• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Freedom of Speech on this Forum.


Well-Known Member
Baath were always criminals, but if I have to choose between Baath and your freedom fighters, I will support all the way Al Assad.

You have invited Hizbollah to Syria, it was your sectarian tone and acts that pushed them to Syria. Was Hizbollah in Syria when the Lebanese were kidnapped in Azaz?
Were Hizbollah in Syria when your mps were helping with pampers and milk? What about the arms traffic from Tripoli port? It all started by you, and Hezbollah presence there is the the consequence of your acts. Your short memory was always a problem with your camp. Do you know how Hariri senior bought his ticket to become a prime minister? Do you remember when Baath presence was darouri wa mouakat?
Your not happy with the presence of Iranians and Hizbollah in Syria, what about the thousands of Jihadist coming from all over the globe?

No Hizbollah are not terrorists, at least this is the opinion of the majority of Lebanese. I am from the south and I live next to Beirut suburbs. I never felt danger from them. On the opposit I feel safe because they exist. And the moment I feel that their acts will be against the sovereighnty of Lebanon and against my social values, I will be the first to oppose them, be it for Iran or any other country on the planet.
You were supporting the criminal Assad before the freedom fighters came to existence.
You are saying so and they are saying that you went to Syria before them. What is known for a fact that HA refused the M14 proposal of having UN controlling the borders between the two countries to stop all what you are complaining about. HA was the one who rejected the Na2i Bel Nafs policy and Baabda Accord. Even Michel Aoun publicly announced back then that he is against HA's interference in the Syrian war. Why would he say so if HA went to protect Lebanon? Playing on the short memory of people is not a successful game in google days.

Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, at least this is the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese especially after 2005 and the proof is that they didn't get the majority in the elections twice since then. That was even the opinion of Michel Aoun before riding their horse to get to Baabda.

It is funny when you say you will oppose them when you feel that their acts are against the sovereignty of Lebanon. In May 2008 Nasrallah declared it outloud:

لسيد نصرالله: كثيرون حاولوا أن يشوهوا هذه الحقيقة ويتصورون عندما يقولون عنا حزب ولاية الفقيه أنهم يهينون أبدا أنا اليوم أعلن وليس جديدا أنا أفتخر أن أكون فرداً في حزب ولاية الفقيه الفقيه العادل العالم الحكيم الشجاع الصادق المخلص وأقول لهؤلاء ولاية الفقيه تقول لنا نحن حزبها

Sovereignty my a**
  • Advertisement
  • eLad

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    actually if we want to go by the lebanese law we should all ban ourselves and leave the forum for leb w nos and sagacious. when our own minister of justice calls those terrorists rebels for a good cause why are you blaming the few members here for sympathizing with them?
    actually if we want to go by the lebanese law we should all ban ourselves and leave the forum for leb w nos and sagacious. when our own minister of justice calls those terrorists rebels for a good cause why are you blaming the few members here for sympathizing with them?
    we know that a certain portion of the sunni street is pro-terrorist and anti-lebanese. this also reflects on their political representatives. as of today we are only able to chose between civil war or status quo. our own representatives have told us that it is better to go for status quo for the time being. we can't but accept it and try to coexist with a bunch of filthy traitors. however this does not mean that we have to put up with all their insults and attacks against our dignity on this forum. the already spread their posion and conspire against Lebanon on their own twitter, facebook and tv stations on a daily basis. this is more than enough.

    allowing those rats to post crap here is in one way or another like legitimizing their stands. freedom of expression is a right that only can be applied in democratic societies and with indiviudals and groups that understand the meaning of this right and accept the rule of law. rights and duties, remember? these are terrorists and traitors to this country. we need to stand firm and tell them, we are all lebanese and you, you are not welcome here amongst us. blow yourself up if you wish, or send your kids to do it, or just try to justify it...but you do not belong with us and we do not have any interest in listening to you nor understanding the reasons for your crimes.

    we are fighting a war here for the survival of lebanon. the mods need to understand this. having sagacious, weezy or lebwinoss posting insults to our dignity here does not make the forum more atractive. there are already many decent members with very different poitns of view who discuss topics of enormous interest daily on this forum. we don't need them. honestly. we don't want them.

    joe tayyar

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    My purpose of this thread is not banning those people, but deleting any post discrediting those who are fighting the terrorists.
    Some here are saying let them post, they will show their true face, well we already know their true face and we dont want to know more.
    Have a look on their post since 2 years, all the same, baathi, 3oooonists, HA iran Syria created ISIS, if it wasnt for HA the terrorist wouldnt have came to Lebanon.They say this whenever some wled 3ahra attack Lebanon from outside the border, and they are still saying them in this thread also, tayyib 3refna, w zhe2na and they have nothing to debate out of this circle.
    When we show them the truth and post what dempsy and Bidon say, they disappear to come after few hours with the same rhetoric. ( Syria Iran HA created ISIS). That was not the IQ of this Forum.

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I am all for letting everyone speak up his mind, no matter how retard and ugly he is.

    But where I fully stand with Joe, is when some people obviously do not come to debate, but only to derail debates, distract, spread hatred and false information, engage in cheap propaganda...all this under the cover of freedom of expression.

    This is becoming destructive to the health of the forum itself and it is slowly defeating the purpose of its existence, since respectable posters are left with no choice but being disgusted and forced to leave.

    While I do command the moderation team for their efforts and sacrifices, I however wish that this issue be handled in a tougher manner.

    One genius idea was to come up with the procedure consisting in banning a member from a specific thread. This is a very effective measure that helps protect the debate without having to ban anyone or to have his freedom of expression trespassed.

    The only recommendation I would suggest however, is to apply it on a wider range and in a more strict manner. It is not enough anymore to address mainly, misbehavior (like insults) and off-topic posts. The moderation needs to also to address trolling.

    Trolling has become a weapon. Trolls are not necessarily impolite nor off-topic. Yet they ruin every debate to only serve their destructive target. And this is not a problem related to this forum only. It is widespread and it is a method used everywhere.

    Whenever a thread is open and a serious discussion is started, trolls start attacking it to reduce it to rubble, at which point, the troll wins.

    I do believe that the freedom of expression of respectable members is as important as anyone else and that the best way to keep the forum alive is to keep trolls on a leach.

    My main point is:

    I can always debate with Ben Laden himself whenever a serious debate is engaged, but neither me nor anyone else can keep up a serious discussion (nor am I willing to even engage in one) whenever a troll gets in. So I believe that we are all capable of tolerating even the most extremist point of view, but not when it comes in a trolling manner.

    For reference:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]
    Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    As we all know many of us were upset because Jo made a bold move by diversifying the moderators.
    Now is the time to take advantage of such diversity by instructing each responsible moderator to take a tough stance against his/her own camp when they cross the line. In other words, FPM, HA, March 8, Kataeb, LF, FM, M14 moderators have the responsibility to ban their own respective posters first when they cross a certain line. The only exception is the Lebanese Army which is a RED LINE, NOT NEGOTIABLE every moderator is responsible to ban any attack or disrespect against it.


    Well-Known Member
    I think any form of name-calling should be strictly banned, especially if addressed to groups based on nationality, religion, or other form of identity. Freedom of speech also has its limits when it also de-humanizes others. I am personally disgusted by how much hate has spewed into the forum. It would be uplifting if the moderators would consider it public decency to not allow this. It would also make the forum a more decent and less hate-filled place.

    Now let Stephen Fry explain it better...



    Active Member
    This forum is merely a virtual representation and replica of the Banana Mjerir Republic we live in.

    So we just accept it and go along. Mish el 7a2 3al forum.


    Well-Known Member
    I am all for letting everyone speak up his mind, no matter how retard and ugly he is.

    For reference:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]
    Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    By the way a Troll is a fictional creature who has a low level of intelligence and there are many on this forum who can be trolls just by posting illogical posts, carrying a programmed non-negotiable mentality even without upsetting people.

    Now the word upset is variable and can change from a human to another, and because this is a political forum therefore it reflects politics in our civilized ranch we call Lebanon. Cursing, fighting, defaming is part of conducting politics.

    in different parliament of the word they even throw punches at each others !! ,,,,, well the word troll can be many things.

    Last edited by a moderator:


    Well-Known Member
    Public places, universities, schools, various media, quite similar.

    April 5, 2017
    Free Speech is Not the Issue; Intellectual Power Is
    by Gabriel Rockhill

    Photo by Qusai Al Shidi | CC BY 2.0

    Abstract rights are in the air. They have recently become the subject of endless obsequious commentary around so-called free speech on university campuses. Many conservatives are using it as a convenient foil to promote reactionary, bigoted pseudo-science, which is bought and paid for by the corporate elite. At the same time, countless liberals are indulging in their moral superiority as the unrivaled passive subjects of history, who are content to be tolerant of anything as long as they do not actually have to do something. Even supposed leftists are defending the institutional promotion of white supremacist, anti-poor, misogynist hacks in the name of purportedly avoiding future censorship of the left (which, of course, already exists).

    This consensual abstract rights discourse has so-called progressives belittling those who have taken a committed stance and engaged in direct action against institutions of higher learning that willingly function as echo chambers for fascism, racism, misogyny and economic oppression. It is as if activists dedicated to developing concrete political strategies to fight against the institutional propagation of reactionary ideas and practices were supposed to simply stand in silent awe before the moralist intoning of the patronizing, self-appointed judges of action, who themselves passively condone the institutional organization of fascism and top-down class warfare.

    Scientific racism and the innate inferiority of major sectors of the world population—women, the indigenous, the poor, subalterns, and many others—were once widely taught at the university and considered credible discourses. If this has changed over time, at least in part, it is not due to tolerance. And it is certainly not because scientific racism and other violent ideologies were sanctioned and promoted by institutions of higher learning in the name of a supposed right to free speech. It was through the direct action of people who recognized that universities are power brokers in the struggle to define legitimate discourse, and who actively defended the position that racist ideology—like other non-scientific forms of structural oppression or ingrained cultural bigotry—does not qualify. If anyone, then, is fighting for the concrete defense of equality and rights that actually mean something, it is precisely the activists who refuse to have institutions of knowledge production legitimize and disseminate discourses rooted in the idea of the inherent inferiority of certain people.

    Nevertheless, the consensual discourse on abstract rights persists in defending so-called free speech independently of context, as if rights somehow floated in a pure moral ether above and beyond the soiled political struggles of the here-and-now. It does not recognize, for instance, the crucially important fact that the constitutional right to express one’s views is not the right to have a university approve of them and provide a megaphone for them. In other words, the right to have institutions of higher learning endorse and market your speech is most definitively not a constitutional right.

    One of the reasons for this widespread confusion is the faulty conception of institutions inherent in the tradition of political liberalism. The latter incorrectly assumes that institutions like universities are neutral spaces for individuals to freely express their thoughts in an open “marketplace of ideas.” However, everyone familiar with the inner workings, sordid histories and economic functions of educational institutions knows that they are factories for capitalist modes of social reproduction largely structured by industry interests and guided by corporate investments.

    Their power to format the social world—for better or worse—is one of the reasons why the struggle over their ability to define rigorous, legitimate and meaningful discourse is so important and should be taken seriously, instead of passively accepting the promotion of any political agenda whatsoever under the thoughtless banner of “free speech.” As we should know from the history of movements like Nazism, if the institutions of knowledge production put their stamp of approval on discourses such as scientific racism, this has an enormous impact on the broader cultural and political world.

    The reactionaries, for all of their faults, are at least well aware of this, and it is precisely for this reason that they have invested in having their toadies speak at universities. Although they are more than happy to use the smoke screen of free speech in order to do this, everyone basically knows that they do not really care about it as a principle. They have not been stalwartly defending, for instance, the right of the revolutionary anti-capitalist left to have a prominent university platform for defending egalitarian, ecological and anti-colonial politics. On the contrary, they only invoke free speech as it pertains to a tactical struggle to market their reactionary ideas while keeping liberals on their heels. If it did not work as well as it does, immediately compelling the liberal intelligentsia to hypnotically kneel down and pray to their false god of tolerance, it is imaginable that they would simply discard it as an unnecessary foil for their not-so-hidden agenda.

    The liberals, however, have had a longstanding love affair with abstract rights. Their hallowed claims to the freedom and equality of all men (sic) have served as the sacred ideological supplement to worldwide capitalist expansion, as Domenico Losurdo has demonstrated perhaps better than anyone in Liberalism: A Counter-History. By encouraging the masses to gaze up into the sky of abstract ideas and rights, they sought to distract them from the rapacious project of indigenous genocide, chattel and wage slavery, colonization and patriarchal oppression.

    When those who rejected this form of cloud gazing—Black Elk, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and so many others—pointed out how these supposed rights were actually anchored in a vast system of structural oppression, such that only an infinitesimally small minority of the population benefitted from them (primarily white, male, property-owning deists of European descent), the liberals retorted with their infamous progress narrative: although our system of abstract rights was historically and materially founded upon your exclusion, if you work hard enough and follow our rules, at some point we might include you, at least formally. Bloodstained bison fields slowly became fenced in gambling dens, plantations morphed into prisons, colonies were transformed into neo-colonies, multicultural tokenism made the corporatocracy more colorful, and there was certainly progress… of cloud gazing.

    Unlike abstract rights, anchored rights are ones that have meaning and substance precisely because they are embodied in specific material relations. They are rights that actually exist in this world, like the right to free speech enshrined by, and originally for, the white, male, property-owning, colonial settlers in America. Rights are therefore about power, and who has the force to establish, define and defend them. It is precisely liberalism’s refusal to overtly recognize this that has perpetuated the false veneer of neutrality that actually allows liberal institutions like the university to obscure or cover over racism, patriarchy, and the ensanguined spread of imperialist oppression.

    With all of this in mind, anytime individuals or institutions claim they are defenders of free speech on campus, we should translate this abstract assertion into an anchored reality by examining what this means concretely. For instance, I was recently involved with coordinating a direct action campaign at Villanova University against the institutional promotion of the hack bigotry of neo-eugenicist Charles Murray. Although many conservatives and liberals appealed to “free speech” to defend his supposed right to have the university broadcast his invectives against equality, I sincerely doubt that the same amount of corporate funding, military-police enforcement and campus fanfare would have gone into defending Tim Miller’s right to free speech. I will likely never know this, however, because Villanova’s invitation to this radical queer activist and artist was rescinded. Although each institutional decision is surely the result of a unique configuration of forces, this juxtaposition requires that we ask the following concrete question: is “free speech” only defended on Villanova’s campus for misogynist, racist, classist pseudo-academics bankrolled by the corporate elite?

    It is imperative to recognize the tactical uses of free speech discourse as a mechanism to empower or disempower voices on campus. Universities, far from being neutral, are in the daily business of defining the difference between scientific and unscientific claims, between worthy and unworthy discourses. We must therefore critically interrogate their choices and actively participate in the struggle over ideas.

    This means recognizing that the way we think—and train people to think—has real political implications in the world, and that this is precisely why reactionaries want to spread their debunked ideas throughout institutions of higher learning. The slippery slope of the misguided “free speech” argument plays into their hands and will lead nowhere other than into the thoughtless, relativist abyss of justifying university podiums for Nazi and colonial Holocaust deniers, individuals who think people of color are apes, pedophilia advocates, astronomers who believe the world is flat, and doctors who imagine that diseases are spread by evil spirits.

    The question we should be asking, then, is not the abstract one of whether or not an individual or institution is “for” or “against” free speech in general, and then confusedly extending this to the university context. The real question is: what are the institutional forces that are empowering certain ideas and—by necessity—excluding or sidelining others? This requires examining the power structures that produce the very field of possibility for thought and organize the purportedly “open debate” in terms of viable intellectual positions. It also means analyzing how the intellectual and moral torpor of a “one-size-fits-all” principle of “free speech” directly contributes to distracting us from actually holding institutional power brokers accountable for the types of ideas they are endorsing and disseminating.

    Abstract rights are in the air, then. They are floating above the material struggles over ideas and confusing people about the real issues. It is time to ground them. This means recognizing that there are only anchored rights, and that the right to be a bigot is not the right to have a university promote your bigotry. It also requires acknowledging that institutions of knowledge production are important sites of struggle with real-world implications, as we should all know from the history of scientific racism and other debunked forms of oppression that have sought university approval and propagation. The agents operative within institutions of higher learning need be take responsibility for the power of the ideas that they promote, rather than hiding behind false beliefs in neutrality or clouded misconceptions of free speech. If history has taught us anything, it is that some ideas are worth fighting for.

    Join the debate on Facebook
    Gabriel Rockhill is a Franco-American philosopher and cultural critic. He is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and founding Director of the Atelier de Théorie Critique at the Sorbonne in Paris, France. His books include Counter-History of the Present: Untimely Interrogations into Globalization, Technology, Democracy (forthcoming in 2017), Interventions in Contemporary Thought: History, Politics, Aesthetics (2016), Radical History & the Politics of Art(2014) and Logique de l’histoire (2010).