppose Iranian edicts would be quite a monumental shift.

 

Whether or not the plot was real or not, is hard to assess. Assassination plots and attempts are a dime a dozen in Lebanon's political landscape. Hariri being who he is, guess that such threats were always a consideration, even before he became Prime Minister. Another aspect of Lebanese politics is that alliances shift about in very unexpected ways - like Hariri playing along with Hezbollah, or Aoun partnering up with the pro-Syrian camp. Many other examples. Whether this implies pragmatism, opportunism, lack of spine or moral fiber is a good question.

 

Iran definitely doesn't play nice, but Lebanon is a wee bit more complicated than putting all of its troubles on Iran's tab.

As I've always said. No easy answers.  sadly!

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

Name calling via an image followed by a laughing emoji. You've risen to new depths.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The current political situation may be favorable as far as Hezbollah is concerned. But if they had reason to believe that Hariri will not be as accommodating to their interests (or rather, Iran's), then his value as a poster boy would diminish. Hariri was under some pressure for quite a while now - both with regard to Hezbollah's role/actions, and the ongoing refugee crisis in Lebanon - both issues relate both to foreign influence and to his base's support. These may have had something to do with events.

 

The circumstances of Hariri's resignation are obviously not straightforward, but little in Lebanese politics is. The same would apply with regard to him taking the post.

 

It is quite probable that Saudi pressure was a major part of how events unfolded, because at the very least, Hariri would have consulted them beforehand (and perhaps he did, there were two visits made to Saudi Arabia). That it means nothing concrete was behind it is guesswork. And not immediately clear, perhaps, what Saudi Arabia stands to gain from such a move. One thing that may be connected, is the recent (almost simultaneous) political purge going on in Saudi Arabia. 

I'll take the NY Times analysis over yours. Hariri's stock hadn't an inkling it was going to happen. It occurs after he has a meeting with the Iranians. No Lebanese report any assassination attempts. An assassination attempt that would strongly militate against Hesbollah interests. He makes the announcement from Saudi Arabia. There's been questions asked about whether he's even free to leave.

Anything's possible. But I prefer Bill Occam's approach. Clearly, it's far more likely that this was the Saudis doing.

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

I'll take the NY Times analysis over yours. Hariri's stock hadn't an inkling it was going to happen. It occurs after he has a meeting with the Iranians. No Lebanese report any assassination attempts. An assassination attempt that would strongly militate against Hesbollah interests. He makes the announcement from Saudi Arabia. There's been questions asked about whether he's even free to leave.

Anything's possible. But I prefer Bill Occam's approach. Clearly, it's far more likely that this was the Saudis doing.

 

You can take whatever you like, and wave big name around as if that makes up for not having much of an actual clue. Not impressed. And "over" how? I'm not rejecting the NYT's take, just suggesting that it's not as straightforward as you seem to imagine. Wouldn't be the first ME topic where you made strong (and ultimately incorrect) assertions without much to go on other than this or that initial analysis by Western media.

 

My point isn't that Hariri's account is necessarily true - deceit isn't uncommon in them parts. Just that it can't be fully overruled, on the basis of available information. There's no clear indication, in any of your posts, as to what advantage the Saudis gain by such a move.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You can take whatever you like, and wave big name around as if that makes up for not having much of an actual clue. Not impressed. And "over" how? I'm not rejecting the NYT's take, just suggesting that it's not as straightforward as you seem to imagine. Wouldn't be the first ME topic where you made strong (and ultimately incorrect) assertions without much to go on other than this or that initial analysis by Western media.

 

My point isn't that Hariri's account is necessarily true - deceit isn't uncommon in them parts. Just that it can't be fully overruled, on the basis of available information. There's no clear indication, in any of your posts, as to what advantage the Saudis gain by such a move.

Given the demonstrated petulance and impetuosity of the Clown Prince, one doesn't need to invoke advantage as a motive. He probably believes that the relatively stable situation in Lebanon, with the advantaged position that it gives the Hesbollah and hence Iran, is worth taking down without much thought for what might follow.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given the demonstrated petulance and impetuosity of the Clown Prince, one doesn't need to invoke advantage as a motive. He probably believes that the relatively stable situation in Lebanon, with the advantaged position that it gives the Hesbollah and hence Iran, is worth taking down without much thought for what might follow.

 

That's a "given" that you inject, repeatedly, into these topics. As pointed out, it may be the case that he is operating under a different set of consideration than those you assume. And what you believe he probably believes is not based on much, not to mention marred by your standing bias. What you offer as an "explanation" is rather flimsy, and not particularly convincing. It doesn't explain the timing, nor the mode of the resignation. It doesn't address how this might fit in with other events. It could be that the Crown Prince, is indeed what you describe. This, however, would make his ascent and survival in the Saudi court harder to account for.

 

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a "given" that you inject, repeatedly, into these topics. As pointed out, it may be the case that he is operating under a different set of consideration than those you assume. And what you believe he probably believes is not based on much, not to mention marred by your standing bias. What you offer as an "explanation" is rather flimsy, and not particularly convincing. It doesn't explain the timing, nor the mode of the resignation. It doesn't address how this might fit in with other events. It could be that the Crown Prince, is indeed what you describe. This, however, would make his ascent and survival in the Saudi court harder to account for.

 

Do you recall who his father is?  What was that joke that Ann Richards told about George W. Bush? He was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run. Someone else compared him to Michael Corleone and I replied that Sonny was a better fit. 

