27 Comments. Add your own...

• 1. Lebanonhsh | March 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

  hey guys
  Immagine this to be true:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji4qJwY6lo

  US killing R Harriri, to get Syria out and break hezbollah back could be a viable story as well as Syria kiiling RHariri because he wasen’t cooperating with Lahoud….the real truth could also be somewhere else also…….don’t drift after allegations!!

  This report also mentions Elliot abrams, i remember he was greating Ga3ga3 when he visited the states

• 2. ili | March 19th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  I have a question to sheikh nadim:
  Once you said that you don’t like apples but you like bananas, but when your friend offered you a banana you said no thank you.
  Now that you are running for the kataeb ticket in ashrafieh what are you going to say if someone offered you a tomato while in your own words you said: “no thank you”

  Man o sheddele halak shwei, sort shabb, ma3edna wled ta nes2al leih hayde heik 3a kel shi menshoufo!

  Ba3den haide l daily star sayra 3am tekol khara ktir, lezem nshouf shou badna na3mella…

• 3. Rima | March 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  Mano

  There is no contradiction.As the term surrender implies you accept the deal bacause you are the looser…YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE YOUR FUTURE AND NEVER YOUR PAST!

• 4. Tarek | March 19th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  Regardless of what he consider it whether a surrender or not, Taif won’t be overthrown. Some christians are naive enough to think they can overthrow the Taif. On the ground, we’re actually way far from Taif, much lower I can say: ALL anti-Lebanese militias are still armed. If we are able to reach the taif it would be a dream.

• 5. Rambo | March 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  Rima,

  How can you change your future by allying with people who said recently we will only support Taef. Example MP Geagea said they dropped federalism and they adopted TAEF.
  So your answer is not answering the question.
  Will Nadim fight the Kataeb and the LF once elected in order to change Taef? Will he be an ally of Aoun after being elected because Aoun is the only one talking about changing Taef?

• 6. Rima | March 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  Rambo

  Do you mean he should ally himself with aoun and cheer up for the promised Islamic Republic of HA?

• 7. Fuziyad | March 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

  Rambo, what’s better? 50/50 or 3 thirds?? just let me know

• 8. Rima | March 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

  Fuziad
  Interesting comment but I think the demise of Christians after Taef is not only on the institutional level…the Aounmania weakened the Christian political and moral status for decades to come…Also demographically we are bleeding almost to death…I think that HA will be pushing towards the 1/3 formula based on demographic calculations!

• 9. Ditt4 | March 19th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

  Dear Mano, Rima is right.. there is no contradiction.. The taef was like the only option we had to remain.. this is called surrendering.. but the taef in itself wasnt a very bad loss…….until it was applied only on us…

• 10. N10452 | March 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  Rambo,
  Allow me to answer that one 3an Nadim

  The Taef agreement politically speaking was a defeat to the Christians (mainly because of their inner fights), however Taef still guaranteed our 50-50 representation and if we had united our ranks, we would have gotten back our position and reinstated some lost powers …

  After Taef, The Muslims backed by the Syrians turned on Taef and weakened the Christians further ..and after 15 years, it took a big slap to the Sunnite company to realize it cannot go on like that ….

  Meanwhile the damage was done Christian-wise and unfrotunatelly the only card left in hand was the Taef .. Taef asks for Syrian withdrawal, asks for decentralization, guarantees the 50-50 and is the only thing keeping the emerging Shiite power from practically raping the 50-50 status ..

  I find Nadim’s position inside Kataeb ( but with an independant status) the least worst position to kick off his career ..

  He already stated in his opening speech his wish to change things and addressed even the Kataeb leadership and Amine himself ..

  Taef is bad but we are at a worse position now, we need to regain effectively the 50-50 and regain what Taef gave us before we can move on to something else …

  So i dont see where he should stand better than he is right now .. not to forget that Nadim doesnt have a political base and didnt prove himself quite enough during his first few years ..so he cant start on his own at the moment ..

• 11. Rambo | March 19th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

  Rima,

  It is funny when people can’t answer a straight to the point question, they jump to Aoun.

  Fuziad, what is more interesting is to stick to your words and stand to what you believe in. If Nadim believes as he said that Taef means a surrender then he should stick to his words and say he oppose it and not run on its ticket.

  It is a matter of credibility that as it seems means nothing to Lebanese

• 12. Rambo | March 19th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

  N10452,

  Good try to answer but all you are saying is excuses to a mistake done by nadim. The mistake, as you guys who are defending what he said and doing, is in him saying it is a surrender. Or the way I see it is in his alliances and political choices.

  If Nadim is one with himself and words he would have run as an independent. This way he proves to who ever is going to vote for him that he stands by his words.

  If he can’t stand by “Taif means Christian surrender” and go and ally himself with those who signed and supported Taef, then how he can stand by all the promises he is telling the people today.

  For the rest no I am not saying he should be with Aoun who is defending Hizballah arms. By the way all of you were ok with Hizballah arms when HA voted for LF deputy (al marhoum Naiim)

• 13. N10452 | March 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  Rambo,
  It wasnt any try to justify anyone … there is no real mistake in this specific statement as Taef is a very vague topic to tackle it this way ..

  We lost politically as Christians in 1990 and Taef was the outcome and was a Christian surrender mainly due to Aoun more than anyone else …

  Taef limited the damages and is not what we wish for, but Taef is what brought the Syrians out 4 years ago … because no UN resolution would have sent the Syrians out .. and Taef is the only LEbanese agreement we have in hands right now to keep them out ..

  I would have wished Nadim to start as an independant but he wasnt able to kick off and wants to change from within M14 ..and he has more changes than anyone else of achieving that if he puts himself to it ..

• 14. Pierre | March 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  I Agree with N10452 comment to Rambo.

  What Nadim was speaking about was in the past. Any Christian you ask will tell you that losing the executive power and the privilige they had in parliament was like surrender.

  At the present you can not run on a ticket of destroying Taef, You have to work with the system and once the government is on a strong fotting you can push for reform of the taef.

• 15. kezballah | March 20th, 2009 at 1:22 am

  Rambo it will be nice if Nadim explain his position about Taef in more clearly. But it is also nice if you remember that Taef is not one article it is many articles, so if you say article 5 is Christian surrender of power I say article 10 is disarm all militia weapons, what will it make for me if you give me 10 Christian army commander if they can’t dare to stop a militia invading the street like on 7 May?

  The article of Daily Star is too stupid, Nadim may oppose some part of Taef because he see it as Christians surrendered some of their power, but there is no contradiction in allying with Kataeb to support disarming militias, decentralize, improve the system ETC..

• 16. Michele | March 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am

  Ya Rambo u do have double standards; it’s funny u being a Aoun follower accepting Aoun’s change of stance. In case u forgot as u aounis r known for ur selective memory, how would u define when Aoun called HA a terrorist organization n 2 yrs later they became a resistance movement?
  Come on ya Rambo inta explain?

• 17. Rodge | March 20th, 2009 at 9:16 am

  Regardless if Nadim changed his stance or his thoughts, and this is something someone like Nadim could gain by experience, since he’s still young and can be tolerated.

  But what we should really consider is the reason we signed the Taif agreement. I mean who took us there, wjo is the mad person who ensured that there will be a Taif agreement.
  It’s like someone who put fire into ur house and then blame you because you accepted to live in a small cabin.
  Michel Aoun is the first supporter and the initial reason for taef agreement, he caused an unfortunate situation in the christian areas obliging Christians to accept Taef as it is because it was the best choice for them at that time.
  Saying anything else is just bullshit.

• 18. Rambo | March 20th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  N10452,

  Still you can say Taef is a christian surrender and then side with those who create and accept it. While you are running on a christian ticket.

  Taef is a result of many people and not mainly Aoun. Remember media played a big role (LBC) but at the end of the day the LF chose to give the Syrians more than what Aoun was asking from her.

  Michele, I wish Aoun serve the rest of his life in jail for crimes he committed.

  Not every person who asks a question concerning a political issue that might be related to a politicians you support has to be a Aounist.

  I still prefer Nadim over other candidates. I am questioning him in order for him to realize that he MUST watch what he says and does.

  He is the son of Bachir Gemayel and always mentions his dad in every speech he makes. Meaning he wants the people to relate to his dad cause when they look at him.

  Bachir would have said sitin sineh 3lyakoum w 3ala el taef wil 3ouroubeh.
  So my dear Nadim when you say Taef is a christian surrender (meaning amine, aoun, geagea, … all surrendered) then you should stand like a tall man and do something about it and not be another follower.

• 19. Rima | March 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  Rambo

  It is time for us to transcend our religion if we want to build a modern state…we should also encourage new political figures that represent us..no need to dwell in the past even if it is Bashir….These are Bashir’s values and political ideals …
  HA political and ideological agenda is threatening the core survival of Lebanon, our only option is to vote 14th March..once in power we should then move on!

• 20. Fuziyad | March 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  Rambo, am interested to know, what you and other anti taef propose as a solution, you mean chrisitians should arm themselves and fight a new civial war then probably loose again ect…crazy how people don’t learn, the chresitian refusal to share better power in the 70’s led us into a war that got us taef then fighting taef (aoun) got us worse than taef…you want to have one more try??

• 21. N10452 | March 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Thank you Rambo for your feedback.
  I wish others would stop labeling him as aounist just because he is critisizing M14 leaders or Geagea … from what i’ve read so far, he is very far from being aounist ..

  As for your view on Taef & Nadim,
  I believe unfortunatelly that Taef was imposed on us in 2005 when it was used by the international community and Hariri & Jumblatt bloc to get the Syrians out ..

  Setteen sene 3al Taef ana ma3ak .. bass to replace it with what ?

  Nadim was bold enough to admit Taef was a surrender, but then he must act upon it, and his current alliances are not truly contradicting what he says ..

  Nadim chose to run for elections, and wants to succeed to change from within as he suggested in his speech at the opening of BKA Achrafieh ..

  His positioning within the LF & Kataeb and Christian youth is better than anyone else and if he plays it tactically correctly by not confronting the “failed leaders”, he can emerge as a unifying one and higher his speech .. but at the moment critisizing Geagea or Amine will kill his political ambitions since he is still very young and doesnt have a strong base …

  Remember Camille Chamoun and how he played it smartly on Bchara el Khoury and Jumblatt to get to where he wants, then allowed himself to invite the Americans over to help out (Eisenhower)

  I believe what you are saying is that he must choose his words carefully because right now he might not be able to keep them, specially against powerful Christian leaders like Geagea & Amine who see in him a threat more than a son to them ..

  But i dont believe he is right now in those specific elections in a position to go against everyone despite the fact that he is distancing himself somehow and has his own status within the Kataeb and Achrafieh specifically ..

• 22. Rima | March 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  Fuziad #20

  Don’t you think it is very simplistic to say that because Christians refused to share power we had civil war? Even so this does not give Muslims the right to side by Palestinians and syrians to exterminate innocent people!

• 23. Rima | March 20th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  N
  This debate about Christians gaining their power is so misleading and does not lead to the creation of a new Lebanon! For me I would prefer to have decent non Christian in power that opportunistic figures like Lahoud and Aoun..to name a few!

  Our mentality needs to change if we want Change!

• 24. Fuziyad | March 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  No worries Rima am not that simplistic…but I deeply believe that if christians and maronites in particular had given up on some of the monopoly they had over power we could have avoided the war…the muslims supported the palestinians in a large part because they saw it as an opportunity ye2elbo el tawlé…

  may be we would had a war in both cases but frankly I think that with one community ruling the country the civil war was on the long run inevitable…palestinians or not…

• 25. Rima | March 21st, 2009 at 4:59 am

  Fuziad

  Since the beginning Lebanon was ruled by 50-50..and even though Christians have more privileges …Lebanon was considered in the 50s-60s the Paris of the ME…The issue of Maronites privileges??? would have been changed if Lebanon had the chance to evolve as a democracy.

  So this hamajiyeh mentality of Muslims at that time is to be condemned and they should apologize for siding by Palestinians against fellow Christians…I don’t see any connection between the Maronites privileges and the slaughtering of Christians in Akkar. Apology is what civilised countries do..such as the Australian government apologizing for what they did to the Aborigines.
  Actually, siding by the Palestinians is a historic mistake that led to the destruction of Lebanon. This proves the theory that people in developing countries are unable to embrace democracy and to fight for their rights in a non-military fashion!

  Thanks for your reply, I am just trying to understand this dark side of our history.

• 26. Fuziyad | March 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am

  Sett Rima, dark page of our history indeed…we shouldn’t hide behind our little finger…I wasn’t born in 1975 and I spent most of my life wondering who was wrong and who was right and where I would have sided if i was there at that time….As in most wars the 2 sides both had their wrongs. And that case it’s definitely the case.
  When I think about it my various identities plays a role in my analysis. I am a Lebanese from Christian origin(as I consider myself as an atheist and btw very very ashamed by the pope latest comments abt aids or abortion) but also a citizen of the world as I spent most of my life out of Lebanon.

  To me the Palestinian cause is one of the more just causes of our century, however I agree that IN NO CASE lebanon should have been a playground for anyone to launch that fair war against the jewish nazism…

  To me, kicking the ass of the PLO in lebanon was a must but I think the lebanese should have been united to do so…for this(and for many other reasons) the christians should have given up on some of the power they had that was definitely disproportioned. Again let’s not hide behind our little finger…the palestinians had nothing to do with the war in 1958…

  Please don’t talk about massacres…our history ain’t bright there…which christians from akkar are you talking about?? with all due respect to the victims and their family we’ve been using the hundreds of deads in damour to justify the thousands we’ had massacred on sabt el aswad, in karantina or in tell el za3tar…weak argument..our so called heroes fucked up…

  Today I don’t believe that the creation of the lebanese nation was a good idea at least not the way its map was drown…people(me included) are monkeys they can’t tolerate each other…

  But what is done is done and I’ll stick to finding ways to get things working….for this reason I can’t accept any of those artificially united minorties to rule the country on its own, be it the christians in the 1970’s or the shiias today…

  From the beginning and even before the civil war there was talks abt a new national pact, camille chamoun or pierre gemayel always refused any reasonabl deal, THEY F…. UP and yes they took us into a war that was lost by advance…noone wanted to throw us into the sea and even if they wanted they wouldn’t have been able, weapons or no weapons…

  That thinking in no way excuses the misbehavior of muslims in regard to the palestinian or syrian military presence in lebanon…that’s not the topic, just saying WE f…. up.

  A deal in 1975 would have got better rights to christians than taef…an acceptance of taef would have avoided part of its misaplications against christian rights and now any amendment of taef would only be in our misfavour….fhamo ba2a….stop taking us 3al majhoul….

  PS: that’s an out of the club post, some of the wording might be wrong but the content is what I think….

• 27. Fuziyad | March 21st, 2009 at 9:32 am

  Sett Rima, dark page of our history indeed…we shouldn’t hide behind our little finger…I wasn’t born in 1975 and I spent most of my life wondering who was wrong and who was right and where I would have sided if i was there at that time….As in most wars the 2 sides both had their wrongs. And that case it’s definitely the case.
  When I think about it my various identities plays a role in my analysis. I am a Lebanese from Christian origin(as I consider myself as an atheist and btw very very ashamed by the pope latest comments abt aids or abortion) but also a citizen of the world as I spent most of my life out of Lebanon.

  To me the Palestinian cause is one of the more just causes of our century, however I agree that IN NO CASE lebanon should have been a playground for anyone to launch that fair war against the jewish nazism…

  To me, kicking the ass of the PLO in lebanon was a must but I think the lebanese should have been united to do so…for this(and for many other reasons) the christians should have given up on some of the power they had that was definitely disproportioned. Again let’s not hide behind our little finger…the palestinians had nothing to do with the war in 1958…

  Please don’t talk about massacres…our history ain’t bright there…which christians from akkar are you talking about?? with all due respect to the victims and their family we’ve been using the hundreds of deads in damour to justify the thousands we’ had massacred on sabt el aswad, in karantina or in tell el za3tar…weak argument..our so called heroes fu…. up…

  Today I don’t believe that the creation of the lebanese nation was a good idea at least not the way its map was drown…people(me included) are monkeys they can’t tolerate each other…

  But what is done is done and I’ll stick to finding ways to get things working….for this reason I can’t accept any of those artificially united minorties to rule the country on its own, be it the christians in the 1970’s or the shiias today…

  From the beginning and even before the civil war there was talks abt a new national pact, camille chamoun or pierre gemayel always refused any reasonabl deal, THEY F…. UP and yes they took us into a war that was lost by advance…noone wanted to throw us into the sea and even if they wanted they wouldn’t have been able, weapons or no weapons…

  That thinking in no way excuses the misbehavior of muslims in regard to the palestinian or syrian military presence in lebanon…that’s not the topic, just saying WE f…. up.

  A deal in 1975 would have got better rights to christians than taef…an acceptance of taef would have avoided part of its misaplications against christian rights and now any amendment of taef would only be in our misfavour….fhamo ba2a….stop taking us 3al majhoul….

  PS: that’s an out of the club post, some of the wording might be wrong but the content is what I think….

Leave a Reply

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed