Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

based of what Athegan was saying in somewhere else in this forum, i thought opening this thread in order to get some answers from different political affiliations in this forum about this matter.

so guys, and mainly HAers, is what Athegan said about you true ?
what do you think about the Syrians and their role in Lebanon during 1990-2005.. do you consider it an occupation or a necessary presence ??

Please everyone give us your opinion, without any fear :D

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

Well, Me as a HAer Supporter, i Used to HATE the Syrian Presence

1st of All, for some who dont know History, When the Syrian Army Came to Beirut, they attacked HA members, and my uncle is a martyr at that era, he wasn't fighting, he was group praying with Some 20-30 HA members in Some1's House, where The Syrian Army Killed Them All by Shooting them, that was called Fat7allah Mascare in Basta - Beirut, but this insidence is not wat my opinion is based on;)

to continue, Syrian Presence used to cover the Stealing and all da bad things done @ that era

Syrian Presence used to prevent me as a Shiite from Contacting and Knowing more My Christian Brother

Syrian Presence used to show me that this Christian Brother wants Israel as an Ally, so that ppl hate Christians and their Qadeye

im not gonna talk about the attacks, te3zeeb, 5atef, mo5abarat & all those, that used to happen also in my HA society

but, for those who say y we didnt talk against them, we knew that their presence was a duty we r payin in order to keep the support for the resistance in the South.
after all, i wished they didnt come from the begining, though they stopped the civil war by some how
sometimes i wished they withdrew from Lebanon In year 2000, after the liberation

as for the direct Question By U Meghwar, YES it was an occupation by a Neighbor Arabic Country...that was bad, and 4 SURE it wont return, coz if it does, im gonna hold a Rifle & Bazzoka to Fight them.

PS: im glad ive never heard that SHN visited Anjar to meet Rustom, i used to remember Rustom Coming to Haret Hreik & Meet SHN.. but im MORE GLAD that we r allies with GMA who never Met him mn l Assas;)

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

Everything in black is irrelevant...As for the part in red, if you think HA could operate the way they did while the Syrian intelligence was present at large in Lebanon without a high level of cooperation between the two, I'd like to correct you cuz that is impossible...


That continued with the Syrian-Iranian tensions and eventually turned into the Amal (Syria Backed)-HA (Iran Backed) war....Another episode of the same story of Lebanese people being toys for regional powers...


There is a lot more that even FPMers and 14 marchers don't mention lool lool lool we agree here 3ala gher 3ade :p



For the most interesting part :D :D Meghwar why didn't you reply to this :p Come on guys :p
Point 1: Syrians ended the civil war...They did NOT. At least not alone. When you say Syrians ended the civil war it makes them sound as if they were the only reason there was a civil war. The civil war ended after many of the reasons, regional and Lebanese, disappeared or changed and after an American-Syrian deal hosted by Saudi Arabia with the use of Iran as a scarecrow that day and many other factors I don't wanna get into. I hope someone more knowledgable in the civil war will pick up from here...
Point 2: 1990- 2000...Clearly Mr. El-Meghwar for all HAers, they will have the same answer here that the Syrian Presence was necessary for HA operations. I will have to agree with them here, not on their operations or anything else, just on the fact that the created syrian situation in Lebanon helped HA a lot and gave them a big margin to accomplish what they did on many levels...So will u now say the Syrian occupation/presence was necessary for LEBANON?
Point 3: 2000-2005 Sweets_HsN, when you are the biggest most well financed most organized party in a country you don't wish :p you ACT...ACT...ACT...you do something not wish before sleeping. I am still waiting for some kinda argument from any HAer to present about the subject of Syrian Occupation from 2000-2005...If no such argument is presented, sorry El-Meghwar, you are not an ally right now with someone u used to "differ" with; you are an ally with an accomplice and traitor with an occupying country...Again waiting for a good argument to change my view on this...
Unless they convince you something vague like "If we don't come into your country, Israel will" lool lool lool lool

My answer to point 3 is worse than going to Anjar. HA where part of the team that made Anjar possible for at least 2000-2005....

So El-Meghwar and FPMers, do you agree with HsN's post since you didn't reply?

P.S. I preferred to restrict the debate to 2000-2005 since there is where the controversy seems to be clearer..it does exist in the previous era of Syrian occupation though...

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

Well y not? if u remember Athegan Hay l Selom Acts, n Ouza3i Acts, where HA in Hay l Selom was Against Government, and Got Shot by the Lebanese Army, i remember the MPs running between ppl trying to calm them, and a Sheykh was killed also @ dat time, dont u think that was a conflict between HA n Syria? & the lebanese Army as always was Kebesh l Ma7ra2a?