[Morch]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you recall who his father is?  What was that joke that Ann Richards told about George W. Bush? He was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run. Someone else compared him to Michael Corleone and I replied that Sonny was a better fit. 

 

Do you have anything of substance to support your "argument"? A person's father does not necessarily determine the sort of man the son becomes. And I remember Ann Richards - she lost the the Texas gubernatorial elections to the very same George W. Bush. None of that you post on this point is based on much, and it does not explain the Crown Prince's apparent competency with regard to consolidating his power within the kingdom.    

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do you have anything of substance to support your "argument"? A person's father does not necessarily determine the sort of man the son becomes. And I remember Ann Richards - she lost the the Texas gubernatorial elections to the very same George W. Bush. None of that you post on this point is based on much, and it does not explain the Crown Prince's apparent competency with regard to consolidating his power within the kingdom.    

He's megalomaniacal and ruthless. Easy for that to be effective when you start from the top.  But how far would that have gotten him if he had started from a bit lower down? And it's very early days yet. And you really want to liken him to Bush? How did that turn out?

Edited November 7, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

He's megalomaniacal and ruthless. Easy for that to be effective when you start from the top.  But how far would that have gotten him if he had started from a bit lower down? And it's very early days yet. And you really want to liken him to Bush? How did that turn out?

 

You just keep repeating the same claims, without a whole lot to support them. That you're biased is quite ok, I'm not exactly a fan myself - just don't let it cloud my judgement. Starting from the top is pretty much how many ME leaders (not to mention Western ones) can be described. Nothing special about that. However, in the context of Saudi Arabia's court intrigue and succession struggles, he did quite well and against formidable political opponents. Disregarding or belittling it a mistake.

 

As for early days - well look who's talking. I'm not the one habitually jumping into conclusion based on partial information or making a string of strong statements about unfolding events. And to address the lame spin, you are the one who referenced Bush. I wasn't "likening" the Crown Prince to anyone, you were.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You just keep repeating the same claims, without a whole lot to support them. That you're biased is quite ok, I'm not exactly a fan myself - just don't let it cloud my judgement. Starting from the top is pretty much how many ME leaders (not to mention Western ones) can be described. Nothing special about that. However, in the context of Saudi Arabia's court intrigue and succession struggles, he did quite well and against formidable political opponents. Disregarding or belittling it a mistake.

 

As for early days - well look who's talking. I'm not the one habitually jumping into conclusion based on partial information or making a string of strong statements about unfolding events. And to address the lame spin, you are the one who referenced Bush. I wasn't "likening" the Crown Prince to anyone, you were.

Citing alleged comments I've made  elsewhere is what rhetoricians call a cheap shot since to properly refute them i would have to go to other threads, a practice as you know, is frowned upon by the moderators.  I know it's not easy for some, but do try to focus on the issues presented here in the thread and don't attempt to derail the conversation by allegations which can't be investigated here. Try a little harder not to make it personal.  If you must raise those issues, I believe that a PM is the appropriate venue. I'm not saying I would reply..

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Citing alleged comments I've made  elsewhere is what rhetoricians call a cheap shot since to properly refute them i would have to go to other threads, a practice as you know, is frowned upon by the moderators.  I know it's not easy for some, but do try to focus on the issues presented here in the thread and don't attempt to derail the conversation by allegations which can't be investigated here. Try a little harder not to make it personal.  If you must raise those issues, I believe that a PM is the appropriate venue. I'm not saying I would reply..

 

You have made such comments with regard to ME issues in general, and Saudi Arabia specifically on this topic, on parallel running topics and on past topics. Wiggle all you like, and deflect as you will. As for "I do try to focus on the issues presented here", and "don't attempt to derail...." - quite a sense of humor, thanks.

 

The bottom line is that you cannot substantiate your position, or suggest a reasonable account which reflects reality. Hence, the off topic deflection above.

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

Just read that he holds dual citizenship.  Lebanese and SA.  Hmmmm.....

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You have made such comments with regard to ME issues in general, and Saudi Arabia specifically on this topic, on parallel running topics and on past topics. Wiggle all you like, and deflect as you will. As for "I do try to focus on the issues presented here", and "don't attempt to derail...." - quite a sense of humor, thanks.

 

The bottom line is that you cannot substantiate your position, or suggest a reasonable account which reflects reality. Hence, the off topic deflection above.

 

 

 

Again, you are making assertions and characterizations outside the scope of this thread. I believe the moderators would frown on digging up stuff from other threads to defend myself and indict you, and even if I could, given the limitations of the search functions it would take too long to do it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Just read that he holds dual citizenship.  Lebanese and SA.  Hmmmm.....

 

That was never a secret, and was even mentioned in some of the articles discussed. The family's construction firm, which was quite a player, was sold due to losses (and bad management, I think) a year or two back.

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Again, you are making assertions and characterizations outside the scope of this thread. I believe the moderators would frown on digging up stuff from other threads to defend myself and indict you, and even if I could, given the limitations of the search functions it would take too long to do it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

No, I'm not. You have made such comments even on this topic. And you keep derailing even this one with petty arguments and off topic deflections.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

No, I'm not. You have made such comments even on this topic. And you keep derailing even this one with petty arguments and off topic deflections.

I'm giving up trying to get you to recognize what is obvious.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm giving up trying to get you to recognize what is obvious.

Thank you.