• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Jamil el Sayyed Attacking Saad Hariri

J

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
On n'a pas changé notre fusil d'épaule.
GMA a toujours dit, on sera les meilleurs amis des syriens quand ils retournent chez eux.

Maintenant que les troupes syriennes sont rentrées en syrie, on a plus rien contre la syrie, on veut construire les meilleurs relations avec eux.

Pas comme d'autres concitoyens lèche-c..
That sounds great, except that Syria still maintains armed Palestinians that it controls directly, in Lebanon, so they are still in the country, and didnt completely leave, did they now?!
 
  • Advertisement
  • loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    I have read you on this forum for a long time now, and I can say with conviction, that there are a great many things that FPM does that you dont like and in fact disagree with, but you do understand (not condone) how and why they do what they do. What you do not do enough is object to these things openly, nor do you decisively act on your deeply held convictions. In effect you cut FPM too much undeserved slack...
    that's your opinion. I know what i believe in and how i want to criticize. I do when i feel like it and when i have the time to do it and when i know it is a constructive criticism.

    Trust me, with all the sh*t that's going on, FPM's mistakes seem like a breeze in the hurricane of cr*p in this country. There are many things i don't understand and i don't agree with, but there is nothing remotely substantial that would prompt me to take the steps you were hoping for. It is funny though how you criticize FPMers, and i don't see much of your criticism for the load of cr*p we see from the other leaders who are dragging our country down the drain.
     
    Julito

    Julito

    Active Member
    why don't you go all the way and ask the syrian troops to come back to Lebanon ?
    We'll leave it to the butcher and his thugs. He's done it once and will not hesitate to do it again. Hariri's already on the wagon and his dogs will follow suit.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    that's your opinion. I know what i believe in and how i want to criticize. I do when i feel like it and when i have the time to do it and when i know it is a constructive criticism.

    Trust me, with all the sh*t that's going on, FPM's mistakes seem like a breeze in the hurricane of cr*p in this country. There are many things i don't understand and i don't agree with, but there is nothing remotely substantial that would prompt me to take the steps you were hoping for. It is funny though how you criticize FPMers, and i don't see much of your criticism for the load of cr*p we see from the other leaders who are dragging our country down the drain.
    I criticize Hezbollah all the time, more than FPM... and it is indeed dragging the country down the drain, Hezbollah that is. My biggest issue with FPM is that it is always either supporting Hezbollah or turning a blind eye towards its transgressions.

    Of course it is only my opinion, and my comment to you wasn't meant in a negative way at all.
     
    M

    mteirek

    Active Member
    That sounds great, except that Syria still maintains armed Palestinians that it controls directly, in Lebanon, so they are still in the country, and didnt completely leave, did they now?!
    Ah bon,
    tu veux qu'ils reviennent au Liban pour desarmer les palestiniens ?
    Tu ne veux pas qu'ils viennent faire la vaisselle aussi chez toi ?

    Et bien toi, tu ne manque pas de culot.
     
    TayyaRevolution

    TayyaRevolution

    Active Member
    This is what US said (about the warrants):

    U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley, commenting on the arrest warrants ordered by Syria against 33 people over ex-PM Rafik Hariri's murder probe, said "Syria and other countries should continue to respect Lebanon's sovereignty."

    naharnet.com

    ----

    I will not discuss the endless interference of the US. But let's discuss a like-for-like here. US is complaining about the above, yet does it need reminding about the law they passed prior to the Metn by-election?
     
    Jean

    Jean

    Legendary Member
    yesterday:

    نفى عضو "اللقاء الديمقراطي" النائب مروان حمادة في حديث لقناة "المؤسسة اللبنانية للارسال" ما ذكرته صحيفة "الاخبار" عن انه سيغادر الى باريس

    Today:

    وطنية - 5/10/2010 - غادر، بعد ظهر اليوم، النائب مروان حمادة وعقيلته الى العاصمة الفرنسية باريس.
    :1980:
     
    Resistancefrom89

    Resistancefrom89

    Well-Known Member
    جنبلاط للـ"MTV": المقصود من المذكرات 3 أو 4 أشخاص
    - مواقف 14 آذار ترجعنا 10 خطوات إلى الوراء في العلاقة مع سوريا
    - هناك شخض واحد معروف يقف وراء ملف شهود الزور

    Who is that 1 person? the one who left to Paris?
     