Well, yeah HA was a Toy and even without a true mind when Sub7i l Tfayle was el Ameen l 3am, Check After Sub7i l Tfayle, Sayed Abbas l Mousawi n Sayed Hasan Nasrallah, their only Objective was Israel, and Free the South, no toys thing, neither to Iran nor to Syria

I Cant Believe We Did lool

B4 This, Syrians came to Lebanon becoz of Amine's l Jmayel Request, he went to Damascus to Hafez l Assad n Asked Him to Do This

The Occupation they way it was, was bad for Lebanon, I Agree that HA knew how to Live with That Occupation and Invest it for a PURE LEBANESE OBJECTIVE;)...w For Lebanon's Sake;)


Athegan, Seriously, What do U Prefer? Live NOT the way U wish, But Making Sure your people are Safe, OR, Live the way U wish, with another Civil war Against the 14 Marchers who LOVE the Syrian Boots ?
The Case Was, Either HA stays the way he was, commenting on Stealing and Social Needs and Accusing the Governments and the Syrians in an Indirect Way, OR, fight the Syrian Presence, make Israel Benefit From That, Knowing that Some Lebanese Who Present Now 14 March (Excluding GMA & LF @ That Era) will stand Aside with Syria, and Also, Not Sure of Rafic l Hariri ( Da Sunni Leader) position if such thing happens, what would he choose?
He Chose to stay Calm, build his Arms Silently, keep the things smooth, until the Time came after Hariri's Assassin, though it came in a very sensitive timing, but HA said Thank U Syria 4 Staying Beside the Resistance, He Didnt Say Please Stay Syria;)


Bad Try :p, wat i meant was me as a HAer wont Accept Any Occupation whereever side it came from, and dats y we r fighting the new occupation of America represented by Sanyoura's Government and 14 Marchers, Fighting here is not by the means of Arms...

How are they part? if they didnt participate in Anjar Meetings, wat ever, people who went there made it possible, when Rustum Ghazale Comes to HA leader, that tells that HA leader is not considering Rustum as a Big Thing or a Powerfull Marja3 in order to go la 3endo;)

Between FPM and HA there is the MoU, it stated the Points That Lebanon is Facing now days Clearly, HA doesnt want a Powerfull Syria in Lebanon Again, neither FPM wants:)

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

I agree, the civil war wasn't ended by Syria.. the civil war was ended by a Syrian invasion and a Taef agreement, the two ones were covered by the International community and who were called the representatives of christians and muslims in the country.
Only GMA opposed that agreement and he payed the price (because in fact that agreement was to legalize the syrian occupation and to give the muslims in Lebanon more constitutional Rights wich was also a reason for the civil war), what ended the civil war was the treason of the deputees who signed Taef agreement and surrendered to those who started the civil war in 1975, i don't call it end of civil war, i call it surrendering.

Quote:

Point 2: 1990- 2000...Clearly Mr. El-Meghwar for all HAers, they will have the same answer here that the Syrian Presence was necessary for HA operations. I will have to agree with them here, not on their operations or anything else, just on the fact that the created syrian situation in Lebanon helped HA a lot and gave them a big margin to accomplish what they did on many levels...So will u now say the Syrian occupation/presence was necessary for LEBANON?

I don't know how much the syrians helped HA during that era (1990-2000).
but if they did it's just for their own interests, maybe fighting Israel from Lebanon was benefiting them and maybe they didn't expect a victory in 2000.
what it's important to me in here is not who was arming HA, but the important thing is that the South was liberated, maybe the Syrian aim from arming HA wasn't liberating the south, but HA's aim from fighting Israel was liberating the south and they did it... that's what i care about.

Quote:

Point 3: sorry El-Meghwar, you are not an ally right now with someone u used to "differ" with; you are an ally with an accomplice and traitor with an occupying country...Again waiting for a good argument to change my view on this...

u need to differ between this two eras :

1. During the syrian occupation (1990-2005)
2. After the syrian occupation (2005-present time)

in the first one Lebanon was under occupation, the lebanese parties wasn't allowed or wasn't able to contact each others without the Syrian officer.
General Aoun was in Paris, SHN was in Lebanon... many of Hezbollah supporters didn't knew who's General Aoun and they thought that he's another Antoine Lahed, in the other side FPM'ers knew nothing about Hezbollah, their way of thinking, their manner of life, they thought that they are another Hariri, Jumblat and all the syrians agents in that time.

in the second one Lebanon was freed, Syria was out, GMA is back to Lebanon, the different Lebanese parties became able to contact each others and talk about all the issues without calling Anjar.
during this time : Everything related to the past is from the past ! i don't need to worry myself what was HA position during that time, because like HsN said, they had their reasons.
the most important thing and the difference between HA and other Lebanese who cooperated with the Syrians, is that HA didn't backstab Syria, HA proved that his relation with Syria is not a Master/Slave relation... that's what i respect in Hezbollah and disrespect in the Future Movement and PSP who always claim that they knew the Right from the wrong and they were back again to the right track.. no it's not true, they are now Anti-Bashar and not Anti -Syria or anti-Occupation, and the best clue is that they are now slave to other countries, but HA is preserving his good relations with Syria because they have common interests, that's better than making relations with other countries and being their slaves just for personal benifits.

