Th TV station that hosted Norman Finkelstein for the interview is a Lebanon-based, Harriri-owned station. Just look at the difference. We have a foreign, American and Jewish person trying to convince and teach a Lebanese woman (march 14 traitor) about respect and honour. Ridigulous.

“”A convoy from the Future movement was driving by Berri’s residence. Apparently some heated words were exchanged with Berri’s security service and shots were fired.”

No injuries were reported and the security forces are conducting investigation of the incident

In Aley , a summer resort town , 10 miles east of Beirut , two people were wounded in clashes late Sunday between members of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party ( PSP) and rivals from the Lebanese Democratic Party (LDP) headed by the pro-Syrian opposition former MP Talal Arslan, security officials said.

2 people were wounded . One girl: Haneen Arij ( 12) and one man : Rami Seri- Eddin (22) according to the national News Agency.

The incidents came hours after Jumblatt warned the Hezbollah -led opposition that March 14 is ready for war and peace” (and also hours after Hariri bragged he will not remain with his hands ‘tied’)

I want to present two arguments, which resemble the same arguments presented by March 14 when the elctricity riots happened;

1) What were Hariri’s people doing in Ain el-Tineh district, which is Berri’s stronghold and residence, fully armed? I say to provoke and instigate a clash which will escalate into the war Hariri promised us Lebanese (you see, Hariri wants to be the new Wa3ad Al Sadeq in Lebanon, and through this Wa3ed he will bring us the social justice his party also promises). However, you will not hear this great peice of divine wisdom from Harriri this time he’ll come up with another ubsurd explanation for it – he always does.

2) Aley is the stronghold of Jumblat. Why is his area reaking havvoc and sporadic gunfights? It must be his fault because it’s his area. This is the argument presented by the idiot Jumblat after clashes took place in the Dahyeh – a Hezbollah stronghold. But ofcourse we all know who was responsible for that.

Do you see the ubsurdity and catch 22 in those arguments? That’s exactly why on Thursday (14 February) only 30 or 35 thousand people will turn up for the third anniversary of Hariri Seniors assasination. This is also why Hariri is ‘redistributing’ $25million in North Lebanon, in places like Tripoli [you see, Hariri is not a Billionnaire afterall, he's a hardcore socialist - just like Jumblat].

Hahaha, give us a break you nutcases.

On the 19th of July 2007, Israeli political analyst Emanuel Rosen said that a “well informed political source” informed him that Olmert and members of his government “received a letter from the Lebanese government in the last 24 hours of the war asking them not to stop the war before Hezbollah was crushed adding that it is extremely preferable to liquidate Nasrallah.” “For the first time, we reveal in this book that moderate Arab states and people close to the Lebanese government have conveyed messages to the Israeli government via different sides demanding Israel continues the war until Hezbollah was completely crushed,” said Avi Issacharoff in his book “Spider Webs, The Story of the Second Lebanon War.” For his part, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman was even clearer about these contacts. He said: “I was at the United Nations Headquarters during the war and you cannot imagine how many Arab foreign ministers and ambassadors came to me and told me to complete the mission and eliminate Hezbollah.”

Facing attempts by the February 14 bloc to acquit Israel from a premeditated war in 2006, Israeli political and military officials confirmed Israel had prepared for the war and that it initiated it not to gain back two captured soldiers, but to crush Hezbollah.
“Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear military victory,” article 11 of the Winograd report said. Amir Peretz, who was Defense Minister during the war said: “Is there really someone who believes that the kidnapping of those two soldiers is what led to the war, of course not. If we had not waged this war, we would have found ourselves a few years from now in front of more dangerous threats than we had discovered.”
“Yes, there had been plans. One of these plans was dubbed (Uppermost Waters). It was based on a plan which I personally made years before the war. We trained on it and just before the war were in the process of renovating it,” said Eyal Ben-Reuven who was the second in command in the northern region during the war.

Anyway, this is a small part of what was uncovered in Israel. Perhaps what the coming days could reveal about the collusion of the February 14 bloc in the 2006 war would be momentous.

So far so good. Then, good old Al-Manar had to butt in and screw up this guys five minutes of sympathetic fame. I mean, just look at his face. Doesn’t he look like a victim to you? Wrong. The person you’re looking at is a notorious terrorist who took to the streets on that same day to terrorise the citizens of ‘Aramoun by randomly shooting everywhere.

