Mr. President,
As a Lebanese Arab, I applaud your reluctance to intervene in Syria and denounce the hypocrisy of your Republican opponent Mitt Romney who is claiming that he would intervene militarily in Syria. Here are the reasons why you should maintain the same exact position your administration and your ambassador to the uN, Susan Rice, are articulating:
1- No one wants a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan (and before them Lebanon in 1982, and Somalia in 1993), where US troops go in with the best of intentions, and end up being besmirched by the very same people who initially advocated US intervention. Right now, everyone is blaming you for "lack of leadership" on Syria, and arguing that the world is waiting for the US to lead. They are all hypocrites and liars, and they want you to intervene because a US intervention will be an endless source of ammunition against the United Stats for decades to come. Not one Arab has ever thanked the US for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. To the contrary, all the killings committed by America's enemies (suicide bombers and insurgents...) are blamed on the American troops.
2- By helping the Syrian rebels, you would be repeating the mistakes committed by Republican presidents like the Bushes and Reagan who supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, only to see them turn against the US in the form of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Syrian rebels are in their vast majority members of the Muslim Brotherhood who, even as they are begging you today to intervene, will not hesitate one second before turning against you the moment you rid them of the Assad regime. I know how the Syrians work. They occupied my country for 30 years, and they kept playing one side against the other. They will play nice right now just long enough to bring US troops into Syria, and then it will another decade of insurgency against US troops by the same Muslim Brotherhood now begging you to invade. There is no need for thousands of US troops to be killed, only to promote the rise of yet another Islamocracy in the Middle East. Just look at where the Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan revolutions have ended: Ruled by Muslim fundamentalists, and they will eventually turn against Israel and America's friends in the region. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE SYRIAN REBELS BECAUSE THEY ARE AMERICA's ENEMIES.
3- By letting the ARAB NATIONALIST Baath Party fight it out with the MUSLIM NATIONALISTS for what I hope will be many many long years of fighting, you would be depleting the Arab world and the Middle East of two failed ideologies: Arab nationalism and Islamic nationalism. Let these two narratives demonstrate to the world their capability for hatred and for violence, so that in the end perhaps a chance would emerge for a governance in the Arab world that is based on neither religious supremacy nor nationalist supremacy. They are both equally abhorrent as the past decades have proven. LET THEM SELF-DESTRUCT FOR DECADES, even at the price of innocent deaths. US and NATO interventions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have in fact increased civilian deaths, so the argument that an intervention will stop the killing is not true. The killings will go on regardless of whether the US or NATO intervene. At least, without a foreign intervention, the Arabs and the Muslims will only have themselves or each other to blame. With a foreign intervention, they will all rally to denounce the foreign intervention.
4- If there should be an intervention, then let it be by the Arabs themselves. There are regional Arab abd Muslim powers with lots of money, men, and weapons: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, the UAE. Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia..... and they all pretend to a common Muslim Umaa that stands against the West. Let this Umma act. Let these powers send in their own joint expedition based on all the common organizations they have (Arab League, the Islamic Conference, etc.). Why can't these countries marshall the will to send in troops, patrol the skies, establish no fly zones, etc.... to end the killing in Syria? Why does it have always have to be the soldiers from US or Europe or NATO? Enough hypocrisy by the Arabs and Muslims. Enough condescension by Westerners like the Republicans who think they should go in every time a dictator farts somewhere in the Globe.
5- Finally, those same regimes in the Arab and Muslim world have themselves long supported the Syrian regime in its human rights abuses and its long and brutal occupation of Lebanon. They are the ones who have propped up that regime, like they did with Saddam Hussein until he invaded one of them (Kuwait), let them shoulder their responsibility in creating the monster now savaging the Syrian people by acting directly and without being dragged into an intervention on an American leash. Also, the Syrian people themselves would so much more dignified if they were to fight a long and bloody fight, only to emerge victorious against their enemy regime without having needed anybody;s help, let alone American and European "imperialist, colonialist, Zionist, neo-Crusader..." help.
You should challenge Mitt Romney on Syria publicly: Let him state (and fumble like the stiff that he is) to the American people exactly WHAT WILL HE DO? and HOW WILL HE PAY FOR IT?
If I was an American voter, I'd vote for you. Please do not intervene in Syria. Do not send US troops to Syria under any form. Let the scum kill the scum in Syria. Let America's enemies kill America's enemies in Syria. The longer this goes on in Syria, the better off America will be in the end. Do not listen to your detractors on Syria because they would love to see you intervene and then blame you. You are the smartest, most decent, most educated President that the US has seen in a long long time. Please keep it that way, and we, here, in the Arab world, look forward to another 4 years of your administration.
Hanibaal
18 comments:
Hanibaal,
I am not Lebanese, but I took an interest in Lebanon because I live near Dearborn, MI which I refer to as Bint Jbeil, USA. What the situation in Syria has shown me is how bankrupt the local shia are here. They are staying with Assad until the end.
You are correct about US intervention in this case. Anything and everything that goes wrong will be blamed on the US if the US intervenes regardless of intentions. The US should have responded harshly to the US Marines barracks bombing in 1982. That would have been the time to smash Damascus. I believe when Reagan withdrew that changed the history of Lebanon.
The only way I will support US intervention now is if I could be guaranteed it would weaken the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Did you know Walid Phares is advising Romney?
I am aware of Walid Phares advising Romney, and the filthy campaign against Phares by ultra-liberals is totally a shame because it is premised on denigrating the Lebanese Christian resistance against the Arabo-Muslims in the Lebanon of the 1970s and 1980s.
I have a lot of respect for Phares, but I disagree with him on a couple of major ideas, namely 1) that an ultra-radical right wing ideology is the only way to counter the Islamic radical ideology, and 2) specifically internally to Lebanon, Mr. Phares continues to advocate stale archaic governance based on religion and traditional division of power among the religious communities.
I argue, in contrast, that 1) the best answer to Islamic radicalism is NOT Christian radicalism a la Zionist movement, but rather a moderate secular human-rights platform where there is no need for minorities in the Middle East to be protected, but instead where the human rights of everyone are upheld - including Muslims - against the tyrannical regimes of the Arab world, be they Islamists or Nationalists Arabs, as both have failed to uphold even the human rights of Muslims, let alone non-Muslims. 2) For Lebanon, we need to move away from a religious-based definition of identity. Mr. Phares, I suspect, would like to see a Lebanon centered as a Christian homeland similar to Israel (as a Jewish homeland), and that is not the answer. This religious-based definition of identity will continue to take us backward, instead of moving us forward.
Yes, I agree that Ronald Reagan - the much heralded Republican President made a huge cowardly mistake by fleeing Lebanon after the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983. He not only emboldened the very enemies we are fighting today since the 1980s, but he also delivered Lebanon in the hands of Syria and Iran.
I do believe that US policy continues to be based on the Kissinger plan of dismantling Lebanon with continued instability and warfare and promote it as a substitute homeland for the Palestinians, thus relieving Israel of the Right of Return burden. US foreign policy in Lebanon has been a major act of treason against those who would have been major allies to the US. But oil, Israel, and placating the Arab regimes in the area have trumped any decent US diplomacy toward Lebanon, and has in fact worked diligently to undermine and dismantle Lebanon.
Hanibaal
I agree that Lebanon should move away from a religious based identity, but how realistic is it of that happening? Based on what I see from the Lebanese I interact with (shia from south Lebanon residing in Michigan). They put their sect over their country. I don't think any of them look at themselves as Lebanese first. It is kind of funny to see women dressed in low cut halter tops singing the praises of Iran and Nasrallah.
Anyways, I don't see any hope for them until the mullahs in Iran are overthrown.
Hannibal,
I can't disagree w/ your analysis of why the US shouldn't intervene. But thinking that Obama has some understanding of all this and is deliberately not acting for the reasons that you articulate is wishful thinking. I'm afraid Obama being right by not acting is more akin to a broken watch being right two times a day.
Yours is a simplistic and naive way to bash Obama. Think of his Libya strategy: He withheld US intervention until other stepped in, at which point he worked with them. He forced Arabs and Europeans to take an active role, instead of always compelling the US to lead and then take the blame. That was genius and smart US diplomacy the likes of which we never saw under the Bush administration or the Clinton administration.
Right now, Obama has calculated - and his administration is constantly repeating - that a US intervention would be more costly, along with the recognition that neither the Baathists nor the Islamists are real friends of the US. So not acting is a deliberate and calculated stance that is likely to produce a positive outcome for the US.
In contrast, a Bush administration would have gone in headfirst with massive firepower like the idiot Texan cowboy without calculating the cost or the risks...The US is still paying the price for the reckless adventurism of the Buish administration.
I think you are bent on denying the Obama administration the credit it deserves, probably for political reasons, and that is dishonest.
Hanibaal
Hanibaal,
What do you think Obama would have done in 2005 during the Cedar Revolution?
Obama would have never took the lead on Libya. If France and the UK didn't push for intervention the US would have never gotten involved. One of Obama's main advisers is Samantha Power who has formulated this lead from behind policy.
Obama has had some foreign policy successes such as the gutsy call to take out Bin Laden and I like a lot of his policy in the far east, but I don't understand his Mideast policy especially regarding Iran.
Another thing I don't understand is you prefer Obama, who has used Kissinger as an adviser, to Romney who has Phares as one of his top Mid East advisers.
In one of your previous blog posts you accused the US of not intervening in Syria due to Israel now you are saying it is genius not to intervene.
Obama's Iran policy has been a disaster. His failure to speak up during the 2009 election was a big mistake. Hanibaal did you know Iranians were chanting "Obama, Obama are you with them or with us?" Another common chant was "No to No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, I will only die for Iran" in protest of the mullah funding for hezbollah and hamas. He also cut funding for Radio Farda which is one of the most popular news services in Iran. Radio Farda was established by Bush in 2003 as a way to promote democracy among Iranians.
What do you think Obama would have done in 2005 during the Cedar Revolution?
----> He certainly would not have - like Bush did - supported the corrupt criminal oligarchy (Hariri, Gemayel, Geagea, Jumblatt....) who used to be Syria's top collaborators and warlords, but then turned 180 degrees once Hariri was assassinated. I was disappointed by Bush's return to failed foreign policies, even though he pledged he will no longer support stability at the expense of freedom. In Lebanon, he went back to the "stability" of the old traditionalist order to counter Syria, but in the process killed any hopes for the Cedar Revolution to really push Lebanon forward: Just look at Hariri and Jumblatt...they continue to waver and utter bland statements about "Sisterly Syria" and "the Zionist enemy". I would have loved to see Bush push these "sudden" American friends into negotiating peace with Israel in exchange for US support, in order to undercut Hezbollah's, Syria's and Iran's claims to resistance and remove Lebanon from the cesspool of the Arab-ISraeli conflict. But Bush did not do the right thing: He supported these former Syrian collaborators but did not push them to the ultimate desirable outcome, namely to reform Lebanon and disentangle it from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.into.
_______
Obama would have never took the lead on Libya. If France and the UK didn't push for intervention the US would have never gotten involved. One of Obama's main advisers is Samantha Power who has formulated this lead from behind policy.
------> What is wrong with a nuanced, smart, thought through policy like the one he took on Libya. It worked and did not entangle the US in an endless conflict, and use a minimal amount of American muscle that everyone one uses against the US. In my opinion, by leading from behind, Obama forced the Europeans and other stakeholders, like the Gulf Arabs, to shoulder their responsibility. What Obama did was a first: an Arab country like Qatar, and the Arab League, to side with the West and NATO. If this not smart diplomacy, then I don't know what is. Would you have preferred the stupidity and barvado and machismo of Bush sending planes and ships and landing troops, and claiming "mission accomplished" only to find the US drawn into a cesspool for ten years?
Obama has had some foreign policy successes such as the gutsy call to take out Bin Laden and I like a lot of his policy in the far east, but I don't understand his Mideast policy especially regarding Iran.
----> Thank you for acknowledging this success. As for Iran, again, what do you think he should do? He has on the surface tried to appear as restraining the Israelis, but deep down I suspect he is looking at a strike against Iran, but again without the machismo and cowboyish yelling the rooftops...
________
Another thing I don't understand is you prefer Obama, who has used Kissinger as an adviser, to Romney who has Phares as one of his top Mid East advisers.
-----> Read my previous comment on this same page about Phares. Phares is a stale uninnovative antiquated intellectual who wants to create a Christian Lebanon that is modeled on the Israeli Zionist model. This should have been done 100 years ago, but now the mistake is done, and we have to move forward. You can no longer model the world like you did after the fall of the Ottoman Empire: A world based on majorities that rule, and minorities that either are subjugated as Dhimmis or in constant warfare. Just look at the US: Why aren't the minorities in constant warfare against the majority? Why can't we be imaginative enough for a Middle East where human rights and secularism override minority rights and religious identities? Perhaps tour answer is the ever condescending one that people in the Middle East are not as "evolved" as Americans, and cannot be expected to yearn themselves out of their predicament... But the Arab Spring is proving that condescending argument false. People will rise, and people should be allowed to rise, and fight and kill and destroy... to get where they want to go. Europe and the West spent 2,000 years of bloody massacres and wars, based on religions and nationalisms before they arrived where they are today...
__________________
In one of your previous blog posts you accused the US of not intervening in Syria due to Israel now you are saying it is genius not to intervene.
-----> I advocate a surgical strike against the Syrian regime to weaken it sufficiently not to carry out the massacres, but I do not advocate sending ground troops and an occupation a la Iraq or Afghanistan. All previous instances have largely failed, and the price is unpalatable to Western public opinion. A weakening of the Syrian regime should have been done 30 years ago by the ISraelis (who now more than ever are revealing their love for the Syrian regime that has protected their flank on the Golan). When the Syrians and their allies bombed the US marines and the French paratroopers out of Beirut in 1983, what did Ronald Reagan do? He fled like the coward that he was, delivered Lebanon to Syria and Iran, and told the terrorists that they can bomb America to submission.Twenty years later, they bombed New York. It is too late today to change the past. But Americans never learn from their failed experiences. I think Obama is a much more nuanced policy maker that tries to do the impossible while learning the lessons of the past. That is why I like him, and that is why I think he is the best hope for a new type of American leadership in the world.
Obama's Iran policy has been a disaster. His failure to speak up during the 2009 election was a big mistake. Hanibaal did you know Iranians were chanting "Obama, Obama are you with them or with us?" Another common chant was "No to No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, I will only die for Iran" in protest of the mullah funding for hezbollah and hamas. He also cut funding for Radio Farda which is one of the most popular news services in Iran. Radio Farda was established by Bush in 2003 as a way to promote democracy among Iranians.
------> The US cannot police the world. It is about time to learn that lesson. Let people liberate themselves. Let them fight for their own freedoms. No one pushed the Americans to rebel against Britain, and no one pushed the French to rebel against their king. Both revolutions were native-born, they were very bloody, and it took them 100 years each to bear their fruits. But in the end, they were the greatest achievements of humanity in modern times. Let the Arabs and the Iranians fight their own revolutions. Any intervention on a grand scale by the West is likely to labeled neo-colonial, neo-crusader, and we will never hear the end of it. Even today, the Arabs blame England and France for 20 years of League of NAtions mandate over the countries of the Near East. Yet, the Arabs never complain about 400 years of Turkish Ottoman occupation. Believe me, the 8 years of American occupation of Iraq will be talked about negatively for a few hundreds of years... Obama is very courageous and smart not to jump on a tank and go shooting every time a jackass is in trouble somewhere around the globe.
Hanibaal
Hanibaal,
A few things.
Without help of the French the US would not have achieved independence from Great Britain. It is the interest of the US to have a free and democratic Iran. The Poles, Czechs, and Eastern Europe would not have freed itself without outside help. It would also greatly help Lebanon and Israel.
Iranians of today aren't the Iranians of 1979. Their people are favorably disposed towards the US. You should read Abbas Milani's work regarding Iran. He wrote about their green movement months before it was on anybody's radar. Milani is probably the foremost expert on Iran. Iranians are among the most pro American people on the planet. If you look at the popular Persian language programs such as Parazit and Radio Farda they are US taxpayer funded.
Reagan's biggest mistake was not responding to the barracks bombings. Alexander Haig resigned as SOS largely because no response from Reagan on the bombing. He said they needed to take care of the problem before it mushroomed into a monster. However, overall Reagan's track record is good. Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel credit Reagan for freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism.
Regarding Libya, I am glad Gadaffi is gone and hope it doesn't morph into an Islamist state. However, what interests did the US have to go into Libya when we had a detente with Gadaffi he was assisting in fighting Al Qaeda?
This isn't an either/or disjunction between Bush and Obama. Obama's drone strikes are awesome. I preferred Bush's general vision even though the planning was incompetent for Iraq (should have had more troops.
"Perhaps tour answer is the ever condescending one that people in the Middle East are not as "evolved" as Americans, and cannot be expected to yearn themselves out of their predicament... But the Arab Spring is proving that condescending argument false. People will rise, and people should be allowed to rise, and fight and kill and destroy"
you are the one who has proposed cantonizaton for countries in the Middle East. If I felt this way I wouldn't feel so strongly about seeing Iran as a free and democratic country.
Was my portrayal of Lebanese Shia inaccurate in your opinion?
I got the chronology of Haig wrong. He resigned in 82 mainly because of disagreement with Reagan concerning the handling of the PLO in Lebanon. He was highly critical of not responding to the bombings of the Marines barracks which happned after he resigned.
Yes, but the initial impulse needs to be etched by the natives, which is what the Americans did. The French came in later to help, but only because of their anti-British interests. In fact, it was Lafayette who returned to France with revolutionary ideals (even though he was an aristocrat).
I think the native rebels need to feel their way through their revolution first before outsiders step in. The US can help with weapons, with funding of human rights groups, with all kinds of help that is contingent on adherence by those being helped to secular modern ideals and principles. The US never does that: It goes in militarily like an elephant, but then turns into a mouse when it comes to promoting principles: it starts beating around the bush with "respecting" Islam and the "pride" of the Iraqis, etc..... It needs to be upfront and public in providing aid with an explicit demand for public adherence to secular principles. In the case of the Syrian rebellion against the Assads, we hear Muslim brotherhood criminals yelling Allahu Akbar while begging the West to help them. This is insane. The Americans - Obama or Clinton or whoever - should publicly state to the world that they will not help the rebels unless the rebels commit to a secular form of government with separation of church and state etc... They never do that. They go in with a conflicted set of premises that always turn against them.
Eastern Europe fell the moment the Soviet Empire disintegrated from within with Gorbachov's reforms.
I think we give Reagan too much credit than he deserves. The next day after the Merine barracks bombing in Beirut, he invaded the island of Grenada to deflect attention.
I propose cantonization only as a means of asserting the right of small communities to be free from top-down Arab or Syrian or Islamic nationalisms, but not to advocate nationalism pre se. I will one of the first Lebanese to support an Arab Union (a la EU) the moment the ARabs prove to the world that they are no longer the Islamic Fascists that they always seem to be.
I like the model of a European Union that tolerates a Lichtenstein, an Andorra, a Monaco etc.... for no other reason than these small "nations" just wanted to be left alone, and not because they were Catholic or Protestant or of some other religious-ethnic minority. The day that a country like Lebanon is allowed to exist without the constant threat of assimilating it into some Arab "Umma", is the day that I will willingly join an Arab Union or a Mideast Union.... if such a thing is desirable.
I hate the nationalism of the Lebanese, as much as I hate Jewish or Muslim or Arab nationalism.
In my opinion, instantaneous opinions on Shiites or Sunnis or Christians are not valuable. You'd have to look at the trend of the community over a long period of time. The Shiites right now are trapped into the universal Islamic fundamentalist movement, with the difference that theirs is modeled on the Iranian model. But bottom line: As Islamic fundamentalists, they are as abhorrent and harmful to Lebanon as the Sunnis and their Saudi or Salafi models...
It was Caspar Weinberger who advised Reagan to get out of Lebanon after the Marines bombing...
"I think the native rebels need to feel their way through their revolution first before outsiders step in. The US can help with weapons, with funding of human rights groups, with all kinds of help that is contingent on adherence by those being helped to secular modern ideals and principles. The US never does that: It goes in militarily like an elephant, but then turns into a mouse when it comes to promoting principles: it starts beating around the bush with "respecting" Islam and the "pride" of the Iraqis, etc..... It needs to be upfront and public in providing aid with an explicit demand for public adherence to secular principles"
Amen that US should provide aid on the condition that their should be adherence to liberal democratic values.
I just gave you examples of how the US has funded human rights programs for Iran. Radio Farda and VOA Persian. Radio Farda is the equivalent of Radio Free Europe. These are effective programs the US has implemented and they were funded more under Bush than Obama. This is similar to the type of support given to Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s.
We will have to agree to disagree about Reagan. When the main anti-Soviet leaders say Eastern Europe would not be free without Reagan's policies it should tell us Reagan had it right in regards to the USSR. Several of these Eastern European countries have monuments to Reagan now.
"When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989." - Lech Walesa
Would nice to see the day a Middle Eastern Union can come to fruition based on your ideas. I think the Levant has a lot of potential if the right system is in place.
As a Lebanese Arab?
Since when were you Arab? Based on what?
Joseph,
Americans do NOT understand the non-Arab identity we claim. In the US, unfortunately, those Lebanese dinosaurs who emigrated to America before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire have told American public opinion for more than a century that they were "Arab-Americans".
Both you and know the fact that 99% of these "Arab-Americans" are of Lebanese Christian descent and have nothing in common with Arabs. There is not one Muslim among them, and certainly not one Arab. But the charade continues, and God forbid that the fallacy of that Arab-American identity is shattered by the acceptance of the fact of a historically pluricultural, multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual, multireligious Middle East. Both the "Arab-American" assholes and their sadly dense American counterparts have difficulty accepting diversity.
The "Arab-Americans" refuse diversity because they lose control of the mouthpiece they have monopolized for a century, and the Americans refuse diversity because it is too much for them to understand: They tend to like big blocks of people such as "African Americans" (lumping in this label the myriads of diverse peoples from the African continent because the only thing they have in common is a darker complexion than a white asshole from Scandinavia), or "Asian-Americans" (lumping in this label Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Pacific islanders....). It's just too much complexity for the flat brains of Americans to understand...
Therefore, when we speak with US officials and the media, we have to pretend to accept the label of "Arab-Americans" for no other reason but to make sure they listen to us. If we reject the Arab-American label, then our message does not go through.
Hanibaal
I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.
So I found this blog while surfing the net! I found it very interesting... At 1st you were the guy who was clearly against Lebanese politics both sides who was fed up with the "stupidity" of Lebanese people who reelect these "barbarians" ! But then things took a direction to a downwards way, you clearly showed that you are an atheist(not a bad thing even tho am a theist but I have many atheist close friends) but the bad thing is you have no respect for people's religions believes you just go on this countless hate speech against all religions calling them backwards and primitive with all the vulgar language humanly possible, I mean hey you don't believe in prophets or a god or gods or w/e but you just do like the radicals do! Hate speech, insults, vulgarity, primitive behavior ! I suggest you learn from your prophet "Darwin" whom even tho was insulted and slandered and abused for his theory he never stoop down to levels of primitive radicals !
----> Tough luck, Mr. "theist", but vulgar and hateful language is still free speech and, unlike religion, it does not kill people.
And then I thought you love Lebanon the country and want peace for it and to get red of all the politicians and militias and hate speech advocates but then I read this post! Oh so you think what's "good" for Lebanon is peace with Isreal ? Oh please tell me what was Isreal reason for invading Lebanon and occupying its lands...
---> For 15 years, the fucking Sunnis of Lebanon gave the PLO the freedom to fight Israel from the south, against the will of the other Lebanese, at a time when Syria and Egypt and all the motherfucker Arabs made peace with Israel. THAT IS WHY ISRAEL INVADED in 1982. BECAUSE THE PLO VIOLATED EVERY AGREEMENT WITH THE LEBANESE GOVT, and CONTINUED TO OPERATE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF LEBANON. You probably were still a stupid sperm in your father's testicles, and that is why you don't know your history. Israel was given every reason to attack Lebanon.
....am pretty sure the 1st time they invaded us there were no such "threats" as Iran or Hezbullah or Amal or other resistance groups!
----> This statement proves you are an ignorant idiot.
What the actual F*** !
---> Now you are vulgar and trashy and foul-mouthed, my little insect.
You really believe the USA wants democracy for the countries in the world ?! Yes please tell me all about it....
----> NO, if you read other postings on my goddam blog, you will perhaps try to understand once and for all that the US, like any other country, will work for its own interests. The Lebanese, on the other hand, work for everybody else's interests except their own.
Am sure you can convince me that they aren't trying to impose their globalization plan and take over the natural resources in the countries! Please show me one speech from the US government's "fear" and "concern" about the declining of freedom and democracy in Bahrain!
-----> I don;t give a damn about the US or Bahrain. They can all go to heel as far as I am concerned. If you worry more about Bahrain and the fucking Shiites getting screwed by the fucking Sunnis, that is their problem, not mine. Nah people aren't getting killed there during protests or arrested just because they are protesting against the dictatorship there am sure its all media lies created by Pro-Iran medias.... Then again isn't Bahrain one of the gulf countries that are basically USA "bitches"
---> Thank you. Arab countries are all bitches to the US or to Iran. Why then should I shed tears on the BAhrainis or the Syrians ...??
Grow up. Read a little more. Worry about your own NATIONAL interests, not your fucking religious tribe. And, go to hell. You don;t have to read my blog. That is what freedom of speech is about. Get an ulcer from reading my blog, but please don;t commit suicide or go kill someone. It is not worth it. By the way, your English stinks.
Hanibaal
Post a Comment