Syrian War - Open Debate 2015

kmarthe

Legendary Member
Staff member
#1
Don't expect your post to last long here Genius because there is a recently developping tendency in this forum when you dare to criticize is to first be called (very low level) names by some forumers, then some moderators come shortly after and selectively delete your reply while keeping the original posts. If this trend continues the OR that we know, where things are called by their true names sometimes, will change into a model not very different from the new era of freedom looming in Syria.
Kteer mahdoomeen the Islamists on this forum, from all the sides.
They represent real life, everywhere they establish, life, intellect, arts, intelligence.. cease to exist. Subhanallah.
I chose to reply here so that we don't diverge the Syria thread and to make Jo's and the moderators' life easier :) My reply has to do directly with the quality of the OR and the space of the sacred freedom that it provides, a freedom for which we in the FPM offered many martyrs and many sacrifices.

I have no problem with people choosing to be Islamists or whatever they want as long as that choice does not affect my freedom of speech, my freedom of thought and my lifestyle. My observation came following few incidents lately on this forum and the sense of censorship that is being somehow slowly implemented by some forumers and moderators whenever delicate subjects are considered.

1- I understand that, in our current times, everyone has the right to criticize an ideology or a religion or a political system or a social structure and that this right ends when the criticism becomes an insult to the persons adhering to this ideology by discriminating against them or by calling for violence against them. In that regard, suggesting that a religion that has been used (whether we like it or not) as the motto for violent actions (including what is happening in Syria today) against others who do not adhere to it or even those who adhere to it, that this religion needs reform so it can be defended is NOT an insult to its followers. If it is something it is to point out the places of weakness and help its followers to identify weaknesses that they don't see but that others who live in a different corner clearly see. If some tend to interpret every criticism as an insult and gets mad either by replying in a z2a2eh way or by selectively deleting posts that they don't like, I am sorry but these practices do not meet the expectations that we have always had in FPM circles. Worse, when forumers who resort to personal and very low level attacks then claim they are highly educated, that is a sign of immaturity and an insult to science because science is what makes the brain of a human evolve and what helps him/her grow in a manner to conduct respectful conversations with other of their equal, lower or higher educational stand.

2- I also understand that a moderator is like a judge whose responsibility is to ensure that discussions remain within the boundaries of respect, of a decent action-reaction to a subject of actuality. But when the personal views and reactions of this moderator take over his/her ability to stand on an equal distance from all, that is not fair moderation anymore. People who are not able to dissociate their emotions from their actions when put in a judging position are simply not qualified to remain in this position. I iterate my respect to ALL moderators with no exceptions, but for the sake of giving everyone here the chance to say his/her mind, if you guys feel too much involved in the discussions and cannot preserve everyone's right for a quality answer, then please feel free to resign and hand the responsibility to someone else.

Let's not go further Genius into the Syrian events and context here and please keep this thread (or other if more appropriate) dedicated to the OR mission and discussions quality.
 
  • Advertisement
  • joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    #3

    Fast forward to 3:27 then listen and learn! Especially for Indie :) Moving this discussion to the new thread, even though HA and FPM supporters want to pretend that they can't see or hear what's in this video lol
     

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #5
    Aoun_Naweya: I oppose HA involvement in Syria
    Aoun: Shut the hell up!

    lol

    How do you reconcile the two Aouns dear FPMers? :)
    I suspect some dear FPMers naweya are to answer you like this:
    FPMers naweya: omar_lubnan strongly believes he's funny and smart
    FPMers: Shut the hell up omar_lubnan! :)

    Let me clarify: I am only the messenger, don't shoot me, because I have grown to like you as a harmless nagging Hariri follower ;)
     

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    #6

    Fast forward to 3:27 then listen and learn! Especially for Indie :) Moving this discussion to the new thread, even though HA and FPM supporters want to pretend that they can't see or hear what's in this video lol
    true there is a double standard here.. and HA are no angels. We won't forget they were allied with the Syrians when they were here.
    But this same double standard applies to EVERYONE. I can dig out videos on ALL , ALL Lebanese politicians where they have double and triple standards, depending how the wind is blowing... Hariri, Jumblatt, Aoun, Sanioura, SHN, Geagea... all of them. No surprise whatsoever.
     