This is the same man in action. He arrived with a few friends on Sunday just after midnight. He could be heard telling his friends to empty their magazines before the amy arrives, because they aren’t too far away. This is one of his friends brandishing his new American M4A1 Colt, and then aiming with it:

Then this is another of his militia friends:

Now, six days later and none of the people who were caught on camera been arrested or charged with a single offense. Even though the authorities have the name of the guy who faked it, the face of three of his terrorist collegues and even their car details:

What else do authorities need for a proper investigation to happen? Why was the former story, or should I say lie, linked to Syria, but this is not even being dealt with. Why isn’t the authorities rushing to find out who did this, then squash them and their line-of-command like bugs. Why don’t they link these people with the same militia/terrorist men who regularly terrorise the Lebanese people by firing at demonstrators and killing dozens so far. Do you want to know why? Because these scums are Waleed Jumblats men. Don’t take it from, take it from the scum who was wounded by his own friends – he gave his name and affiliation upon being asked on national television.

It is not surprising that this guy, Nizar Munthir (the wounded lier from the begining of this post), got shot by his own friends. Their irresponsible behaviour could be seen left and right. Just who shoots towards the ground at close proximity to a car packed with friends? Well, one of them thought it was a good idea:

If you want to download this video in WMV format, then click here. Or watch it here:

Despite all of this evidence, March 14 leaders act like the victims but ofcourse talk like prince’s of civil war. “You want anarchy? (We) welcome anarchy. You want war? (We) welcome war,” Jumblatt said, to the cheers of supporters. “There is no problem with weapons…” said Jumblatt. Harriri went on to say, “We don’t want a confrontation. But if we are dragged into one, we will not stay hands tied,” Hariri vowed in Tripoli. He earlier said in Beirut: “If confrontation is our destiny, then we stand ready.” Do you hear the tone? Compare that with Hezbollah’s, “We have been hearing an escalatory tone lately with readiness to confront; a tone that we did not hear during the 2006 Israeli aggression against Lebanon. The opposition cannot be drawn into internal sedition. They (loyalty bloc) need to find other ways to prove their competence to those who made them their proxies,” MP Mohammad Raad, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc said. “If unity is our destiny, then we stand ready for it,” he responded Saturday to Hariri’s pledge of confrontation. Jumblatt even went on to threaten launching attacks at the opposition, “We have no problem with weapons or with rockets which we will launch on you.” Predicting assassinations against the army in the region under his control, Jumblatt warned that there are”armed groups planning to carry out terrorist attacks against the army in the mountains.”"

Do you see the trend? Israel does, afterall, adopt terrorist tactics. Just in case you doubted it.

Do you see the trend? Israel does, afterall, adopt terrorist tactics. Just in case you doubted it.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are well known for their conservative and traditional ideology. Mike Huckabee manages to win many conservative votes from his rival, Mitt Romney, as well as from many Republicans disgruntled by MacCain’s relatively Liberal views. Hackabee may well go on to claim a political victory for being able to secure many votes over what many had predicted and was able to pocket a sizeable share of delegates even though his two rivals had shared every state save Iowa pre-Super Tuesday states. Even though Huckabees chances of overtaking any of his rivals seem extremely narrow, especially when it comes to MacCain, he as well as Romney are continuing their campaign to obviously secure a ‘running mate’ position as well as being chosen the Vice President – notice how Huckabee and Romney increasingly claim they will reach the White House as opposed to the Presidency.

As for the Democats, Hillary Clinton was the clear, albeit extremely narrow, victor on Tuesday, winning the biggest and most important states on offer and securing more delegates than Obama. She will go on to claim that she faced Obama’s full-throttle momentum accumilated after his victory in Iowa. However, Obama was also pleased, he won more states than Hillary and proved his ‘Beltway’ and nation-wide popularity. He will also be oblied to highlight the fact that his momentum is still in full swing and, even though hindered, was not stopped by even Hillary Clinton – a heavy-weight Democrat whom not-so-long-ago had double digit leads over any of the second-bests in the race.

The Republicans now have a decisive leader for the Presidential election whereas the Democrats don’t. This could prove to be damaging as the General Presidential Elections approach. The Republicans can now focus most of their energy at bashing at the Democratic nominees, while Clinton and Obama continue to bash at each other more ferociously in the days to come.

A mini-buzz has hit some Lebanese and non-Lebanese sites. I just want to ask you whether these two guys even look like rappers, or am I the only one who thinks they both look like freshies?

Both this site  and this site think they’re ‘rappers’.

Here is the movie review in the New York Times.

“If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing–but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.”

This argument is known as Pascal’s Wager. It seems to be common sense, however it has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion’s version of hell.

Even if we assume that there’s a God, that doesn’t imply that there’s one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing” is not true. Suppose you’re believing in the wrong God–the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favour of prayer.

Talking from a scientific point of view, there is also another problem that the above argument creates. By assuming that you have nothing to lose if you follow a religion, the contrary happens to be true. Evolution and natural selection tends to choose the creatures whom use the available resources efficiently.

