PSP & Joumblatt corruption files

  • Advertisement
  • ignis

    ignis

    New Member
    Depends. Most of open courts are shit shows.
    What do you mean by 'shit show'? Let us say your lord jumblat is the first to be trialed and found guilty of the charges, in an open court that is agreed upon and upheld a priori by everyone, and which is also accessed and overseen by everyone, would you still be defensive of him and consider this process a 'shit show'?

    I am aware of the difficulty of the situation for the respective followers and supporters where their convicted lord happens to be their primary/only source of 'food and security', but i am also aware that they are human beings and that therefore their humanity can be appealed to in those matters. Dogs are generally unconditionally loyal to and supportive of their human master because a) of him being the source of their dog-food and security (e.g. loyal to him regardless if he happens to be torturing, killing and eating other dogs), and b) their nature thru which they as dogs are fulfilled (namely by being provided for with dog-food and security, irrespective of anything else). If public shame alone doesn't push you to ditch him, try to ask yourself the following question and ponder it: "does whatever Jumblat provides me with fulfill me as a human being?"
     
    MELF

    MELF

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    بالروح بالدم نفديك وليد بيك
     
    XMyso

    XMyso

    Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What do you mean by 'shit show'? Let us say your lord jumblat is the first to be trialed and found guilty of the charges, in an open court that is agreed upon and upheld a priori by everyone, and which is also accessed and overseen by everyone, would you still be defensive of him and consider this process a 'shit show'?

    I am aware of the difficulty of the situation for the respective followers and supporters where their convicted lord happens to be their primary/only source of 'food and security', but i am also aware that they are human beings and that therefore their humanity can be appealed to in those matters. Dogs are generally unconditionally loyal to and supportive of their human master because a) of him being the source of their dog-food and security (e.g. loyal to him regardless if he happens to be torturing, killing and eating other dogs), and b) their nature thru which they as dogs are fulfilled (namely by being provided for with dog-food and security, irrespective of anything else). If public shame alone doesn't push you to ditch him, try to ask yourself the following question and ponder it: "does whatever Jumblat provides me with fulfill me as a human being?"
    Habibi. There is no Law / Justice in Lebanon. Listen to the voice leaks of Ghada Aoun and her support of Micho. Every Judge is politicized and corrupt. I would rather have a world court than a Maronite circlejerk prosecuting a Druze. Even if it was Talal Arslan or Wiam Wahab.
     
    ignis

    ignis

    New Member
    Habibi. There is no Law / Justice in Lebanon. Listen to the voice leaks of Ghada Aoun and her support of Micho. Every Judge is politicized and corrupt. I would rather have a world court than a Maronite circlejerk prosecuting a Druze. Even if it was Talal Arslan or Wiam Wahab.
    Your doubt or lack of trust in the supposed judiciary body would have been justifiable if the proposed justice system isn't an 'open justice' one where not only a) the principles and rules by and through which any guilty party is found, trialed and convicted are agreed upon a priori by all differing parties, but also where b) this process itself is overseen and checked by everyone thereby eliminating to a bare minimum any possible effect of a personal/subjective bias standing in the way of the objective and just application of the aforementioned agreed-upon rules and principles, and where therefore c) any judge is equally a potential object/target of it.

    Under such system, would you still be defensive of Jumblat being trialed and possibly convicted - even if supposedly the judges happen personally to be all anti-Jumblat?
     
    XMyso

    XMyso

    Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Your doubt or lack of trust in the supposed judiciary body would have been justifiable if the proposed justice system isn't an 'open justice' one where not only a) the principles and rules by and through which any guilty party is found, trialed and convicted are agreed upon a priori by all differing parties, but also where b) this process itself is overseen and checked by everyone thereby eliminating to a bare minimum any possible effect of a personal/subjective bias standing in the way of the objective and just application of the aforementioned agreed-upon rules and principles, and where therefore c) any judge is equally a potential object/target of it.

    Under such system, would you still be defensive of Jumblat being trialed and possibly convicted - even if supposedly the judges happen personally to be all anti-Jumblat?
    No, I don't trust the judgement of the politicized masses either. Every Hezbollah fan would find Joumblatt guilty. Leave it to the world court and a third party.
     
    ignis

    ignis

    New Member
    No, I don't trust the judgement of the politicized masses either. Every Hezbollah fan would find Joumblatt guilty. Leave it to the world court and a third party.
    It is the judges that issue the ruling, not the masses thru a majority vote. The masses' role is mainly restricted to overseeing the process. Having cleared that up, what added value does "a world court and a third party" have when the proposed national open court already operates (on) the same universal justice-principles that are adopted by the supposed world court (and are agreed-upon nationally at the national open court's inception), and like the world court (and here i'm charitably assuming the world court is also an open court), it (its operation) is open to, and thus overseen by, the public and the world. If In both cases the justice-principles of the court are universal, and (the process of) their operation is under universal oversight, on what ground then, beside that of defending your convicted lord just because he happens to be your lord, do you base your claim that the personal/subjective bias of the judges affect their decisions less in a world court than in a national open court?
     
    Top