Quote:

My answer to point 3 is worse than going to Anjar. HA where part of the team that made Anjar possible for at least 2000-2005....

so what do you suggest ??
boycotting relations with all those who cooperated with the Syrians ??
if yes, everyone cooperated except FPM. even the LF were part of the team that made Anjar possible for 1990-1994.

I repeat again, no one can live in this country alone, we have to build relations with each others. but it's better to build these relations with someone you know he's sincere and you can trust, that's why i prefer being allies with HA who were a part of the Syrian occupation but never participated in a government AKA never participated in corruption and never been slave to Syria, ON being allies with someone launching a war against Syria after her withdrawn and claiming to be patriotic and free while he's still kissing foreign a**es just to stay in power.

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

No actually, I don't... Syrians successfully placed HA as a part of the consensus that agreed on the Syrian armed presence, agreed on the selectivity of applying the Taef agreement, agreed on the exile of Aoun and the imprisonment of Ja3ja3, agreed on the dynasty of Rafi2 Ben 7ariri. HA didn't participate in ANY demonstration or protest any worker's union called for and among them is 7ay l selom...HA care only about such incidents because they don't want to see Lebanese army next to their bases, and that is understandable since it compromises the safety of their bases in many ways ( it is understandable, but is it legal or legitimate? La 3yoonak, we will disagree here lool)




They moved from being an unconscious toy (maybe) to being a "resistance" that benefits from the Syrian presence..They covered for the Syrian presence and helped them stay out of criticism in many ways...I think this point arises later on in our debate (be sha2fe tenye :p)



We now owe amine jmayyel the end of the civil war lool lol ): a7la w a7la :p Read Meghwar's post on this point and my reply to it because the two will sum up(in my opinion) to answer for this point....



You dodged the question...re-answer it buddy...and btw Amine l Gmayyel might claim that if Israel occupied lebanon he will "know how to live with that occupation and invest it for a PURE LEBANESE OBJECTIVE ;).... w For Lebanon's Sake ;)"....occupation is occupation and they had right to cooperate with it that way (no one did)...


Doesn't have to be either actually...to be continued ta7et :p

twisted logic habeebe...Here is the truer version of the story... HA had 6 MPs at least during the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon..We are not talking here about fighting the Syrian Army( I think I have never suggested that)..We are talking about the national consensus that was available for Syrians to rely on that HA was part of...we are talking about sanadee2 sawda and political prisoners HA and everyone knew of...HA wanted Syria for known reasons and no real HA member will deny this( at least when no FPMers are around): 1- Syrians were the only way all Lebanese people will "agree" on the concept of HA, 2- Syrians were the only cover for the selectiveness in applying the Taef agreement in ways so absurd we still suffer from,3- The arms thing and finally 4- only syrians could hold the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and prevent them from major problems with their Lebanese surrounding...Syrians provided the cover for HA operations politically because GMA, LF, Hariri (if not for Syrians) and Jounblat (if not for Syrians) would have easily created an allaince that would force HA in many ways to diminish its actions or abandon it all together or force them, which i see more likely, to turning shiite areas into vast camps outside Lebanese sovereignty w men ba3da nobody knows what happens..




America l shaytan l akbar w Syria dawle shakeeka that is thanked after years of occupation...If HA needs Syria in Lebanon again, they will convince you how important it is for Syrians to re-enter...