As humans, we balance our work/education, maintenance and leisure needs equally in order to lead happy lives. However, if huge resources (both material and financial) are allocated to building mosques instead of health clinics for the needy, we are clearly being inefficient in handling the world’s scarce resources. Likewise, dedicating substantive amounts of time praying and conducting other religious activities instead of other, more useful activities which could actually contribute to the well-being and advancement of the human race, such as exploration, research or education.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely–or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one’s eternal soul if God does exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one’s interest to believe in God.

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there’s really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don’t follow on from each other.

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to “If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God”–a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

Also, if we don’t even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn’t it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter, assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal’s Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don’t find it possible to make that leap.

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

While we’re on the topic of hell, most atheists such as myself (and Mahmood, ofcourse) do not and can not stomach a scenario whereby we destroy a single person’s life (such as permanently causing harm or even killing them). We are, however, not very special in this case. Most humans do share the same nature as us, whether religious or not. It is a human tendency to look after each other rather than cause harm. Individual human instinct instructs us to help the victim in a mob attack – whether we have the courage or not is irrelevant.

The point is that we are not special in not condoning the death, or perhaps causing death, to any fellow human beings. However, this does not seem to be the case with God who perhaps knows that according to their rules (it depends which God and in which religion), billions of people will have to perish in the hell fire forever. Fire and any heat-related mechanisms are the most painful way of torture and death. However, since in hell there is no death, God will be for eternity glad and fulfilled to see billions of men and women’s torment as they burn in the fire of God’s selfishness.

Although, sometimes I even wish Arab ‘leaders’ would throw paper-planes at Israel. At least it’s better than silence.

The yellow iron gate between the village and the main road was open that night. The Mercedes raced toward its destination; Sana held Khaled, panting and convulsing, in the back seat. After about fifteen minutes, they reached the Atara checkpoint north of Ramallah, one of the toughest and cruellest in the West Bank, especially of late. At this hour there were no other cars waiting.
The driver stopped at the stop sign in front of the checkpoint, as required. After about a minute, a soldier emerged and approached them. In the back seat, Khaled’s condition was worsening. His breath was getting shorter and his shaking was getting stronger.

“Where are you going?” the soldier asked. The driver replied in his meagre Hebrew, “To the hospital in Ramallah.” The soldier asked for the ID cards of all the passengers. Daoud appealed to him, “Before the ID’s, listen to me. We have a very sick baby in the car and I want to get him to the hospital on time, before it’s too late.”

The soldier heard him, says Daoud, but didn’t show any signs of interest. He didn’t even bother to glance in the back seat, to see their convulsing baby. “He didn’t care. He wasn’t deaf. He heard, but he didn’t even ask, ‘Where’s the baby?’”

The Fakihs had passed this checkpoint several times en route to the hospital with their baby, and the soldiers had always let them through quickly as soon as they saw the sick infant. Not this time. This soldier insisted on collecting each person’s ID card in turn. “I didn’t have a choice so I handed him the ID cards,” Daoud says. The soldier took the ID cards and walked away from the car, toward the checkpoint. Khaled’s condition continued to worsen.

Usually, Daoud says, the ID check takes just a minute or two, especially when the checkpoint is totally deserted, as it was that night. But not this time. After a wait of about five desperate minutes, Daoud called out to the soldier: “Soldier, soldier, excuse me, but I want to get to the hospital. My baby is in serious condition.” “What are you yelling about?,” the young soldier scolded Daoud, “Don’t yell.” Daoud was upset. “Look at the baby, he’s going to die! Afterwards you do whatever you want.” The soldier turned away without saying anything.

Sana became hysterical. With Khaled in her arms, she began crying and shouting: “My baby… My baby is going to die!” Daoud was desperate. “At that moment, I wanted to get out of the car, but I couldn’t. They could shoot me, beat me, or delay me even longer. I chose to wait in the car. Waiting was better than getting out.”

More long, fateful minutes that felt like an eternity passed. It was almost 1:00 A.M. Finally, the soldier came back. “Open the car,” he instructed. The soldier checked the car, going through package after package, the one with the diapers and the one with the medicines and the milk, and so on. Daoud shouted: “I don’t have time. Don’t make my baby die here. He’s dying.” Sana’s crying kept getting louder, the baby gasped harder for breath.

Sana grabbed the soldier by the arm. “Look at the baby,” she pleaded. The startled soldier turned his weapon toward her. Then he relaxed and shined his flashlight on the baby’s face. “What happened to the baby?,” he asked. Daoud told him the baby was dying. “I’ll go and bring you the ID cards,” the soldier said, but not before pausing to check the trunk and to inspect the spare tire and whatever was under it – all by the book, the book of the occupation.