    HannaTheCrusader

    HannaTheCrusader

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    yesterday:

    نفى عضو "اللقاء الديمقراطي" النائب مروان حمادة في حديث لقناة "المؤسسة اللبنانية للارسال" ما ذكرته صحيفة "الاخبار" عن انه سيغادر الى باريس

    Today:

    وطنية - 5/10/2010 - غادر، بعد ظهر اليوم، النائب مروان حمادة وعقيلته الى العاصمة الفرنسية باريس.
    :1980:

    wallaawwwwwwww


    mal kezeb mele7 al rejall...............
     
    HannaTheCrusader

    HannaTheCrusader

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    جنبلاط للـ"MTV": المقصود من المذكرات 3 أو 4 أشخاص
    - مواقف 14 آذار ترجعنا 10 خطوات إلى الوراء في العلاقة مع سوريا
    - هناك شخض واحد معروف يقف وراء ملف شهود الزور

    Who is that 1 person? the one who left to Paris?
    no dear

    the person is none but bin laden representative in our govenrment : sa3doun.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Ah bon,
    tu veux qu'ils reviennent au Liban pour desarmer les palestiniens ?
    Tu ne veux pas qu'ils viennent faire la vaisselle aussi chez toi ?

    Et bien toi, tu ne manque pas de culot.
    Yeah right!!

    These Palestinian groups outside the camps that I mentioned have been and continue to be armed and nursed by the Syrian government. They are an extension of the Syrian regime and armed forces and when Syria withdrew its regular army, it kept them in Lebanon as a gift for you and all the Lebanese. Syria continues to provide political cover, money and weapons to these groups. Do not tell me Syria left, and talk about laundry, and what not!! This is but one blatant in-your-face example courtesy of your favorite neighbor, on how Syria hasn't left yet.
     
    M

    mteirek

    Active Member
    Yeah right!!

    These Palestinian groups outside the camps that I mentioned have been and continue to be armed and nursed by the Syrian government. They are an extension of the Syrian regime and armed forces and when Syria withdrew its regular army, it kept them in Lebanon as a gift for you and all the Lebanese. Syria continues to provide political cover, money and weapons to these groups. Do not tell me Syria left, and talk about laundry, and what not!! This is but one blatant in-your-face example courtesy of your favorite neighbor, on how Syria hasn't left yet.

    Les palestiniens armés etaient la avant les syriens.
    N'oublies pas que c'est a cause d'eux que la guerre a eclaté au Liban et cela avant l'arrivée des troupes syriennes. Au contraire la Syrie a mis le plus gros dehors (yasser arafat quand il est revenu a Tripoli).

    Maintenant tu ne veux pas des palestiniens, c'est a toi habibi de te debrouiller et arretes de mettre tout tes malheurs sur le compte des autres.

    Commence par enqueter serieusement sur fatah el islam et voir qui est ce qui les a armé pour contrer HA.

    Mais quand on est borgne on risque de passer a coté de beaucoup de réalités
     
    ecce homo

    ecce homo

    Well-Known Member
    Tribunal best venue, U.S. tells Syria

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- The U.N.-backed tribunal for Lebanon is the best venue for taking legal action in the 2005 assassination of a former prime minister, Washington said.

    The Special Tribunal for Lebanon is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

    Damascus and Hezbollah are widely believed to have played a role in the slaying. Saad Hariri, the slain prime minister's son and current head of state, recently absolved Syria and Hezbollah says it believes the STL and the assassination are part of an Israeli plot.

    A lawyer for Brig. Gen. Jamil Sayyed led an effort from Damascus to issue 33 arrest warrants against Lebanese and other Arab nationals in connection with the Hariri plot.

    P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, said prosecuting the matter was an issue best left to the special tribunal.

    "We continue to believe that Syria and other countries should respect the sovereignty of the Lebanese state," he added in his statements during his regular news briefing.

    Sayyed was held for four years in connection to the assassination. He believes the current prime minister was plotting against him.

    Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor who led the investigation into the 2005 assassination, is among those mentioned in the Syrian probe.

    He suggested Syrian intelligence officials played a role in the assassination.

    :502:
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Les palestiniens armés etaient la avant les syriens.
    N'oublies pas que c'est a cause d'eux que la guerre a eclaté au Liban et cela avant l'arrivée des troupes syriennes. Au contraire la Syrie a mis le plus gros dehors (yasser arafat quand il est revenu a Tripoli).

    Maintenant tu ne veux pas des palestiniens, c'est a toi habibi de te debrouiller et arretes de mettre tout tes malheurs sur le compte des autres.

    Commence par enqueter serieusement sur fatah el islam et voir qui est ce qui les a armé pour contrer HA.

    Mais quand on est borgne on risque de passer a coté de beaucoup de réalités
    When an occupier of some 30 years fosters its loyal militias in Lebanon out of Palestinian renegades, these armed element are nothing short of an extension of the occupier forces. You claimed that Syria left, and I am telling you that these Palestinian militias (like Gebril's for example) nursed, armed, financed and in many cases brought into Lebanon by Syria remained behind, they didn't leave, an therefore Syria still maintains armed elements within the country. It is as simple as that. Yes it is every Lebanese's responsibility to prioritize the disarmament of these militias, and it is equally every Lebanese's responsibility not to forget where these militia's allegiance lies and that they are part of the Syrian occupiers extended armed presence that continues to be well within our sovereign borders. Syria didn't completely withdraw its forces from Lebanon, it withdrew only its regular army, but kept plenty of well armed Palestinian mercenaries that take orders from the Syrian regime, and your claim that Syria left is false.
     
    M

    mteirek

    Active Member
    When an occupier of some 30 years fosters its loyal militias in Lebanon out of Palestinian renegades, these armed element are nothing short of an extension of the occupier forces. You claimed that Syria left, and I am telling you that these Palestinian militias (like Gebril's for example) nursed, armed, financed and in many cases brought into Lebanon by Syria remained behind, they didn't leave, an therefore Syria still maintains armed elements within the country. It is as simple as that. Yes it is every Lebanese's responsibility to prioritize the disarmament of these militias, and it is equally every Lebanese's responsibility not to forget where these militia's allegiance lies and that they are part of the Syrian occupiers extended armed presence that continues to be well within our sovereign borders. Syria didn't completely withdraw its forces from Lebanon, it withdrew only its regular army, but kept plenty of well armed Palestinian mercenaries that take orders from the Syrian regime, and your claim that Syria left is false.

    Supposons ce que tu dis est vrai. (cela ne veut pas dire que je suis d'accord)

    1- Pourquoi le gouvernement libanais n'a toujours pas desarmé les palestiniens hors des camps ? Pourquoi ???
    2- Et pourquoi l'enquete sur fatah el islam n'a toujours rien donné ??
     
    TayyarBeino

    TayyarBeino

    Legendary Member
    الســيد: باسم السبع والرياشي وردا خطأً في المذكرات السورية
    المركزية- أصدر المكتب الاعلامي للواء الركن جميل السيد البيان الآتي:
    "أن بعض وسائل الاعلام تطرقت في صورة خاطئة الى إسم الوزير الاسبق باسم السبع والقاضي رالف رياشي من بين الاسماء التي شملتها مذكرات التوقيف السورية في مؤامرة شهود الزور وشركائهم، معلنا أن هذين الإسمين ليسا مطلقاً من بين الأسماء الثلاثة والثلاثين (33) المدرجة في تلك المذكرات.
     
    J

    jmh

    Active Member
    A treaty must be negotiated by the President and co-signed by it, then ratified by the Parliament, in order to be legal.

    Which is not the case here and the opposition has always denounced that. Mind you that this was the reason that led HA to leave the government in 2006. Because they were not given even 24 hours to read the content of that treaty, that was then, and after they left the government, agreed on by a non constitutional council of ministers.

    As for the UNSCRs...There is not UNSCR yet, that specifies how could Lebanon (or any other country) be bound by the tribunal's work and findings, or that puts in details the modality and rules of cooperation.

    It is being done according to an illegal treaty.

    Therefore, cooperation must stop and Lebanese judges recalled, until a legal treaty is regularly signed between the State of Lebanon and the STL.
    Once again, there is no treaty that forms the STL.

    UNSCR 1757 imposes the STL on Lebanon, and establishes that Lebanon will cede its jurisdiction over these crimes to the STL. The relationship is clearly set out and established by that resolution and its attachment.

    It was not an agreement, which is why Ch. VII powers were invoked. The Statute of the court refers to itself as an "Agreement" but that is not in fact how the court was formed.

    Your argument here does not stand. It is not an illegal treaty. What you can do, of course, is refuse to abide by Security Council Resolution 1757.
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Your discussion about treaties and laws are funny, laws in Lebanon are as good as toilet paper. To have a good system you need first a system and people to enforce the system, both are lacking. If Syria wants to summon people to their courts, they should send kouwat el rade3 to get them or their equivalent of the mossad to get them. That's the only law that works in the Lebanese system.
    We used to whine that they arrested people without warrant in Lebanon and brag we want a rule of law, now that we have a country, it is clear we are unable to live with law, we need somebody to impose his martial law on us.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Once again, there is no treaty that forms the STL.
    Dear, again and again, so to make things clear,

    1- The Government of Lebanon first asked to establish a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for the terrorist crime which killed the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

    This request should have been made by the President of the republic and not by the government. That's for a start


    2- The Security Council then requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations “to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal of an international character based on the highest international standards of criminal justice”

    The Secretary-General and the Government of the Lebanese Republic have conducted negotiations for the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

    All these so-called "negotiations" were done in secret dark rooms, between the thief Sanioura, by then an impostor at the head of an illegitimate and illegal council of ministers, while they should have been conducted directly by the head of the State, the President of the Republic of Lebanon.


    3- The Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon was signed by the Government of Lebanon and the United Nations respectively on 23 January and 6 February 2007

    This so-called agreement, was signed by the United Nations and the thief Sanioura, by then an impostor at the head of an illegitimate and illegal council of ministers. This so-called agreement is also null, not only because it was not negotiated by the President of the Republic, but the President didn't even know of any of its content.

    4- The "Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic" on the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon was adopted by the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, adopted resolution 1757 (2007).

    Again, the UNSC adopted a treaty, between the UN and the thief Sanioura, because this treaty was not negotiated and signed duly by the Lebanese State. Lebanon should therefore reject it, or at least, not consider itself bound by it. Just like Syria did.


    5- Resolution 1757 (2007) authorizing the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon gave the Lebanese Government until 10 June “to notify the United Nations in writing that the legal requirements for entry into force have been complied with”, thus allowing Lebanese factions 10 days to reach an agreement internally before it goes into effect.

    This clause of the UNSCR 1757 itself was never applied, and the Parliament never ratified the treaty (so-called agreement), and therefore it should have never been put into effect, for that matter, until due ratification process.

    6- Any later cooperation between the so-called Lebanese government and the tribunal, and more specifically, all agreements, and treaties, governing the modalities of cooperation, signed between the tribunal and the ministry of justice, were conducted, negotiated, signed and applied, in a clear breach of the Lebanese constitution.

    Final remark: The adoption of UNSCR 1757 itself, is illegal and in clear breach and contravention of the mandate of the UNSC under the Charter.


    CONCLUSION: The Lebanese State would be in its full rights to denounce this UNSCR in each of its steps and foundations, and should immediately stop collaborating with this so-called tribunal, until a new treaty is negotiated and reached with the UN, provided it is done in compliance with the Lebanese constitution.

    If you want to preach justice, start by respecting the law and complying to it. Period.
     
    J

    jmh

    Active Member
    Resolution 1757 (2007) authorizing the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon gave the Lebanese Government until 10 June “to notify the United Nations in writing that the legal requirements for entry into force have been complied with”, thus allowing Lebanese factions 10 days to reach an agreement internally before it goes into effect.

    This clause of the UNSCR 1757 itself was never applied, and the Parliament never ratified the treaty (so-called agreement), and therefore it should have never been put into effect, for that matter, until due ratification process.

    Final remark: The adoption of UNSCR 1757 itself, is illegal and in clear breach and contravention of the mandate of the UNSC under the Charter.
    I'm going to focus on these two aspects of what you wrote. However, very briefly I'll say that your persistent references to the "thief" and "impostor" Siniora contrast nicely with your very respectful reference to the President of the Republic, Lahoud. Call them both thieves and impostors if you like, but by not doing so you betray how politicized your interpretation is. What this demonstrates is the polarized, fractured context of 2005-2007 (and even today), within which the national pact had broken down entirely. It's no surprise to me that it was a Constitutional mess.

    Your misinterpret the following sentence: "Special Tribunal for Lebanon shall enter into force on 10 June 2007, unless the Government of Lebanon has provided notification under Article 19 (1) of the annexed document before that date". This means that Lebanon could bring it into being before 10 June. Lebanon was not required, however, to do anything. No ratification from Parliament was required. Ch. VII did it all.

    Your final comment about 1757 being illegal and in breach of the Charter is a fair interpretation, although I disagree. I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as you claim. I think it was legal, but it required an arguable interpretation of what constituted "a threat to international peace and security". I accept that the Security Council was being used to pressure Syria, but I think it all happened within the law. Yet another reason to reform the Security Council.
     
    Top