October 17 Revolution

What do you think will happen next, after Hariri's resignation?

  • Stalemate - No govt will be formed

    Votes: 42 51.2%
  • New mini-government of specialists will be formed in less than 10 days

    Votes: 21 25.6%
  • Similar government with Hariri PM again

    Votes: 15 18.3%
  • Civil War

    Votes: 24 29.3%

  • Total voters
    82

JB81

Legendary Member
Shame on you FPM!


ضربني وبكى سبقني وشتكى

إذا الرواية مظبوطة، مشكور الجيش لحماية مواطن ذنبه بينتمي للناس الاوادم

يبقى الجيش داعسكم يا دواعش
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
Your understanding of logical flow needs heavy medication. From the flashlight vs torch example I gave you, how did you exactly conclude that one action causing another action debunks my entire argument that knocked out your argument about M14 being more powerful than Aoun, when it demonstrates that the notion of "power" is simply meaningless in the context.
If Aoun had no other choice but to ally with HA it means that M14 had tremendous amount of political power to able to scare Aoun away directly to HA's arms. He had other choice, you're overrating their hollow power but he just erred. We're human beings we make mistakes, what's the big deal?
And by a lucky chance you end up entertaining me with your stable confusion. First you claim that befriending the western powers would have benefited Aoun in his internal political jihad. I asked you exactly how could they have any effect on someone they neither control nor like, let alone on the course of Lebanese internal politics more than they already have through their M14 puppets? All I got is a blurry irrelevant reply about helping him become king maker. I'm starting to enjoy your monkeying circus.
I've answered this many times. No internal jihad, this doesn't wield results. He uses his Western contacts to rein in M14, as an attack on Aoun is also an attack on a Western ally. He would have muzzled them while keeping timid contacts with HA attempting to "Lebanonize" it without merging with it and ultimately "Iranonize" FPM instead.
The west is Europe And the USA, not only the USA. Had the West not approved of Aoun becoming a president, he wouldn't have seen it. So you can tip your entire argument as bakhshish to someone in need, not much of a value.
True, but what's the easier path towards the Presidency? Antagonizing the mightiest power in history of mankind or befriend it? It seems he hadn't learnt his lesson from 1989, he paid for it back then and he paid for it now.
 
Yes Muslims should rush to vote for the "clean" bassil specially for his Christian rights rhetoric :lol:
My point Weezy is that what counts for you is religion more than corruption. You know certainly well that Hariri father was one of the biggest thief of all times and you are fine with this as he helped primarily Sunni.

i am not criticising you and I understand where you are coming from but the conclusion is that you enjoyed a lot of benefits based on money brought by Christians as the Christians are the richest when it comes to middle class and the second conclusion is that we got robbed once and never again. So never again you will enjoy these benefits which were based on stealing people

however one thing that works is partition or federation because we have absolutely nothing in common and don’t want to live with each other. Basta this was it. Lebanon doesn’t exist anymore and we will not pump a single Penny under this system

President Aoun is wasting time and still believe in a dream called Lebanon - we don’t support him anymore and I am a hardcore FPMer. All what I want is partition and be able to live in peace with Israel, Iran, Saudi and focus on research and development rather lose my time with people like you who only brought misery in Lebanon. Even the Gulf countries don’t want to talk to Hariri anymore and they understand very well that Lebanon is gone
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
If Aoun had no other choice but to ally with HA it means that M14 had tremendous amount of political power to able to scare Aoun away directly to HA's arms. He had other choice, you're overrating their hollow power but he just erred. We're human beings we make mistakes, what's the big deal?

I've answered this many times. No internal jihad, this doesn't wield results. He uses his Western contacts to rein in M14, as an attack on Aoun is also an attack on a Western ally. He would have muzzled them while keeping timid contacts with HA attempting to "Lebanonize" it without merging with it and ultimately "Iranonize" FPM instead.

True, but what's the easier path towards the Presidency? Antagonizing the mightiest power in history of mankind or befriend it? It seems he hadn't learnt his lesson from 1989, he paid for it back then and he paid for it now.