But then the most terrible thing of all happened: Khaled suddenly stopped shaking. His tiny hands dropped to his sides and his breathing became slow and heavy. “Our baby is dead!,” wailed Sana, while Daoud tried to reassure her: “No he’s not, just be patient and strong, now we’re on our way.”

The soldier brought back the ID cards. “Drive to the hospital quickly,” he told them. Sana said there was no point now in going to the hospital. Next to Bir Zeit, they stopped the car to check on the baby’s condition. Khaled was no longer breathing. Daoud told Sana that there was no point in continuing. “Our baby is dead.” But Sana insisted that they continue on to the hospital, maybe the doctors could revive Khaled.

At 1:20 A.M. they arrived at the emergency room. The doctors examined Khaled, put him into an oxygen tent but then had to pronounce him dead. “There’s nothing we can do for him now,” they told the parents.

On the way home, having left their dead baby at the hospital, they passed through the Atara checkpoint again. “Where’s the baby?,” the soldier asked. “My baby died,” Daoud answered him. “Died? Why?,” asked the soldier. “He died, because I waited here at the checkpoint,” Daoud said. “No, it’s from Allah,” the soldier replied.

We’ll start with the basics. Fatah Al-Islam became known in May 2007 after it officially declared it’s existence and fought the Lebanese National Army in the same month. It’s leader is Shaker Al-Abssi, a notorious criminal and hardcore militant who used to be an ex-Fighter Pilot for the Libyan army, sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan as well as jailed in Syria for smuggling weapons and is now again wanted by the Syrian Authorities.

The March 14 camp in Lebanon (US/Western-backed) claims that Fatah Al-Islam is a small splinter or sleeper terrorist group in Lebanon under Syrian direction and support (including arms and finances). Meanwhile, the March 8 camp (Syrian/Iranian-backed) claims the contrary. That in fact, Fatah Al-Islam is a group created by the March 14 camp in order to weaken the relatively strong Army – essentially the only barrier to a confrontation with Hezbollah and total control in Lebanon.

Like any curious individual, I decided to conduct some research concerning this group. I found out a lot of information from different and totally independent sources (don’t worry, I did not get any of the information from Al-Manar or Future TV) which has gone unnoticed, or perhaps ignored, by mainstream media. Although, I must admit that I did find half-truths in claims made by both the 8 and 14 March camps.

The independent professor Dr. Franklin Lamb at AUB (American University of Beirut) went out on a fact-finding mission to truly find out who was behind FAI (Fatah Al-Islam). His information was collected mostly from interviews with both disclosed, undisclosed and civilian sources as well as excerpts from member confessions and from news archive at a time when the information seemed to lack relativeness. His finding were published in late May.

He found himself being told by Nahr Al-Bared citizens that members of Fatah Al-Islam were gaining lucrative salaries, homes and weapons. Their starting salary had been at a monthly rate of $700, living in luxury apartments facing the Mediterranean and Belgian state-of-the-art weaponry. When asked of their opinion of where the money was coming from, some opted out from giving such information but the majority of interviewees whom replied gave pretty much the same answer – “they are paid by the Hariri group”.

This, ofcourse, is just an assertio, a mere opinion. Call it anything but a fact, simply because there was nothing said by the interviewees to back-up or prove their claims. To determine under whose orders Fatah Al-Islam had been following and with whom the link was with – if any – we need to dig up some factual history and events that have occurred in the past which has some relevance to the militant organisation.

Let us start with the well-known club of Anti-Syrians in Lebanon. Waleed Jumblat, Samir GaeGae, Saad Harriri and the US under-secretary of state David Welch. Their plight was to strengthen the position of the March 14 camp in Lebanon and grab everything they possibly could while in administration.

They started with Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces. They laid off most of the veterans in this institution to replace them with loyal and sympathising activists – therefore hijacking a states intelligence and militant agency. Incidentally, this was the same institution which had offered tea to Israeli soldiers (following orders by the government) while the IDF invaded Lebanon and Hezbollah fighters vigorously tried to resist the destructive machine unleashed on Lebanon. The ISF members are regularly and wrongly confused with Army soldiers. However, the incident reveals both March 14′s willingness to resist Israel’s aggressions militarily and the ISF’s allegiance to the government (In 1996, they fought successfully with Hezbollah in downing a Helicopter and clashing with advancing troops).