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    #7
    I suspect some dear FPMers naweya are to answer you like this:
    FPMers naweya: omar_lubnan strongly believes he's funny and smart
    FPMers: Shut the hell up omar_lubnan! :)

    Let me clarify: I am only the messenger, don't shoot me, because I have grown to like you as a harmless nagging Hariri follower ;)
    Aoun_Naweya:

    الحرص على ضبط الأوضاع على طول الحدود اللبنانية السورية بالاتجاهين وعدم السماح باقامة منطقة عازلة في لبنان وباستعمال لبنان مقرا او منطلقا لتهريب السلاح والمسلحين ويبقى الحق في التضامن الانساني والتعبير السياسي والاعلامي مكفولا تحت سقف الدستور والقانون والمصلحة الوطنية العليا

    Aoun: wtf!!
     

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    #8
    true there is a double standard here.. and HA are no angels. We won't forget they were allied with the Syrians when they were here.
    But this same double standard applies to EVERYONE. I can dig out videos on ALL , ALL Lebanese politicians where they have double and triple standards, depending how the wind is blowing... Hariri, Jumblatt, Aoun, Sanioura, SHN, Geagea... all of them. No surprise whatsoever.
    Sounds reasonable :)
    help Indie out a bit lol
     

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #9

    Fast forward to 3:27 then listen and learn! Especially for Indie :) Moving this discussion to the new thread, even though HA and FPM supporters want to pretend that they can't see or hear what's in this video lol
    And you think this Kermit abou 2ar3a was on spot w kamasho la Nasrallah, for having the conditions changed since 2007 and for not knowing better when he talked about the red lines of Nahr el Bared?
    Tayyib, for all you know, Nasrallah himself may have realized afterwards he was wrong on that and his decision to engage those terrorists today is based on that lesson and experience. And FPMers did criticize Nasrallah's position then. So what's your point of showing us Kermit's muppet show?

    Anyway, this is how my naweya goes: Thank you Nasrallah for changing your mind, and thank you HA guys for kicking Nusra/Da3esh/7awash/hamaj/orcs behinds, from the north, east to the south and in between.


    Aoun_Naweya:

    الحرص على ضبط الأوضاع على طول الحدود اللبنانية السورية بالاتجاهين وعدم السماح باقامة منطقة عازلة في لبنان وباستعمال لبنان مقرا او منطلقا لتهريب السلاح والمسلحين ويبقى الحق في التضامن الانساني والتعبير السياسي والاعلامي مكفولا تحت سقف الدستور والقانون والمصلحة الوطنية العليا

    Aoun: wtf!!
    your naweya: I am a funny dude
    Your self: HAHAHAHAHA...:)
     

    elAshtar

    Well-Known Member
    #11
    And you think this Kermit abou 2ar3a was on spot w kamasho la Nasrallah, for having the conditions changed since 2007 and for not knowing better when he talked about the red lines of Nahr el Bared?
    Tayyib, for all you know, Nasrallah himself may have realized afterwards he was wrong on that and his decision to engage those terrorists today is based on that lesson and experience. And FPMers did criticize Nasrallah's position then. So what's your point of showing us Kermit's muppet show?

    Anyway, this is how my naweya goes: Thank you Nasrallah for changing your mind, and thank you HA guys for kicking Nusra/Da3esh/7awash/hamaj/orcs behinds, from the north, east to the south and in between.




    your naweya: I am a funny dude
    Your self: HAHAHAHAHA...:)
    2elo lal mastool, the Qaeda already considered Al sham 2ard Jihad. So it is not important whether ou provoke
    arrow-10x10.png
    them or not :D .. ekhet el habal.
    true there is a double standard here.. and HA are no angels. We won't forget they were allied with the Syrians when they were here.
    But this same double standard applies to EVERYONE. I can dig out videos on ALL , ALL Lebanese politicians where they have double and triple standards, depending how the wind is blowing... Hariri, Jumblatt, Aoun, Sanioura, SHN, Geagea... all of them. No surprise whatsoever.
    No there are no double standards. In 2007 the Alqaeda and the salafists were considering Lebanon and Sham 2ard 'Nusra' and their main focus was Iraq unlike the situation in 2012 where they considered them 2ard Jihad and had their agenda to take control over syria. Besides, NAsrallah was never against attacking fateh el islam. He was talking about the refugee camp being Khat ahmar. you think the LA would be able to attack the camp if HA was against it? If Sayyed Nasrallah went and said in public that he army need to finish off Fateh el islam, he would have been accused of calling for killing the palestinians and the sunnis.
    This schmuck claimed that Nasrallah was against attacking the cam becuase that was a syrian interest. Everyone knows that it was SYRIA who supplied the army with the necessary ammo for its tanks and other stuff. hada el habeele can fool only el masateel.
     