Do you notice we've been going in circles for too long?
Being pushed to a certain action by something or someone isn't always an equation of power. Someone's behavior triggers another's certain behavior. That's all to it. Of course every man has always a million choices for action in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the options are all workable at the given place, time and conditions. Therefore a more accurate presentation of your argument would be:

When M14 decided to fight Aoun, he could have:
- ordered sayniyet knefeh and sat at the balcony forging a 10 years plan
- went back tp France to learn how to play Piano
- stayed in the middle (of whatever)
- forced a group hug on M14
- Talked to the western powers ambassadors to mediate
- sought an ally to fight back with

Aoun went for the last option, simply because this is how standard real politIcs work, the how of the politics game, what politicians do everywhere to strengthen their position against opponents. In perspective, it is easy to deem his choice a failure but you don't blame only Aoun, retroactively, for having a free will that chose it (re-read my previous statement) or for not doing this or that instead. Because if we are to play the blame game, it is M14's political actions against him that triggered his reaction in his alliance with HA. For an extra bonus, I also explained why they acted as they did, and it was not because they were more "powerful" than Aoun ( in reality rather the opposite).

We can debate how wise or unwise his decision ended up to be, but that's a different topic. I already told you that, at the end of the day, if the MoU's objectives were to reconcile part of Lebanese with others AND to carry Aoun to the chair, then it was at least a semi-success, for what' it's worth.. Else, it was a huge failure for covering up for and extending the co-existence of one sect's armed militia with the existing state, without gaining Aoun anything of value in return; the end result being more corruption, economical deterioration and mistrust between the sects on one hand and the international community and us as a country on the other. What remains shrouded in mystery, however, is the question: If cornered against ALL the other parties and sects demanding its arms, what would HA have done and how do you figure we'd be today?
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
Do you notice we've been going in circles for too long?
Being pushed to a certain action by something or someone isn't always an equation of power. Someone's behavior triggers another's certain behavior. That's all to it. Of course every man has always a million choices for action in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the options are all workable at the given place, time and conditions. Therefore a more accurate presentation of your argument would be:

When M14 decided to fight Aoun, he could have:
- ordered sayniyet knefeh and sat at the balcony forging a 10 years plan
- went back tp France to learn how to play Piano
- stayed in the middle (of whatever)
- forced a group hug on M14
- Talked to the western powers ambassadors to mediate
- sought an ally to fight back with

Aoun went for the last option, simply because this is how standard real politIcs work, the how of the politics game, what politicians do everywhere to strengthen their position against opponents. In perspective, it is easy to deem his choice a failure but you don't blame only Aoun, retroactively, for having a free will that chose it (re-read my previous statement) or for not doing this or that instead. Because if we are to play the blame game, it is M14's political actions against him that triggered his reaction in his alliance with HA. For an extra bonus, I also explained why they acted as they did, and it was not because they were more "powerful" than Aoun ( in reality rather the opposite).

We can debate how wise or unwise his decision ended up to be, but that's a different topic. I already told you that, at the end of the day, if the MoU's objectives were to reconcile part of Lebanese with others AND to carry Aoun to the chair, then it was at least a semi-success, for what' it's worth.. Else, it was a huge failure for covering up for and extending the co-existence of one sect's armed militia with the existing state, without gaining Aoun anything of value in return; the end result being more corruption, economical deterioration and mistrust between the sects on one hand and the international community and us as a country on the other. What remains shrouded in mystery, however, is the question: If cornered against ALL the other parties and sects demanding its arms, what would HA have done and how do you figure we'd be today?
@The_FPMer

Ejja el ajdab Marwan Hmade allo Lal General <<منعطيك 8 نواب....>> *Christians by the way... a durzi telling Aoun he can give him all over lebanon 8 mp...

Ayaret ma3o el general nezel 3al lejnayne...

Marwan Hmade hass halo nshahat...

End of dialog with 14 Adar..
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
Do you notice we've been going in circles for too long?
Being pushed to a certain action by something or someone isn't always an equation of power. Someone's behavior triggers another's certain behavior. That's all to it. Of course every man has always a million choices for action in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the options are all workable at the given place, time and conditions. Therefore a more accurate presentation of your argument would be:

When M14 decided to fight Aoun, he could have:
- ordered sayniyet knefeh and sat at the balcony forging a 10 years plan
- went back tp France to learn how to play Piano
- stayed in the middle (of whatever)
- forced a group hug on M14
- Talked to the western powers ambassadors to mediate
- sought an ally to fight back with
Ya 3amme walla I' m not disagreeing, bel 3akes this is my exact point. Because they weren't more politically impactful than him, because he could have played on the numerous weaknesses and contradictions of Lebanese politics, he could have sustained being independent from any axis while at the same time trying to engineer a rapprochement between all parties like he attempted to do post-2016 but it was too late.