Soon after taking over the ISF, the club tried to seize control of the presidency and when it failed it marginalized it – therefore neutralising the only official influence and power in the political elite system. Finally, in 2006, the government set eye on the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee as well as the states highest ranking courts, the Constitutional Judiciary. What better way to evade constitutional checks and balances by these groups on the governments’ policies, decisions and laws than by controlling them. However, they failed to do so and effectively did the same thing that any totalitarian regime would tend to do – they simply abolished both the Constitutional Committee and Judiciary. Lebanon’s government today has no-one with authority to officially and legitimately claim whether or not the governments actions are in line with the constitution or not.

Be patient, I am leading to the main points. Moving on, the only two main barriers to total control of March 14 of Lebanon was ofcourse the national Army and Hezbollah. A strong and unified army will not take orders from the government if they break the ‘rules of the game’. Similarly, a yet strongly Hezbollah will have both the resources and will to block any agreements with Israel and the incorporation of Lebanon as a political asset in Americas hands during it’s drive in Middle Eastern dominance.

First I will address the latter problem. What better way to confront and weaken the Shi’a Hezbollah by financing, arming and assisting Sunni militant groups (who tend to dislike or even hate Hezbollah) – taking into account the sectarian atmosphere in Lebanon, you could easily calculate the effectiveness of such a strategy. Overwhelming evidence points towards ‘the club’ being responsible behind the arming and financing of both Fatah Al-Islam and Jund Al-Sitt (Soldiers of the Sitt, where “Sitt” in Sidon, Ain Al-Hilwa and the outskirts pertain to Bahia Hariri, the sister of Rafiq Hariri, aunt of Saad, and Member of Parliament), albeit not creating or forming them. After all, according to members who were detained and interrogated from both Fatah Al-Islam and Jund-al-Sitt said their groups acted on the directive of the Club president, Saad Hariri.

“Fatah al-Islam is home for those who do not have a home not only physically but ideologically,” Bishara, an AlJazeera analyst says. “It has found a home paradoxically in a refugee camp.”

“It is not a resistance group and it is not an insurgency, it is not attempting to overthrow the Lebanese government, and it is certainly not close to being a guerrilla group that is expanding its territory,” he says.

You might find yourself asking how the hell this information fits in with my argument that factions from the ruling class had a hand to play in forming this anarchistic and extremist group. Again, this needs a bit of revision to explain properly.

Fatah Al-Islam had once indeed been a faction incorporated by Fatah al-Intifada, which had a Pro-Damascus Abu Khaled al-Omla as second-in-command. These ties had been made after the current leader of Fatah Al-Islam, Shaker Al-Abssi relocated from Libya (where he served as a colonel Fighter Jet pilot) to Syria in the early 90′s. However, despite these connections and links, he was arrested in 2000 and sentenced to three years in prison. However, contrary to common misinformed belief that Abssi was released a few months later, he actually served just over 2 years before being released according to a few conditions. Speculation evaluated this could be due to his links with Al-Omla. Therefore, one could legitimately establish an indirect relationship of some kind between a Syrian authority and Abssi.

However, many incidents had occurred in between the time Abssi was released from prison and the time of the clash between the Lebanese Army with Fatah Al-Islam which refutes any claims of links between the Syrian intelligence or authorities and the concerned militant group. In 2005, Shaker Al-Abssi and group of youth who he had been fighting with in Iraq relocated to the town of Helwa in the Beqaa’, in eastern Lebanon where they set themselves up in the headquarters of Fatah Al-Intifada within the region. In May 2006, Al-Abssi and this small group engaged in armed clashes with Lebanese soldiers that led to the killing of one young Syrian wanted by Damascus for fighting in Iraq. This youth had transferred from Syria to Lebanon with Abssi.

Following this incident, Syrian intelligence services then summoned al-Omla to ask him about al-Abssi and his group. The investigation unmasked the close coordination between al-Omla and al-Abssi that had been kept from the pro-Damascus Secretary General of Fatah Al-Intifada, Abu Moussa, and by extension, from the Syrian authorities. Al-Omla then reportedly ordered al-Abssi to leave the Western Beqaa, which is close to the borders with Syria, and head for refugee camps in northern Lebanon in fear of being captured by the Syrian military present in the Beqaa at the time.

The turn of events illustrate that the contrary of coordination was taking place between the Syrian intelligence and Shaker Al-Abssi’s cell. Instead of associating themselves with the Syrian intelligence, they were being secretive.

Furthermore, in November 2006 the Palestinian security committee in Al-Badawi refugee camp in Tripoli handed over two members of al-Abssi’s group to the Lebanese military intelligence. Al-Abssi was reportedly infuriated and decided to break with Fatah al-Intifada and establish his own group, Fatah al-Islam. In doing so, he had in essence severed all ties with the Syrians, whether directly or indirectly.

