Protests force out Lebanese government

Pro-Syrian prime minister resigns as Damascus feels the heat from Israel, the US, France and Britain

The Syrian government's hold on Lebanon was shaken last night when its placeman, the prime minister Omar Karami, was forced to resign after a wave of street protests.
Both the Syrian regime and its puppet government in Beirut have been under pressure since the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri a fortnight ago.

With Beirut halted by a general strike and tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Mr Karami announced the dissolution of his government, saying: "I am keen that the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country."

He will head a caretaker government until a new one is formed.

The Syrian government, which has had troops and an extensive network of intelligence agents in Lebanon since 1976, has been under enormous pressure in recent weeks, not only from Lebanon but also from the US, Israel, France and now Britain.



Whole article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1427538,00.html)

This is good news. It seems the Syrian army is going to leave Lebabon soon. Now, will the pro-syrian president and secret services eventually leave the real power ? I hope so.

Anyway, this is one more example of the power of peaceful protests to get rid of a corrupt power - after Belarus and Ukraine.

Another evidence that non violent action may actually be more effective than armed insurrection.

:rolleyes:

This whole thing happening in Lebanon would not have been happening had Bush not gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and started kicking some ass. Bush's ass kicking gave those people in Lebanon some hope that SOMEONE will back them up when they start demanding the Syrians get the hell out of their country.


Keep in mind that the U.N. had this joke of a treaty/resolution that from 1989 ordering the Syrians out of Lebanon. 1989! Yeah, ask me just relevant U.N. mandates are.

You guys have got to get up to speed on the way the world works, dammit.

Originally posted by astrapol2


Another evidence that non violent action may actually be more effective than armed insurrection.

I disagree, that only happens when the country/situation is on the news and under the scrutiny of the international community.
I wouldn't trust Syria in the Lebanon issue so fast...after being involved in the civil war and knowing that Syria still wants to have a way to the sea. I don't know, I think they will try to regain control over Lebanon.

This whole thing happening in Lebanon would not have been happening had Bush not gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and started kicking some ass. Bush's ass kicking gave those people in Lebanon some hope that SOMEONE will back them up when they start demanding the Syrians get the hell out of their country. Tooo bad the Facist fuck is a zionist. Maybe then there would be some hope for the people of palistine...But then again thats one of the 2 reasons we were even in Iraq to begin with...

Good for you Darth for realizing that this wasnt a bloodless revolution it cost 1700 americans and 100,000 Iraqis.

Guerilla,

Please tell me that you aren't one of those idiots who believe that there is a "zionist" conspiracy under every rock. I'd hate to think that you are a joke.


As far as the 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths are concerned, can you find me a source that ISN'T from moveon.org, or tvnewslies.com or thereISazionistconspiracyundereveryflamingrock.net ?

The 100,000 dead Iraqis estimate came from a research group that the US has seen fit to cite at the UN numerous times. So either the government knowingly used an illegitimate source at the UN repeatedly or they dont like the truth. Of course the US could have avoided any outside estimates being taken so seriously if they had thought it important enough to count how many innocent people they murdered. They obviously thought it was important enough to disarm them, uh.. i mean...liberate them...

Heres a indepth look by an outsider at the study these folks did
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6565

And a shorter version
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm

The group was called Lancet look them up yourself.

The only reason the US cares about middle-eastern affairs is oil and israel.

No I dont believe there is a zionist conspiracy behind every event. But there definatly is behind some events. Mossad even admits it.

"By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Make War".- Mossad motto

Now if they werent engaged in conspiracies of obfuscation why is that their motto?

ever hear of the USS liberty?

Zionist = Nazis

dont believe me ask Einstein:
"[That this party is] closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."
Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein

“Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that.. I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
— Ariel Sharon
Israeli Prime Minister,
Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001

Point being the only reason we are there is because our government is filled with zionists. Which is in violation to their oath of office to the united states.

Geez guerilla,

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I asked for sources that weren't off the deep end liberal as a reference for this so called 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. It's obvious you can't find such a source.

Zmag: "A community of people committed to social change." In other words liberal and furiously digging up the dirt on Iraq.


Commondreams.org: "Breaking News and Views for Progressive (liberal) People." A moveon.org clone it appears to be.


Anyway, I went and surfed the 'net to see what I could find about your claims. I found this website (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/). This website parses the Lancet study, which is the source of the 100,000 Iraqis civilian deaths, and its absolutely flawed method of ginning up (making up out of wishes more like) such numbers.

According to their website, the MOST people killed is about 18,500. Gee, guerilla you are short by EIGHTY THOUSAND deaths.

Sorry guerilla, no banana for you. Try again. Keep in mind that I'm more and more likely to go and fact check your ass so you can't push bullshit figures on these boards.

Have a nice day.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
This website parses the Lancet study, which is the source of the 100,000 Iraqis civilian deaths, and its absolutely flawed method of ginning up (making up out of wishes more like) such numbers.

According to their website, the MOST people killed is about 18,500. Gee, guerilla you are short by EIGHTY THOUSAND deaths.

it's nice you quote this site because :
1- they are not a valid source according to your own criterias (they are anti-war and you would probably label them as "liberal")
2- They don't really say the Lancet Study is flawed ; they just say that they only count reported death while the Lancet is using a statistic projection.

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been.

(…)

We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.


They don't say the Lancet is wrong. They say their methods differ and further invastigation should be made.

Anyway, they also say that "even" 18500 death is to much, and I agree !

we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

Regarding the topic of Lebanon, my husband being Lebanese, keeps me informed on the facts that are happening there. He keeps in close contact with his family and friends that still live there.
This is a very good thing that Syria is finally getting the message to get OUT. They are getting pressured from all the Arab countries, which to my husband's surprise, is good news.
Syria screwed up and killed the wrong guy, you do not asassinate (sp ?) a Muslim in an arab country, and cover it up, that will only make Syria Isolated now. And yes, make for a blood-less revolution.
Making Syria get out will only be for the good of all Lebanese people muslim or not, so keep the faith and hope this will happen soon.

astropol,

Your quotes lifted from that website I used are accurate. I've read the website and was impressed with the way they went and counted the actual deaths, not using a projected deaths method that the Lancet study used. It still doesn't change the fact that guerilla grossly and irresponsibly inflated Iraqi civilian deaths to make the point that U.S. intervention in Iraq was wrong.


Also, I take issue with the idea that our actions in Iraq were wrong because Saddam wouldn't have killed as many people in Iraq as the coalition did. I look into the future and into intangible factor to justify our war in Iraq. Iraq now has an oppurtunity to provide a better future and more oppurtunity than it could've under the Saddam regime. Those are intangible factors, as you can't measure freedom, oppurtunity or a better future.

While I'm aware that those who die and their relatives will not be comforted by the idea that their deaths or their loved one's death will pave the way to a better future, those Iraqis not yet born will consider the price of their freedom paid by those who came before them will be well worth it.


Dammit.

DB
Like you, I think it's a good thing Saddam regime is over. Like you, I hope Iraqi people will soon live in a peaceful and democratic country.
But unlike you, I don't believe the Iraq war was justified by either of these reasons, and most of all, I don't think Iraq is now closer to being a peaceful and free country than it was 2 years ago.
With extermists of many factions roaming free in the country, kurd separatists willing to gettheir own country, and a chiite majority that would eventually lead to a regime similar to Iran if they win the elections, I don't see how Iaq can become peaceful and prosperous in the next decades.
I hope I'm wrong of course.

What's the lesser of two evils?

Do you allow Saddam to rule, and the tortures and rapes and the goings on that happened while Saddam was in power, or do you try, TRY to make a better life for those in Iraq.

I should dig up a few articles by Amir Tehari (I think that's his name) who spelled out that Iraq isn't going the way of another Iran. I'll have to go and dig up his stuff, dammit.

You're assuming there will be anyone left alive in Iraq. The way it's going at the moment, if US troops don't kill them the fallout from Depleted Uranium will.

The United States is quickly closing in on the record for killing in Iraq. Saddam will soon be in 2nd place.

Dop

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I should dig up a few articles by Amir Tehari (I think that's his name) who spelled out that Iraq isn't going the way of another Iran.
The country that is going the way of another Iran is Saudi Arabia. They need to make some changes fast.

Originally posted by Jester
The country that is going the way of another Iran is Saudi Arabia. They need to make some changes fast.

Not exactly.
Fisrt, Iran is shiite and Saudi Arabia is sunnite. That makes a big difference.

Second, Saudi Arabia is actually a much worse and harsher regime than Iran.
In SA women have no rights. they are not even entitled to drive a car. In Iran, many women have important jobs such as professor, lawyer or journalist.
But, unlike Iran, it is supported by the USA.

I think its great that Lebanon is no longer occupied by Syria.

I also think it would be great if:

Iraq was no longer accupied by americans.

Palistine was no longer occupied by Israelis.

The hypocracy is strong in this thread.

I am still amazed that everytime I think we have seen the most slanted liberal asshole that could possibly come to a board a new one shows up.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh, when he returned from Afghanistan, one of the things that Rush said was that the Afghans feared that the U.S. troops would pull out and leave them to the mercy of their neighbors and warlords. I suspect that the same is true in Iraq.

Keep in mind that Lebanon wouldn't be in the position they are in now had it not been for the United States.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Not exactly.
Fisrt, Iran is shiite and Saudi Arabia is sunnite. That makes a big difference.

Second, Saudi Arabia is actually a much worse and harsher regime than Iran.
In SA women have no rights. they are not even entitled to drive a car. In Iran, many women have important jobs such as professor, lawyer or journalist.
But, unlike Iran, it is supported by the USA.
I mean that Saudi Arabia is similar to Iran under the Shah and may be heading toward a revolution like Iran was. There's political suppression, soaring unemployment, and a wealthy elite, all of which has led to resentment of the monarchy and a growing extremist movement. Many Saudis also see their government as puppets of the West, further reducing the legitimacy of the monarchy. There's also the possibility of a succession struggle for the throne when King Fahd dies, which could destabilize the country and open the door to revolution. So like I said, the Saudi government needs to make some reforms, or we could be facing another Islamic Revolution.

OK, I understand better your point. You're quite right. But, unlike pre-revolution Iran, SA is already a very religious state.