Aoun went for the last option, simply because this is how standard real politIcs work, the how of the politics game, what politicians do everywhere to strengthen their position against opponents.
Says who? This was short-sighted a move from his part. Lebanese politics are different from European or American politics. Aoun had time to sustain and build, other politicians do not have that privilege. That wasn't realpolitik from his part, this was akin to a Republican endorsing open borders and immigration, and GMA paid for that decision. It stripped him from his wide appeal in the Christian street and bound him to an internationally-isolated axis while at the same time naming his own party Free Patriotic Movement.

In perspective, it is easy to deem his choice a failure but you don't blame only Aoun, retroactively, for having a free will that chose it (re-read my previous statement) or for not doing this or that instead. Because if we are to play the blame game, it is M14's political actions against him that triggered his reaction in his alliance with HA. For an extra bonus, I also explained why they acted as they did, and it was not because they were more "powerful" than Aoun ( in reality rather the opposite).
That was my point, if the opposite is true, then his assimilation with the Iran axis was reckless and myopic. Had Aoun thought long term he could be leading the protests wave, instead he chose the get rich quick scheme and fell for that bait. HA gave him power but it was a hollow one, and kept clipping his nuts every step of the way.

In other words, Aoun having a strong popularity that could have extended to other sects could have stayed on his own course instead of coalescing with HA and switching his beliefs and principles for political gains and wishful thinking of changing HA.
We can debate how wise or unwise his decision ended up to be, but that's a different topic. I already told you that, at the end of the day, if the MoU's objectives were to reconcile part of Lebanese with others
He could have done that without a written guarantee and totally consolidating with HA. Especially in a country in Lebanon when enemies can become best friends in a matter of seconds and their supporters follow suit like blind sheep.

AND to carry Aoun to the chair, then it was at least a semi-success, for what' it's worth.
Alright.

Else, it was a huge failure for covering up for and extending the co-existence of one sect's armed militia with the existing state, without gaining Aoun anything of value in return; the end result being more corruption, economical deterioration and mistrust between the sects on one hand and the international community and us as a country on the other.
Exactly, thank you.

What remains shrouded in mystery, however, is the question: If cornered against ALL the other parties and sects demanding its arms, what would HA have done
An argument is always used by Aounists to justify the MOU and it's that if cornered to disarm, HA would have started a civil war. But that's a anti-HA argument as much as LFers trying to sound smart when peddling the theory that Geagea helped Aoun become President knowing that the latter would be a disastreous President, in other words Geagea helped burn the country as well indirectly.
and how do you figure we'd be today?
There's no way anyone can answer as it is dependent on the US and Israel. Wars need money and arms and those countries would be happy to fund a war, via Arab pockets, to get us Lebanese fighting with each other. But the question is, would they have wanted a swift finish a la Gaddafi or a protracted one like in Syria, no one knows.
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
Do you notice we've been going in circles for too long?
Being pushed to a certain action by something or someone isn't always an equation of power. Someone's behavior triggers another's certain behavior. That's all to it. Of course every man has always a million choices for action in any given situation, but that doesn't mean the options are all workable at the given place, time and conditions. Therefore a more accurate presentation of your argument would be:

When M14 decided to fight Aoun, he could have:
- ordered sayniyet knefeh and sat at the balcony forging a 10 years plan
- went back tp France to learn how to play Piano
- stayed in the middle (of whatever)
- forced a group hug on M14
- Talked to the western powers ambassadors to mediate
- sought an ally to fight back with

Aoun went for the last option, simply because this is how standard real politIcs work, the how of the politics game, what politicians do everywhere to strengthen their position against opponents. In perspective, it is easy to deem his choice a failure but you don't blame only Aoun, retroactively, for having a free will that chose it (re-read my previous statement) or for not doing this or that instead. Because if we are to play the blame game, it is M14's political actions against him that triggered his reaction in his alliance with HA. For an extra bonus, I also explained why they acted as they did, and it was not because they were more "powerful" than Aoun ( in reality rather the opposite).

We can debate how wise or unwise his decision ended up to be, but that's a different topic. I already told you that, at the end of the day, if the MoU's objectives were to reconcile part of Lebanese with others AND to carry Aoun to the chair, then it was at least a semi-success, for what' it's worth.. Else, it was a huge failure for covering up for and extending the co-existence of one sect's armed militia with the existing state, without gaining Aoun anything of value in return; the end result being more corruption, economical deterioration and mistrust between the sects on one hand and the international community and us as a country on the other. What remains shrouded in mystery, however, is the question: If cornered against ALL the other parties and sects demanding its arms, what would HA have done and how do you figure we'd be today?
They think that If Aoun was with 14 Adar and asked for hizbs weapons Hizb would just handed them.