I have mentioned a lot already about this but I can say more...I come for the Southern Suburb of Beirut and have witnessed, a lot of times, frictions between Syrians and Lebanese in my area. HA was always there with the same words and the same arguments to present to the beaten Lebanese people who run to vote for them every four years in hundreds of thousands...HA prevented people from protesting the consecutive Syrian-agreed on governments of Rafik l Hariri..They backed away from their people in Hay l Sellom (the only historic rightful stance that was heard that day was by Sayyed Mohammad Hussien Fadlallah). They backed of hundreds of violations by Syrians that happened infront of their eyes against THEIR followers and preferred to always be "Al-shaytan Al-akhras." The matter of fact is Shiites according to some polls make up around 47% of Lebanese ppl or lets assume it is just 40%. You have 40% of Lebanese people unable to be heard outside the sphere of HA. Do you think that really those 40% of Lebanese people wanted the Syrians taking their jobs, imprisoning their children, stopping them everywhere and taking money from them for some reason and I am sure u heard, raping some of their children? Now to the other 60 %. With HA secured and thus any Shiite opposition that might arise to face Syria silenced, Syrians could move around the Sectarian map to continue forming the consensus. No need to mention in this forum how easy it was to buy Jonblat's or Hariri's silence since you all are aware of these facts. As for Maronites, Kate2eb mensha2, Owet ma7loul and Ja3ja3 imprisoned, and finally FPMers oppressed and their leader in exile...Game over ): Perfect political occupation with benefits for everyone who adopts it and oppression for everyone who doesn't...

Ba3ed shoo lool lool lool lool? Did you notice that in all your post you didn't actually post any convincing argument for the Syrian presence in Lebanon between 2000 and 2005....still waiting for some real answer by any HAer...

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

Hear Hear..Yeslam temmak :p ma3ak hoon :p


And Najah Wakim.... ):


I have debated this point in many threads but I want to avoid to debate this era in this thread because maybe for once someone might convince the other in the politics section be shee....But for the record, HA's aim from fighting Israel extends beyond the south and beyond the Lebanese border, has always extended and will always extend far beyond the Lebanese border..Enough said here..
No Meghwar...It is 1990-2000, 2000-2005, and 2005 to present...HA's position on Syrian follows a completely different path if it is before the Israeli withdrawal for the south or after it...As for the not allowed to cooperate, GMA was HA's enemy and they were his...nseeto ya allah ):? Didn't you use to watch Kalam l-Nas at the time and did you forget all the rumors about GMA that were systematically surrounded in the Shiite bases?


Every Anjar visitor had his reasons...where they enough reasons to compromise the freedom of the people? Where they real reasons? And if they were, does every party have the right to decide to tolerate occupation AND cooperate with it for some agenda limited to the goals and aims of that party regardless of the collective benefit of the Lebanese people?

This whole slave/master thing is childish.. Jonblat wasn't a slave, he sold his accepting vote of Syrians for a price...Money, common benefits, hidden deals, exchanging "favors" and so forth...The master/slave argument is something we say to make things easier to explain. Cute example. Thats what it is tho, cute and fictional. I don't doubt for a second that HA was out of conviction with the Syrian Occupation although I oppose that conviction vehemently...But so can everyone claim, they all had their reasons and now have other reasons to be with another team. HA, for the record, is not welcomed in the other team lool so they have no choice but to be in the mo3askar they are in right now since they are the first item on the subject of conflict between the two international groups...



Well I have never suggested something like that...In Lebanon no two parties are enemies forever and no two parties are allies forever since very few parties have actual ideologies or fixed political standards and maybe with the exception of the communist party and HA, none has any ( I can explain what I mean by that if it is not clear enough..)



Well thats all fine and dandy but if you are familiar with law and you know that accomplices are guilty and that is what HA was in the syrian case..But anyways, don't get to excited about hating the other team because sooner or later realignments will happen (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and you will be trying to find ways to justify ur switch...It happened before when the Lebanese knight singing to the ears of the American congress on the Palestinian camps and HA and the Syrian presence, GMA clearly stated his view of the very concept of HA several times over the years and every FPMer in Lebanon repeated after him. Now u will be in a dilemma on how to cover that. Enno do you think by saying that Syrians didn't allow u to know each other (lek l romance :$) they prevented u from knowing what HA is and u ended up against the concept of HA. No, you were against them because by theory, by ideology, GMA will never actually say out of conviction that he is ok with the concept of an armed international proxy militia that exists on sovereign Lebanese land. That was what he believed in the civil war, after it, and I am still COMPLETELY convinced that he still believes in today but he felt the way to get there is the path he took. It is a political decision that was taken to end the subject of HA's arms in a manner that prevents Lebanon a civil war(presumably) but not an idealogical shift from GMA's side. His bases, lel asaf, are going for an idealogical shift and becoming more excited about erasing Israel from the area or whatever such concept is than HAers are...All what am saying is, don't erase ur FPMer identity that has some standards GMA was the first to talk about in Lebanon. You are doing that, unconsciously i hope...

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

I disagree with you concerning this point, you may be right and i may be wrong, but this issue was solved in the MoU between FPM and HA.

ya khayye we were enemies welle baddak ye, but now we had negociations and reached common points of understanding and we are allies.
the most important thing is that Hezbollah won't welcome any syrian or any other interference in Lebanon again, if they do it, i'll stand against them.

personally i'm against any party buying himself to a foreign force.
but the main question in here is : are those who cooperated with the occupation ready to cooperate with them if they invaded Lebanon again ??
in my opinion:

1. Hezbollah, Marada, LDP (erslan) will never cooperate with them... if they did they'll become traitors to me.
2. PSP, FM will always cooperate with any foreign force because their acts and History proved that they are only loyal to their pocket and their own interests.

U said it all ;)
Jonblat was taking personal benefits from the syrians.
Hezbollah was taking NATIONAL benefits from the syrians, in order to free their country....
you can judge now :)
why HA is not welcomed in the other team but Junblat, FM are ?? in your opinion the two were cooperating with the syrian occupation, so why the other team accepted FM and Jonblat with them but not HA ??
simply because Hezbollah have a cause defending it, but FM and Jonblat have nothing except their own personal benefits, they can be picked up by anyone and be used, but not Hezbollah... that's the difference between men of word, men of principles and low traitors.


of course if the other team reached common points of understanding with us, and changed their whole attitude they are more than welcome, in the end FPM is seeking to spread understandings culture in all the Lebanese community between everyone.

that's why there is something called a MoU with Hezbollah that made a reasonable solution for Hezbollah arms !!!

I won't be sad if Israel was erased from the map, in the end Israel is the main problem in the Middle East, if Israel was erased from the map, the refugees issue will be solved, all the military conflicts in the region will be solved, and peace will take place. are you sad with that ??
anyway we don't want to erase Israel from the map (but i won't be sad if it happened) we just want to secure our country, i will be only supporting hizbullah as long it defends Lebanon, i don't want its arms to remain but i have no option in front of the israeli killing machine, it defended me before and defending me now, why would i take off my shield?

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.
 

I gathered these two parts together although they are originally apart but because they both revolve around the MoU somehow....The MoU stays a weak document of no real value if it didn't give GMA any stronghold on HA to insure they will set their timelines and goals according to that document...


under certian circumstances they would....I am tired of giving example and examples but you know pretty well that they accepted the Syrian occupation in the 2000-2005 era and they did that out of conviction that this was the best for Lebanon (so they claim)...They will do it again if the same kinda conditions arise...


Concerning HA, answered right above this. Concerning Marada and Ereslan, they are local leaders that don't change much in the equation and I don't give them a lot of thought...If they cooperate or not, they won't have that big of an effect..


National benefits, be ra2yak aw be ra2yon, but can you prove that protecting the Syrian occupation from 2000 to 2005 brought more national benefit than harm? Or can you prove that what HA label as "National Benefit" wasn't or won't ever be HA benefit? I sometimes really see you ppl believing whatever HA officials say, maybe because most of them are Sheikhs? And for the record, if you don't know about the personal benefits HA got, it is only because you didn't live among them. The reaped and still reap a lot of personal benefits....You don't have to take my word for it, s2al 7ada sade2 w 3ayesh bayneton...



Everyone agrees for a while and disagrees for a while...that is how Lebanon has always been...While I might sound way too cynical, but I think no two Lebanese ever really agreed(in the full sense) on anything...


You really make the middle east sound like it was heaven before 1948 :hawhaw: Israel or no Israel, America or no America, the reasons of all the conflicts in the Middle East come from within its borders not from out groups...Maybe you are not very familiar with the history of the area but the Middle East never had peaceful days even before America was discovered :p I don't care if Israel gets erased as a country but for sure I would have to stand for the lives of its citizens. The answer to terrorism have always failed to be more terrorism. The answer to extremism has always failed to be Extremism in the opposite direction...And that is the situation in Lebanon, we are stuck between two poles, each equally a problem, and we can't seem to find any politician anywhere in the center....

It goes against GMA teachings..I have said this a billion times, but would GMA have said when he was all about principles in 1990, "I am ok with the concept of a militia from one sect of the Lebanese people being more powerful than the Lebanese army, establishing self governed strips of the country, being involved in a regional domination game, being funded by a country deeply involved in many problems in the area including the Lebanese civil war. arresting suspects and interrogating them and performing many other acts that surpass what the Lebanese police would do (abel reefe lool) and undermine all the civil rights of the Lebanese citizens involved in this..." No need to talk more about this..HA the concept is wrong from GMA's patriotic principles, HA the practice is a violation against the concepts of Lebanese democracy and the rights of the citizens living in that democracy, HA the party are a party that still doesn't ascend from the secterian borders in its goals and ideology.....

Re: Your view on the Syrian presence/occupation era.