In November 2006 Fatah al-Islam set up a headquarters in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahar Al-Bared in northern Lebanon. The group seized three compounds in the camp that had belonged to the secular Palestinian militant group, Fatah al-Intifada. However, the location of Fatah Al-Islam had been dispersed between Al-Badawi and Ein Al-Hilwe refugee camps, not Nahar Al-Bared. How did they end up in Nahar Al-Bared and in such a dense quantity and with such power to overthrow the long-established Fatah Al-Intifada?

The credit for that could in part be given to Bahia Harriri, Saad Harriri’s Aunt. She had bribed what were to become Fatah Al-Islam members out of the vicinity, which had been a part of a constituency represented by her in Parliament, and into the far-away Nahar Al-Bared. In essence, she had been involved in financing Fatah Al-Islam. No-one really known in what form and shape these bribes came in.

After the take-over by Fatah Al-Islam, the club (Jumblat, Gaegae, Harriri and Welch) had become interested in the group. A radical Sunni Islamic group which was appealing to a great deal of Lebanese Sunnis (a third of the militant group’s members had been Lebanese nationals) and ofcourse opposed Hezbollah due to their Al-Qaeda mind-set. The best group to support at a time when Hezbollah’s power was surging among the Lebanese society.

You have to start asking yourself, if this group of militants came into Lebanon without money or wealth and survived from what Fatah Al-Intifada gave them, how did they end up with Belgian-made weaponry, luxury homes, cars and paying double the price of their shopping fees in a Palestinian refugee camp that has the worst rates of poverty and unemployment in Lebanon? Well, if you read back to the sections about bribes and sudden interest of the club in the group, then maybe everything starts fitting together. It is, after all common sense.

Then, something starts going wrong for the club. They found out that Hezbollah intelligence knew all about the Clubs activities and was in a position to flip the two groups who were supposed to ignite a Sunni-Shi’a civil war which Hezbollah vows to prevent. Then information started leaking to Seymoure Hersh, who was in turn publishing embarrassing stories with potentially serious implications for the Bush-Harriri administrations alike. Harriri, fearing a Hezbollah flip that could destroy everything he, his party and government had worked for, “stopped” the payroll of Fatah Al-Islam’s account at the Hariri family owned bank. Fatah-al-Islam, tried to negotiate at least ‘severance pay’ with no luck and they felt betrayed. (Remember many of their fighters are easily frustrated teenagers and their pay supports their families). Militia members knocked off the bank which issued their worthless checks. They were doubly angry when they learned FM is claiming in the media a loss much greater than they actually snatched and that the Club is going to stiff the insurance company and actually make a huge profit. After all, why would a Syrian-owned militia go through the risky business of robbing banks if they had been on such lucrative payrolls from Syria? Did Syria bust itself penniless for a bunch of Islamists (coincidently, the ideology of the ruling Ba’ath party in Syria is secularist and anti-Islamist)? Rationale doesn’t suggest so.

Following the robbery, the perpetrators were traced to an apartment in Tripoli which turned out to be an office for Fatah al-Islam. Do not forget that Tripoli is a stronghold of the Harriri family. The armed militants at the office resisted arrest and a gun battle ensued. An unsuccessful three-day stand-off between security forces and militants at the apartment ended on 23 May. The security forces were forced to call in the Lebanese army, who ended the battle successfully the same day after the last Fatah al-Islam militant at that location blew himself up.

The following night, Fatah Al-Islam militants ambush a Lebanese Army barracks, murdering off-duty civilian-clothed Lebanese soldiers in their sleep. This particular attack took the lives of 18 Lebanese soldiers, of which 4 had their heads severed from their bodies. The outrage that ensued was massive. This had come as such a shock. However, notice that Fatah Al-Islam did not go after the Security Services which hunted them in the first place. This was due to the belief of Abssi that his group could pressure Harriri in providing them with further finances through this particular attack on the Lebanese Army.

However, this was not the case. The same night, the Seniora cabinet convenes and asks the Lebanese Army to first attack and then enter the refugee camp and silence (in more ways than one) Fatah-al-Islam. Since entrance into the Camps is forbidden by the 1969 Arab league agreement, the Army refuses after realising the extent of the conspiracy against it by the Welch Club. The army knows that entering a refugee camp in force will open a front against the Army in all twelve Palestinian refugee camps and tear the army apart along sectarian cracks – effectively ending its role as the sole neutral and strong official institution in Lebanon that could keep the peace.

Hezbollah, realising what had started to happen, released a statement saying, “We feel that there is someone out there who wants to drag the [Lebanese] army to this confrontation and bloody struggle … to serve well-known projects and aims,” and it called for a political solution to the crisis.