Habibi, there would be a civil war, Syria would re-invade us (Maybe indirectly)... there would be millions of possibilities....
Aoun with or not with wouldnt change a thing, the real thing is when Aoun stepped off the Plane, he said he is going to fight corruption, thats why they all ganged against him with HIZB ALLA WITH THEM AS HELEF SOUBA3I...
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
@The_FPMer

Ejja el ajdab Marwan Hmade allo Lal General <<منعطيك 8 نواب....>> *Christians by the way... a durzi telling Aoun he can give him all over lebanon 8 mp...

Ayaret ma3o el general nezel 3al lejnayne...

Marwan Hmade hass halo nshahat...

End of dialog with 14 Adar..
That's standard negotiations, offer the lowest, second party offers the highest and you meet in the middle. Aoun didn't need M14. Aoun could have marched on his own, built slowly by consolidating the entire Christian vote and keeping his arms stretched and open to anyone locally and internationally and consequently and gaining more later.
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
That's standard negotiations, offer the lowest, second party offers the highest and you meet in the middle. Aoun didn't need M14. Aoun could have marched on his own, built slowly by consolidating the entire Christian vote and keeping his arms stretched and open to anyone locally and internationally and consequently and gaining more later.
At least send him Jmayel or something ... mish derze ma3 shi3e ....
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
That's standard negotiations, offer the lowest, second party offers the highest and you meet in the middle. Aoun didn't need M14. Aoun could have marched on his own, built slowly by consolidating the entire Christian vote and keeping his arms stretched and open to anyone locally and internationally and consequently and gaining more later.
If he didnt ally with Hizb alla he couldnt have had a good electoral law, they would change the laws to suite them and he would have eventually lost in maten and kesserwan too...
 

JB81

Legendary Member
@The_FPMer

Ejja el ajdab Marwan Hmade allo Lal General <<منعطيك 8 نواب....>> *Christians by the way... a durzi telling Aoun he can give him all over lebanon 8 mp...

Ayaret ma3o el general nezel 3al lejnayne...

Marwan Hmade hass halo nshahat...

End of dialog with 14 Adar..


Fast forward 2018--- Marwan Hmadeh wins over Wiam Wahhab by 300 votes 🤣
 

Weezy

Legendary Member
My point Weezy is that what counts for you is religion more than corruption. You know certainly well that Hariri father was one of the biggest thief of all times and you are fine with this as he helped primarily Sunni.

i am not criticising you and I understand where you are coming from but the conclusion is that you enjoyed a lot of benefits based on money brought by Christians as the Christians are the richest when it comes to middle class and the second conclusion is that we got robbed once and never again. So never again you will enjoy these benefits which were based on stealing people

however one thing that works is partition or federation because we have absolutely nothing in common and don’t want to live with each other. Basta this was it. Lebanon doesn’t exist anymore and we will not pump a single Penny under this system

President Aoun is wasting time and still believe in a dream called Lebanon - we don’t support him anymore and I am a hardcore FPMer. All what I want is partition and be able to live in peace with Israel, Iran, Saudi and focus on research and development rather lose my time with people like you who only brought misery in Lebanon. Even the Gulf countries don’t want to talk to Hariri anymore and they understand very well that Lebanon is gone

How did Hariri Senior benefited Sunnah mostly? That’s a false statement. Check the students he funded in Europe and the US, they were from all sects. Same thing goes for his work as a PM, he never did a project for Sunnah. If anything Sunnah criticize him for not acting as a Sunni leader.

You keep mentioning that Christians are the richest. That may have been true in the 60s and 70s but I don’t think that’s fairly true today. Shia from Africa and Sunnites from Gulf have brought considerable amounts of money into Lebanon. I have no idea who has more but your claim that Christians are the people with most investments in Lebanon is not so accurate.

And yes the Gulf don’t care about Lebanon anymore. Who is to blame here? Is it not HA and their allies who fight in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and Iraq and never miss a statement to curse and attack the GCC? Bassil as a foreign minister didn’t even ****ing condemn the attacks against Aramco.

One thing I agree with you is sidelining Lebanon from all conflicts. Behind the Batrak we stand :)
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Ya 3amme walla I' m not disagreeing, bel 3akes this is my exact point. Because they weren't more politically impactful than him, because he could have played on the numerous weaknesses and contradictions of Lebanese politics, he could have sustained being independent from any axis while at the same time trying to engineer a rapprochement between all parties like he attempted to do post-2016 but it was too late.


Says who? This was short-sighted a move from his part. Lebanese politics are different from European or American politics. Aoun had time to sustain and build, other politicians do not have that privilege. That wasn't realpolitik from his part, this was akin to a Republican endorsing open borders and immigration, and GMA paid for that decision. It stripped him from his wide appeal in the Christian street and bound him to an internationally-isolated axis while at the same time naming his own party Free Patriotic Movement.


That was my point, if the opposite is true, then his assimilation with the Iran axis was reckless and myopic. Had Aoun thought long term he could be leading the protests wave, instead he chose the get rich quick scheme and fell for that bait. HA gave him power but it was a hollow one, and kept clipping his nuts every step of the way.

In other words, Aoun having a strong popularity that could have extended to other sects could have stayed on his own course instead of coalescing with HA and switching his beliefs and principles for political gains and wishful thinking of changing HA.

He could have done that without a written guarantee and totally consolidating with HA. Especially in a country in Lebanon when enemies can become best friends in a matter of seconds and their supporters follow suit like blind sheep.


Alright.


Exactly, thank you.


An argument is always used by Aounists to justify the MOU and it's that if cornered to disarm, HA would have started a civil war. But that's a anti-HA argument as much as LFers trying to sound smart when peddling the theory that Geagea helped Aoun become President knowing that the latter would be a disastreous President, in other words Geagea helped burn the country as well indirectly.

There's no way anyone can answer as it is dependent on the US and Israel. Wars need money and arms and those countries would be happy to fund a war, via Arab pockets, to get us Lebanese fighting with each other. But the question is, would they have wanted a swift finish a la Gaddafi or a protracted one like in Syria, no one knows.

I'm replying mnel ekhir, that's for the last paragraph in your reply, which should conclude the debate.

Since the world is an endless network of infinite complexities in perpetual motion, there's no way anyone can accurately predict the outcome of any one of the numerous choices of action one has to pick from at any given moment. This is an irrefutable truth, not to be negotiated. But I do understand it is often tempting to squander judgements restrospectively, for example in your case on Aoun's alliance with HA, while you comfortably sit today with all the unfolded facts in hand, what in ancient medical books is known as Useless Delayed Intelligent Analysis. No shame in the disease, we all suffer from it in our daily lives every time we are to judge something outside our sphere of influence, like when we watch a football or an ishokey game and know exactly what the player should have done instead of doing what he/she did the second everything goes wrong. And the worst case of UDIA is when the judgment comes really long time after the event took place. Say 16 years. (shall I predict your next comment about the Aoun politics we're talking about is not a football game? :cigar:)

Therefore, for you to recommend Aoun to have stayed in some undefined "middle", bouncing softly outside or on the periphery of the executive power, which means more or less biding his time for 16 years, does in no way guarantee you the desired happy ending you imagine; not in a million scenarios and with so many unknowns in between back then and now. Not when you don't even have enough data about how the others would have responded to his "man in the middle" role, and even less his own community, the self victimized, marginalized and that hungered for action. Would the others, the old partners in corruption and arms, have invented themselves another "scratch my back I scratch yours" ta3ayoush formula, and continued to coexist happily under the uninterrupted status quo where the corrupts keep renewing their vow to protect the armed militia in exchange for it turning a blind eye on the corrupts devouring el akhdar wel yebiss? Would Aoun's community have accepted the "idling" and no action for so long? What unknown mechanisms would have been triggered with such choice and under the then prevailing conditions?

We have no clue.
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
...
One thing I agree with you is sidelining Lebanon from all conflicts. Behind the Batrak we stand :)

I also want to stand behind Mufti al Joumhiriya when he decides to speak out loud about keeping Lebanon outside all conflicts, including our Israeli. Any idea when shall I expect the speech so I can prepare myself and dress properly ta 2oufaf bel saff?
 

Nonan

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Same thing goes for his work as a PM, he never did a project for Sunnah. If anything Sunnah criticize him for not acting as a Sunni leader.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...

Thanks for a stronger contender for the funniest post of the year award. Hariri bleeds sectarianism. Everything he did was to consolidate power in the hands of sunni positions. However, you can't ask an uneducated "nouveau riche" to understand economic development. So he behaved like his Saoudi masters, throwing money at people for their loyalty, instead of investing in development projects that would lift poor sunnis in Tripoli or akkar out of poverty. But you can't blame him for that. He was an ignorant bedouin. What do you expect of him?
 
Top