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

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
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.
1-They did accept the "idling" and more than that as we're living now in a totally bankrupt country where Aoun is the head of it and Aounists are still loyal, stalwart and still believing Aoun can score at least one goal in the net of the opposition. So that argument is moot.

2-While the future is definitely unpredictable, it's not that hard to figure out that switching your entire rhetoric and principles by entering into a Maronite marriage with a fundamentalist foreign-funded highly-ambitious ultra-armed group will not wield great results for you. We're not discussing metaphysics here.
 
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 :)
But again you fail to see that you destroyed Lebanon. Your community prefered Arabism under Abdel Nasser to Lebanon. You then gave the country to the Palestinians but hell not your Lebanese counterparts. You then started cursing us because we were not enough Arabs. You then entered Baabdate and the Christian side of Lebanon with the Syriens with whom you enjoyed stealing for 15 years.

and after the Cedar Revolution you still prefered Lahoud over Aoun and the Christians.

no one is stupid, you destroyed what Christians mainly have build up - the first country in the Middle East, the most advanced nation with nuclear research and space rocket launch in the 60’s. You destroyed everything just because you couldn’t see our face sitting in the driving seat.
Now you took over Lebanon in 1990 with Amal —- this misery is YOUR Lebanon not ours. We are too educated for this shit and we don’t need a leader to give us “pens and education” to educate ourselves. We are doing it from birth and with a spirit of openess.
We have no enemies and would love to make real peace with Iran, Saudi and Israel.

But regardless something that will never come back is the Living Together. We are done with that and not a single Penny will go to Lebanon until we are a full federation or partition. Aoun is over. Geagea is over. Kataeb is over. We will end up creating a large party on the remains of Tayyar to get our own share of the country, in full separation from you.

I represent the 99% of my people.
 

Weezy

Legendary Member
But again you fail to see that you destroyed Lebanon. Your community prefered Arabism under Abdel Nasser to Lebanon. You then gave the country to the Palestinians but hell not your Lebanese counterparts. You then started cursing us because we were not enough Arabs. You then entered Baabdate and the Christian side of Lebanon with the Syriens with whom you enjoyed stealing for 15 years.

and after the Cedar Revolution you still prefered Lahoud over Aoun and the Christians.

no one is stupid, you destroyed what Christians mainly have build up - the first country in the Middle East, the most advanced nation with nuclear research and space rocket launch in the 60’s. You destroyed everything just because you couldn’t see our face sitting in the driving seat.
Now you took over Lebanon in 1990 with Amal —- this misery is YOUR Lebanon not ours. We are too educated for this shit and we don’t need a leader to give us “pens and education” to educate ourselves. We are doing it from birth and with a spirit of openess.
We have no enemies and would love to make real peace with Iran, Saudi and Israel.

But regardless something that will never come back is the Living Together. We are done with that and not a single Penny will go to Lebanon until we are a full federation or partition. Aoun is over. Geagea is over. Kataeb is over. We will end up creating a large party on the remains of Tayyar to get our own share of the country, in full separation from you.

I represent the 99% of my people.

Your statement is full of generalizations and delusions, but i understand where you are coming from.

Good luck with your new party.
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
1-They did accept the "idling" and more than that as we're living now in a totally bankrupt country where Aoun is the head of it and Aounists are still loyal, stalwart and still believing Aoun can score at least one goal in the net of the opposition. So that argument is moot.

2-While the future is definitely unpredictable, it's not that hard to figure out that switching your entire rhetoric and principles by entering into a Maronite marriage with a fundamentalist foreign-funded highly-ambitious ultra-armed group will not wield great results for you. We're not discussing metaphysics here.

For 1, Aoun's supposed inaction at the time of the MoU is the idling we were discussing. What you describe is the current general situation for everyone, and it's in acceleration mode, no idling here, it's called deterioration by the way.

For 2, drop the tabu, marriage contracts are written between sects every day, the shia apply the most advanced one of them, the mout3a marriage. Go figure.

You need to keep in mind that what you conclude today is derived from facts you know today. You have no clue how things would have evolved if different actions were taken in the past. Even if you might think differently, it could have been worse. But of course you can't figure how it could from where you stand today. See my previous reply 7atta ma n3eed el estweneh.



A farmer and his son had a beloved stallion who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbors exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild mares back to the farm as well. The neighbors shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to break one of the mares and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The villagers cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all the able-bodied boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, still recovering from his injury. Friends shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!” To which the farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”
 
Last edited:

NewLeb

Member
But again you fail to see that you destroyed Lebanon. Your community prefered Arabism under Abdel Nasser to Lebanon. You then gave the country to the Palestinians but hell not your Lebanese counterparts. You then started cursing us because we were not enough Arabs. You then entered Baabdate and the Christian side of Lebanon with the Syriens with whom you enjoyed stealing for 15 years.

and after the Cedar Revolution you still prefered Lahoud over Aoun and the Christians.

no one is stupid, you destroyed what Christians mainly have build up - the first country in the Middle East, the most advanced nation with nuclear research and space rocket launch in the 60’s. You destroyed everything just because you couldn’t see our face sitting in the driving seat.
Now you took over Lebanon in 1990 with Amal —- this misery is YOUR Lebanon not ours. We are too educated for this shit and we don’t need a leader to give us “pens and education” to educate ourselves. We are doing it from birth and with a spirit of openess.
We have no enemies and would love to make real peace with Iran, Saudi and Israel.

But regardless something that will never come back is the Living Together. We are done with that and not a single Penny will go to Lebanon until we are a full federation or partition. Aoun is over. Geagea is over. Kataeb is over. We will end up creating a large party on the remains of Tayyar to get our own share of the country, in full separation from you.

I represent the 99% of my people.

If the Christians weren’t a bunch of wimps who only cared about economic prosperity and academics, they would have stayed in Lebanon and populated, ensuring a strong and powerful demographic (like the Shiites).

But they flee the country after hearing just one bullet being fired, and their women prefer their stupid careers over marriage and having children (Western feminism at play here). Yes, Ashrafieh is full of old feminist women who never got laid....

The Christians destroyed themselves, as they’ve been doing so for centuries. Jesus will soon arrive to break the cross. Good riddance!
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
For 1, Aoun's supposed inaction at the time of the MoU is the idling we were discussing. What you describe is the current general situation for everyone, and it's in acceleration mode, no idling here, it's called deterioration by the way.
Even better, 2006-2019 idling years and 2019-2021 complete deterioration and yet Aounists are still tenacious as ever. Meaning Aoun could have bided his time for a few years as he built his political infrastructure without merging in any axis.
For 2, drop the tabu, marriage contracts are written between sects every day, the shia apply the most advanced one of them, the mout3a marriage. Go figure.

You need to keep in mind that what you conclude today is derived from facts you know today. You have no clue how things would have evolved if different actions were taken in the past. Even if you might think differently, it could have been worse. But of course you can't figure how it could from where you stand today. See my previous reply 7atta ma n3eed el estweneh.
I agree but I already answered that, the risk of merging with an axis thousands of times more powerful than you is much great than trying to build coalitions on your own without binding yourself and if it didn't work then you can go gung-ho. Him capitulating so quickly like that wasn't befitting of him.
A farmer and his son had a beloved stallion who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbors exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild mares back to the farm as well. The neighbors shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to break one of the mares and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The villagers cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all the able-bodied boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, still recovering from his injury. Friends shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!” To which the farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”
But in hindsight it wasn't good for him at all, so ma ela ma3na. But I'll counter it with two better parables:

1-A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."

2-Once upon a time there was a sacred turtle, which was happy living his life in the mud. Yet, because he was sacred, the king’s men found him, took him to the royal palace, killed him and used his shell to foresee the future. Now tell me, would that turtle prefer to have given up his life to be honored at the palace, or would he rather be alive and enjoying himself in the mud?
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
But in hindsight it wasn't good for him at all, so ma ela ma3na. But I'll counter it with two better parables:

You're acting the neighbor here. :lol: Let's agree you misunderstood, at the very least.
The young man could have died in the war, a worse fate, right?
Yet, the farmer, in his wisdom, kept refraining from casting a quick judgement.

1-A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."

The more correct version of the story is that the frog and the scorpion are on the egyptian side of the Suez canal crossing over to the Israeli (when Sinai was still occupied). It ends with the Scorpions replying "Well this is the middle east after all".

2-Once upon a time there was a sacred turtle, which was happy living his life in the mud. Yet, because he was sacred, the king’s men found him, took him to the royal palace, killed him and used his shell to foresee the future. Now tell me, would that turtle prefer to have given up his life to be honored at the palace, or would he rather be alive and enjoying himself in the mud?

The question can be asked differently. Look around you: how many people don't you find ready to live in the mud of media for fame and glory rather than enjoy a still life in anonymity?
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
The question can be asked differently. Look around you: how many people don't you find ready to live in the mud of media for fame and glory rather than enjoy a still life in anonymity?
Too many sadly but that's the human condition, we're flawed creatures trying to overcome our blemishes. Aoun chose quick big gains and paid for it. That's my entire point.
 

My Moria Moon

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Too many sadly but that's the human condition, we're flawed creatures trying to overcome our blemishes. Aoun chose quick big gains and paid for it. That's my entire point.
In hindsight, yes, and that's my point.
You can track someone's mistake to a million factors leading to the mistake one actually makes out of what appears to be freewill ( a concept too multilayered and deep to delve into for this). Does this person's freewill qualify as the one and only narrative that explains the mistake? Or would it be more accurate to say it is probably one or more of the relevant million factors acting on one's "freewill" that caused the mistake?
After all, your freewill neither exists in nor does it materialize out of void.
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
In hindsight, yes, and that's my point.
You can track someone's mistake to a million factors leading to the mistake one actually makes out of what appears to be freewill ( a concept too multilayered and deep to delve into for this). Does this person's freewill qualify as the one and only narrative that explains the mistake? Or would it be more accurate to say it is probably one or more of the relevant million factors acting on one's "freewill" that caused the mistake?
After all, your freewill neither exists in nor does it materialize out of void.
I agree but I already answered that.

While the future is definitely unpredictable, it's not that hard to figure out that switching your entire rhetoric and principles by entering into a Maronite marriage with a fundamentalist foreign-funded highly-ambitious ultra-armed group will not wield great results for you. We're not discussing metaphysics here.

In other words, from my perspective, Aoun could have tip-toed like in any negotiation, instead of capitulating immediately. I think the risks of directly merging with the Iran axis are much higher than trying to unite the Christian vote and use that to cement yourself as a key player in Lebanese politics. If that didn't pan out, you can then upgrade your unwritten alliances to a written one a la MOU.

If you put yourself in Aoun's shoes back in 2005, I don't think what I'm suggesting is unrealistic or irrational.
 

Manifesto

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter

Did he ever urge action or at least condemn Israel's infrigement on our sovereignty or its violation of our maritime borders?
 
Top