Half-way during the battles, the Army General Michelle Suleiman claimed that Fatah Al-Islam is an Al-Qaeda group rather than a Syrian cell placed in Lebanon to cause anarchy. He was systematically attacked by all March 14 politicians and accused of being a Syrian puppet, even though he had been partly responsible time and again in cooling tensions and preventing possible civil unrest in the fragile country. His soldiers and leadership was to be criticised after the Army’s victory over Fatah Al-Islam for countless reason and in countless instances; being too slow, being too weak, not preventing protests etc.

Now you know the full truth behind the twisted tale of Fatah Al-Islam. It resembles a freelance group of loose, anarchistic but fundamentalist militants who would ally themselves to anyone, in return for a pay-check. Indeed, a Fatah Al-Islam militant interviewed by Reuters just before the outbreak of violence in the summer of 2007 between the group and the Lebanese army claimed that his group will follow whoever gives them money. In this case, it had been, whether directly or indirectly, both Syria and Harriri – however the much bigger and direct share is well-deserved by Harriri. However, Samir Gaegae oncer asked a question which I thought to be legitimate. He asked:

“why if anyone is found out to be a Muslim Brotherhood activist, he receives a death sentence, and if he is very lucky, he gets hard labour. So how come Shaker Al-’Abssi – who is no ordinary militant but a leader… and who committed a crime in Jordan and was sentenced to death there, and was arrested in Syria – has been released [from prison]?”I would urge Dr. (earned the title by sitting a few pre-med sessions before becoming a full-time militant in the civil war) Samir Gaegae to read this post to why he was released. But in case you don’t have the time, I’m sure you’re busy drawing plans of which politician to kill next, then here’s the short version:

1. His release happened five years before he had a militia.
2. His release took place at a time when the Syrian army existed in Lebanon, all 15,000 of them, while you were rotting in prison.
3. He was of no use to the Syrians when his release took place.
4. He was not convicted of being part of an extremist group, but of smuggling arms and ammo between borders.
5. Etc

On Wednesday, January 9, 2008, Fatah al-Islam chief Shaker al-Abssi made a public speech in Lebanon, acknowledging his escape and vowing for revenge against the Lebanese army after the group’s defeat in the 2007 Lebanon conflict.

The topic was – allegiance. Which of the countries you live in deserves allegiance, the native country or the one you reside in?

The guy from Brazil (let’s call him Roberto) was arguing that allegiance should be to the country you live in. His argument made sense, and here is a list of the stuff he mentioned:

• The country you tend to reside in is the one that has provided you with the necessities that the native homeland could not (income, security etc.)
• If Palestinians in Lebanon owed their allegiance only to Palestine, there would be a crisis.
• Likewise, in the predominantly hyphenated society of America, the society of that country would cease to exist if everyone owed their allegiance only to their native lands. Indeed, patriotism would hardly exist and the army would never again be.
• Allegiance should be first and foremost to the country hosting you (especially if you are a citizen) and then to your homeland.
• Finally, Roberto argued to the Lebanese-German (lets call him Alan) that his point was proven by the very fact that Alan still lives in Germany and not Lebanon. His labour and income is used to drive the German and not Lebanese economy.

On the other hand, Alan replied with another arguement:

• Your allegiance should always be with the country which expresses your identity most, and in this case, the identity of first-generation immigrants or citizens in another country is best expressed by their native country.
• How can anyone betray the country where his ancestors lived, fought for and died in for another, foreign country with it’s foreign culture etc.
• He also emphasised on a few paradoxes in this subject matter such as the situation where the country you reside in and the country you are originally from clash – what happens then?

What if your parents are both from different country, you was born in none of those countries and yet you live in a totally different nation than your parents or the country of birth? What happens then.

There are a lot of viewpoints to be considered concerning this matter. I agree to some aspects from both Roberto and Alan’s opinions. I believe you’re allegiance should always be with the country you identify yourself with most, but this does not necessarily have to be the country you were either born or currently reside in (it tends to be the country you spent your childhood in, raised in or spent the most time in). Although, I recognise this doesn’t have to come at the expense of your native country where, if your allegiance naturally places itself in another country, then you should systematically have some kind of allegiance or personal pact with at a second-degree.

I believe allegiance can not be personally decided. It is extremely difficult to force your allegiance to any party. I totally believe, however, that allegiance naturally places itself according to a persons general mood over time. This is the best explanation to give considering the millions of problems you could face if you were to decide on the allegiance matter, i.e. if your country is split in half into two countries. Before it was split, you used to live in one half where most of your family still lives with your parents, but moved to the other half due to work-related issues 15 years ago. These two cantons are at war. do you fight for one canton against the other, do you betray one canton for the other, or will you opt out and stay neutral?

Allegiance can be simplified to this – if you support the football team which regularly defeats the club teams representing the town/region you live in, can you force yourself to switch that feeling of loyalty and support?

I’m interested in what you think. Please comment and constructive criticism with anything I have said is welcome.

Let me clarify a few things that this comment infers. It infers;

1) If you support a specific political party in Lebanon, in this case Hezbollah or Amal, you automatically do not tend to pay your electricity bills. It is like a virus – once your allegiance is pledged to a specific party, you systematically gain a tendency to evade bills.

2) The comment also infers that all Hezbollah and Amal supporters live exclusively in ‘Hezbollah controlled’ areas of Lebanon. They are autonomous from the rest of the nation and only ever live under the control of their party.

3) Finally, the commentator assumes that fee collectors are afraid to ‘enter’ these areas because they may be at risk – therefore making a connected assumption that there is some kind of common rivalry between a fee collector and Hezbollah supporters, I guess they are both born to hate each other – whereas the rest of Lebanon and Lebanese absolutely love the bill collectors. They are similarly born with a common love for each other.

Do I have to go into detail to highlight the absurdity of this total crap? It is not only fascist and idiotic…there really are no words. Jeebus Christ, this guy makes a link between party loyalty and paying your bills! Please ask this expert if I support the Labour party in the UK will I be better off or worse off on my Bills? No, Seriously. I want to know.

Let me just make a few comments on this. Firstly, only south Lebanon was granted a tax and bill-break since the year 2000 for a total of three years. This has, of course, ended roughly 5 years ago. Good, Samaritan Lebanese (Shi’a or otherwise) whom support any of these two groups and resides in southern Lebanon pays for their bills. Their are ofcourse the random outlaws who steal from cable lines. others buy their own generators. Maybe if the electricity service was not so disorganised, crappy and only rationed in Shi’a areas, then maybe everyone will pay for their electricity. Hasn’t any pro-government people thought of that yet?

Let me set you out a plan if you are struggling. Firstly, remove the ugly and clumped wiring from overground and stuff them neatly underground. I don’t think people will go unnoticed digging 5 metres underground to extend a cord to their living room. Then, you could organise the system using electricity point cards with magnetic strips instead of ‘clocks’ to determine the amount to be paid. Fianally, maybe if you didn’t cut electricity in southern Lebanon, the Dahyeh and Ba’albeck for 12 hours a day while Beirut and the mountains remain lit-up, the people may have more respect for a non-discriminant government.

There you go. That is a 3-point plan to end our electricity misery. I doubt it would cost a fraction worth of subsidies provided by the government to EDL.

Finally, for your information Mr. energy analyst, bill collectors tend to reside in the areas they work in. They are not some kind of super-civilised humans living in a city and entering a jungle to tame the uncivilised Hezbollah supporters. It is a big insult to your reputation, reliability and knowledge to argue that an autonomous murder somewhere in southern Beirut by a pissed off man with a gun has any links with the general mood of every Hezbollah supporter. People tend to not be that stupid ad gullible. Why don’t you get yourself busy and attempt an op-ed on how every gun-related crime in America is committed by Republican supporters because Republicans excessively endorse less gun control?

Do people see why, I for one, does not pledge any allegiance, loyalty or links to people like those? There is a new reason every day.

The thing I love about Franjieh is his willingness and courage to criticise anything that he doesn’t like. He is honest and straight forward. He does not hide behind political jargon or political correctness to deliver his message. He says it loudly and clearly for everyone to hear. I also salute him for being one of the very few (if not the only one) politicians to criticise both Bkirki and Michelle Suleiman.

“Statements by Bkirki and the archbishops are not less decent than those (made) by some politicians who are known for their street talk,” Franjieh said in an interview on NBN television Wednesday night.”

“With due respect to our patriarch he is an employee for the U.S. embassy and for the French embassy,” Franjieh said.

He charged that Moussa travels around in a Hariri-owned airplane and that his hotel fee is paid by al-Moustaqbal movement leader.

“I don’t have confidence in someone who trusts (cabinet) minister Elias Murr and wants him in the (new government) and at the same time he is regarded a (government) supporter.”

Not surprising. The fact that Lebanon only ever asks for the help of ‘FBI experts’ raises many eyebrows. Why is it that US ‘experts’ always investigate every crime in Lebanon. Are Lebanese ‘experts’ allowed to go into the US and investigate a crime in their profession? What about Lebanese ‘expert’ secret services agents? Do you see Britain or any other Western country asking for ‘experts’ from the US secret services?

Another flaw that surfaces is the state that Lebanon is in and its lack of true independence. If we rely on the outside to provide security (Lebanese government = US FBI agents, Hezbollah = Syria/Iran), then we have a huge problem in Lebanon. We can not protect ourselves let alone accomplish anything else.