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    #13
    No there are no double standards. In 2007 the Alqaeda and the salafists were considering Lebanon and Sham 2ard 'Nusra' and their main focus was Iraq unlike the situation in 2012 where they considered them 2ard Jihad and had their agenda to take control over syria. Besides, NAsrallah was never against attacking fateh el islam. He was talking about the refugee camp being Khat ahmar. you think the LA would be able to attack the camp if HA was against it? If Sayyed Nasrallah went and said in public that he army need to finish off Fateh el islam, he would have been accused of calling for killing the palestinians and the sunnis.
    This schmuck claimed that Nasrallah was against attacking the cam becuase that was a syrian interest. Everyone knows that it was SYRIA who supplied the army with the necessary ammo for its tanks and other stuff. hada el habeele can fool only el masateel.
    it doesnt matter what Nusra considered Lebanon back in 2007... they massacred many soldiers, in cold blood. The Army needed to clean them up. SHN didn't have to say that the camp is a "khatt ahmar". If he doesnt want to be perceived as attacking the Sunna and the Palestinians, why say ANYTHING!? keep quiet and say: whatever the government and the army decide is necessary. Period. But i remember that statement, and i remember how it left many with a negative view of HA... including me.
     

    Dirty Dragon

    Well-Known Member
    #14
    You have been repeating this 3:27 like an autistic. There is no double standard or contradiction. There is two major differences:
    1- The Syrian Civil War and al Qaida v2
    2- Palestinan refugee camp

    There is past thread in which I argued against Nahr el Bared operation and similar operations in other camps. I don't know if Hezbollah is using similar calculus but I would bet there is overlap at the minimum.

    Nahr El Bared Model: Is Disarming The Palestinians Really a Good Idea
     

    kmarthe

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #15
    I object :)

    People should only listen to what SHN says in this video… this is enough to see the double standard. Forget about what the other guys says :) you don't need him, you're smart on your own!
    I would make an exception to my decision not to debate with you because I think you touched upon an aspect that relates to the quality of the OR discussions.

    Throughout all my years of FPM involvment including the years spent on this forum, never were labels like msateel, ahbal w mhabeel, schmuck, etc. part of the tolerated vocabulary in dialogues conducted on FPM media. I understand that some forumers have special protection by some moderators (which is againt the rules of fair moderation and against our FPM culture as I pointed out in the first post here), but what this reflects is simply another regression in the level of FPM communications platforms and media. If that trend continues, I don't know where the OR would be, that is simply not FPM and not us!

    Therefore, FPMers here and non-FPMers who share a common minimal understanding about principles like freedom of speech, decency in dialogue, and cultivated dialogue are called upon to make an effort to restore the OR to what it used to be. We will simply not accept that the Orange media reaches such a low level.

    Now back to my decision of end of debates with you!
     

    Nonan

    Well-Known Member
    #16
    it doesnt matter what Nusra considered Lebanon back in 2007... they massacred many soldiers, in cold blood. The Army needed to clean them up. SHN didn't have to say that the camp is a "khatt ahmar". If he doesnt want to be perceived as attacking the Sunna and the Palestinians, why say ANYTHING!? keep quiet and say: whatever the government and the army decide is necessary. Period. But i remember that statement, and i remember how it left many with a negative view of HA... including me.
    Agree with everything you say BUT

    The army did end up taking the camp (after much sacrifice) khatt aHmar or no khatt aHmar... Now what about Ersal? The terrorist Ersalis killed a captain and a sergeant in plain sight and paraded their bodies in Ersal... then they covered another attack that claimed the lives of 10s of soldiers and left over 20 kidnapped... and it seems it is khatt aHmar... so where are the double standards?
     

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    #17
    Agree with everything you say BUT

    The army did end up taking the camp (after much sacrifice) khatt aHmar or no khatt aHmar... Now what about Ersal? The terrorist Ersalis killed a captain and a sergeant in plain sight and paraded their bodies in Ersal... then they covered another attack that claimed the lives of 10s of soldiers and left over 20 kidnapped... and it seems it is khatt aHmar... so where are the double standards?
    i dont disagree with you. I was just talking about SNH's statements.. it was double standard between 2007 and now. Now all this aside, the army is TOO LATE, they should've invaded and liberated Ersal from day one, whether they have political cover or not... unfortunately we have a commander in chief who is too scared to make a daring decision that might cost him his chances of becoming president.

    WHenever/wherever there are terrorists, the army should go in and clean up... camp or Ersal.
     

