The General first went a held a long meeting with the Maronite patriarch, to get his blessing, especially that the General’s appointment will require a constitutional amendment.
And then the General went on a media rampage selling his candidacy. And in a typical Lebanese fashion he flip flopped between different positions in order to please all influential factions that governs the outcome of the Presidential election (the US, France, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and their respective Lebanese representatives)
So the General declared that neither the Lebanese Government nor the Syrian intelligence provided any help or support to Fateh Al ISalm, the terrorist group, fought by the army in the north. Additionally, he furiously vented for the lack of support and help to the Lebanese army, then two days later thanked the United States for the substantial and important help it is providing to the army…
Personally I am against his candidacy. I think one general every decade is more than enough! And after our experience with General Lahoud I will need at least two or three decades before I could even consider a former general as the president of Lebanon.
Finally, in another media stunt that could lead to a war, Mr. Nassrallah claimed that in the event Israel attacked Lebanon he has a “big surprise that could change the war and the fate of the whole regional” what Nassrallah is hinting to is open to many speculations, and one of them is that Hezbollah has weapons of mass destruction in its possession.
But one thing is for sure in International Relations you NEVER EVER threaten or claim to have a weapon of mass destruction. This would immediately provide the international community and Israel with a legitimate and concrete argument to attack Hezbollah. And if Nassrallah’s statement was not intended to give that message, well he should clarify it and fast…
12 comments :
What are you talking about?
1- Warning is not threatening
2- Letting the enemy know that we can defend ourselves is the best way to avoid war
3- Sayyed N was probably refering to anti aircraft weapons (purely defensive).
4- You are talking about speculation and then building on speculation
5- In international relations you sometime threaten
6- Nasrallah never claimed to have WMDs
7- Nasrallah always argued AGAINST any weapon of mass destruction in the region
8- Nasrallah was very clear he has nothing to clarify
9- ....
anonymous
when you claim that you posses a weapon that will create a big surprise that is not a warning that is a threat and we saw how all the past "warnings" of nassrallah did not prevent the last war on the contrary they encouraged it...
now of course i was speculating, i said so in my article!!! and it is an opinion piece so of course it is speculations. But if i understood it this way than others did the same, and he should clarify.
Nassrallah was against Israel's nuclear weapons but NOT against Iran's. On the contrary he was encouraging Iran t get the bomb.
now point 8 " Nasrallah was very clear he has nothing to clarify" was a bit too clear to my taste and i did not understand anything :) so could you clarify it a bit more
PS: in point 1 you said " Warning is not threatening" then in point 5 you said "In international relations you sometime threaten" so he was threatening after all... no?
* Past wars were pe-planned regardless of what was said (or not said).
* Concerning speculation read my answer properly: the problem is not speculation but BUILDING on speculation as if it was a fact.
* There is no contradiction between points 1 and 5.
(5 was just debunking your statement)
* You say "he was encouraging Iran t get the bomb."
Before you were just building on speculation but now you are also adding a lie: show me ONE reference where he said that.
You seem driven by plain illogical blind hatred.
LOL...the bearded dog who lives in a hole is threatening/warning. WHO CARES YA AMI! Up to now he screwed the whole country and claimed victory...
You are a coward gangster and a traitor and can not threaten a leaf unless your master says so...if your are so brave with divine victory why not give a speech alive instead of on TV.
"...in order to please all influential factions that governs the outcome of the Presidential election (the US, France, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and their respective Lebanese representatives)"
what about izrael and its own lebanese representatives?
at least he didn't try to please them!
I think the only thing that would surprise invading Israelis would be if Hezbollah immediately surrenderred. So was Nasrallah trying to provide Israel with an incentive?
second anonymous
Plz let us stay civil and refrain from swearing and name calling...
Now back to anonymous 1
i said threatening with nuclear weapons is a no go not threatening per say read carefully plz.
about speculation and building on them i ll refer you to my previous answer.
three thankfully i dont feel hatred for anyone. two plz refrain from any personnel attacks or insinuation, keep your comments on what i wrote not what drives me or anything else. debate the post not the author!!!
Unfortunately i dont have the time or the energey to search for the exact source but i remember clearly Nassrallah making a whole speech about how Iran have the right to build a bomb cause Israel does have one...
Finally about the war and being preplanned: i had enough of that propaganda thing i will just refer you to a past post of mine:
http://ibosblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/spin.html
"WHO CARES YA AMI!"
Bob does. The cowards are the people like you who stood by doing nothing when the south was under occupation and the worst forms of exactions and torture, not those who defende the country.
"if your are so brave with divine
victory why not give a speech alive instead of on TV."
Oh yeah? just run up for elections and the Lebanese people will choose between you and Sayyed Hassan.
Sure I am all for early elections! let us see who wins...
about the south when u poke a bear with a stick and then cry when he destroys your home and kill your children you have only yourself to blame.
Last warning, plz no more name calling or personal attacks...
"about the south when u poke a bear with a stick and then cry when he destroys your home and kill your children you have only yourself to blame."
First you are blaming the victim not the agressor, nice way of seeking justice.
Second: the irony is that the ones who are crying are not the ones who got their home "destroyed and children killed" but the ones who were standing by and blaming HA!
This Hezbollah issue is very deep and it requires a deeper insight from both of you (anonymous 1 and bob).
However, I have to agree with anonymous 1 that the Sayed's words were not threats but merely high pitched warnings. This is one in many of the Sayed's speeches and like you said bob, it did not prevent Lebanon from being attacked; however, I sincerely believe that this psychological war has played a great role in the Hezbollah/Israel relationship. If the Sayed quits this 'game' or 'war' or his 'tone', then it may raise a lot of questions or even put Israel more at east. Would Israel be incited into going to war with Hezbollah anytime soon? From my political understanding of matters, no. Would Hezbollah try to 'poke' Israel into it? I don't think so either. Again, these are just general and brief statements because as I said above, it is a very deeply complicated issue that cannot be covered here.
I am not buttering bob up but I have to say that from the posts I have read by him, he is one of the least hateful bloggers I have come across the blog sphere. Of course, it is okay to be with or against a certain group as long as one remains logical and open to other possibilities; it only makes one's point easier to get through to the largest public possible. I think bob satisfies that.
poshlemon
i agree the issue is much more complicated than it seems, but what i am trying to explain is that leaving the window open for understanding what nassrallah said as if it was a threat of WMD is very dangerous and could encourage Israel into a war...the usual threats and warning and psychological warfare is something else and part of the larger conflict...
Finally, thank you for what you said, i appreciate it. In these days it is becoming harder and harder to find a common platform of common sense and logic to engage a discussion with all different factions. so thanks again and believe me your comments and insight have been very insightful, even if i do not agree with them some of the time.
Post a Comment