    4U2IMI8

    Well-Known Member
    #18

    Fast forward to 3:27 then listen and learn! Especially for Indie :) Moving this discussion to the new thread, even though HA and FPM supporters want to pretend that they can't see or hear what's in this video lol

    You know I am a calm man, I never loose objectivity no matter how stupid the people I debate with.


    I listened to the 3:27 thingy, and I don’t see where the double standard is. In 2007 there was no Syrian war, there was no Al Nusra or ISIS occupying hundreds of kilometers of Lebanese lands, and standing ready at the border of hundreds more.


    In 2007 there was no refugee camps on the border with Syria. Camps infested with terrorists who plot against the LA and the Lebanon in general. In 2007 there was no occupied town called Ersal swarming with terrorists and supporters who killed LA soldiers and officers, and facilitated the kidnapping of tens more. In 2007 there was no open lines of weapon smuggling between Lebanon and Syria, and Ersal and other Lebanese cities were not the place where every injured terrorist in Syria comes to get the best treatment in our hospitals, get better, and go back to fight another day, or kidnap our soldiers.


    This double standard thingy is not only stupid, it’s ridiculous like the people promoting it. We’re in 2015, the 4th year in a bloody war next door. We’re in 2015 where the terrorists who committed unheard of massacres in the history of humanity are inside our borders, attacked and killed our soldiers in cold blood, and kidnapped tens more using them as a trump political card to get what they want.


    Only stupid, ignorant, and Sunni extremists who call Al Nusra and Da3esh rebels just because they hate HA can see double standards in the infamous 3:27 thingy.
     

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    #19
    I chose to reply here so that we don't diverge the Syria thread and to make Jo's and the moderators' life easier :) My reply has to do directly with the quality of the OR and the space of the sacred freedom that it provides, a freedom for which we in the FPM offered many martyrs and many sacrifices.

    I have no problem with people choosing to be Islamists or whatever they want as long as that choice does not affect my freedom of speech, my freedom of thought and my lifestyle. My observation came following few incidents lately on this forum and the sense of censorship that is being somehow slowly implemented by some forumers and moderators whenever delicate subjects are considered.

    1- I understand that, in our current times, everyone has the right to criticize an ideology or a religion or a political system or a social structure and that this right ends when the criticism becomes an insult to the persons adhering to this ideology by discriminating against them or by calling for violence against them. In that regard, suggesting that a religion that has been used (whether we like it or not) as the motto for violent actions (including what is happening in Syria today) against others who do not adhere to it or even those who adhere to it, that this religion needs reform so it can be defended is NOT an insult to its followers. If it is something it is to point out the places of weakness and help its followers to identify weaknesses that they don't see but that others who live in a different corner clearly see. If some tend to interpret every criticism as an insult and gets mad either by replying in a z2a2eh way or by selectively deleting posts that they don't like, I am sorry but these practices do not meet the expectations that we have always had in FPM circles. Worse, when forumers who resort to personal and very low level attacks then claim they are highly educated, that is a sign of immaturity and an insult to science because science is what makes the brain of a human evolve and what helps him/her grow in a manner to conduct respectful conversations with other of their equal, lower or higher educational stand.

    2- I also understand that a moderator is like a judge whose responsibility is to ensure that discussions remain within the boundaries of respect, of a decent action-reaction to a subject of actuality. But when the personal views and reactions of this moderator take over his/her ability to stand on an equal distance from all, that is not fair moderation anymore. People who are not able to dissociate their emotions from their actions when put in a judging position are simply not qualified to remain in this position. I iterate my respect to ALL moderators with no exceptions, but for the sake of giving everyone here the chance to say his/her mind, if you guys feel too much involved in the discussions and cannot preserve everyone's right for a quality answer, then please feel free to resign and hand the responsibility to someone else.

    Let's not go further Genius into the Syrian events and context here and please keep this thread (or other if more appropriate) dedicated to the OR mission and discussions quality.
    Discussion religion on the Syrian war thread will derail it.
     

    Bandar

    Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    #20
    From past readings and the one that I remember the most was their military alliance with
    the Mamluks of Egypt, which were brutal takfeeeris, against crusaders and local communities.

    That alliance saved their existence, the religious takfeer was at a good level within the invader.
    you are a [] who doesnt know anything about the history of your country. if you did, you would know that druze spent a century rebelling against the ottomans (who you probably consider takfiri's), while mostly everyone else in lebanon, including christians, had accepted their rule. you and hanna's gloating about what might happen to the druze in syria is sick and disgusting, not to mention sectarian as hell.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: