Zahi Wehbe: GUILTY AS HELL!

OrangeMusk

Active Member
Come on guys, freedom of speech does not mean the right to defamation and accusations.
By the way, what happened to inoccent until proven guilty?
I live in a country where freedom of speech is in the first amendment, and we see people getting sacked, fired, criticized and tried because of a slip of a tongue that does not border on what is being said by our so called "jounalists".
I hope Chaoul is fined a 100 million liras because what he wrote is thousand times worse even than what Wehbi wrote.
And here is freedom of speech and thought for ya!
 

Youchka

Legendary Member
Obviously, laws in Lebanon need a huge reform.
You cannot have a constitution that promotes freedom of the press and yet have the laws so limiting to the point that an article like this one gets someone charged.
The press ought to work as one organization seeking a common goal for once instead of wasting their time on flaming and reporting the visits and receptions of their boss.

I agree that th article of Zahi is nothing to be compared with the one of Sahoul. However we have a law that forbids making fun or insulting the president, let them change this law and then, the president can be mocked metlo metel gheiro.

We are yet to see what will happen with the lawsuit of Hariri against Ayoub.
 

Observer

Well-Known Member
Partially agree, no names were mentioned in the article. Two adjectives however must have tipped the minds of the judges into beleiving Zahi had trespassed the boundaries of generalizations when he ended up identifying his subject: Fakhamat and General. How many living lebanese individuals can be identified with this naming combination? I know of two, so sa77tein 3ala rasso.. To illustrate with another example, read someone writing this on a daily paper of no news:

" We woke up today, to the sound of the same 3afrit
" he who stole our houses in down town Beirut
" the inheritant of saudi money and son of a wahhabi royalist
" and we said " Enough, kid, since the death of your 'maybe' dad
" who had started the orgy of al nahb wal fassad,
" bombs have detonated, churches were burnt
" and many lebanese have their dear lives lost
" and we do beleive it's all your bloody fault
" so fikka a little 3an samena ya bou saksoukeh
" go back to your tribal habitat in the south east
" before our national tribunal 'ketchup' with you one day soon
" and make your aunt come a long way to visit you
" from saida up to Roumiehs underground saloon.

Are you or you not able to guess who the gifted writer is alluding to in this masterpiece of his? Hint: think outside the box.. :biggrin:

looooooooooooooooooooooooool. This is a masterpiece. loooooool. 1 year jail and 500,000,000 LL fine.
 

CPL

Well-Known Member
This might not just be it. Prepare yourself for a whole purge, and FTV & Al-Mustaqbal (and their satellites) might be facing a total shut down in the near future.
 

chafic

Well-Known Member
CPL said:
This might not just be it. Prepare yourself for a whole purge, and FTV & Al-Mustaqbal (and their satellites) might be facing a total shut down in the near future.

Great, another MTV
 

taifoon

Well-Known Member
Hallo

Ok so what :thumbup1: I'm not defending any politician! You're free to write that..Does that mean you deserve to be fined/jailed?

Isn't that the truth anyway!? Saad Hariri or Emile Lahoud..Why to defend them or praise them when they weakened Lebanon!? So Emile Lahoud was our former president,does that make him a saint,and non-corrupt,and free of any blood on his hand,and innocent and shouldn't be criticized or have an angry article written about him!?

If I write an angry article about Ariel Sharon or Samir Geagea or Walid Jumblatt,or any such similiar people who I know committed bad things against our country,I dont have the right to do so?

Hey if this article was written by an pro-opposition writer,but about Rafic hariri for example,same style and similiar words,and that writer was fined,will you have the same reaction!?

PS:What do you mean think outside the box,are you hinting at something? haha :-D
Salam

Hi, the writer accused "fakhamat" al "general" for murder. Anyone who defends the conception of "freedom of expression" in this case is doing so while lifting it by its tail bi mal2att. I am happy that the judicial system seems to be still working, at least a little, at leat somewhere, because the subject of journalistic Freedoms is a true complex set of mazes, very hard to navigate through.

If someone from the opposition wrote something similar against the bunch of theives and unrest stirrers among the loyalists, i might applaude him, but will not object much against the judiciary systems verdict of guilt on him, if the article was similiraly formulated. Fabricating plain lies or distorting on purpose certain facts in order to construct defamation poems, personal insults or direct accusations against someone may be overlooked on popular forums and in gatherings outside billiard halls, but hardly on certified newspapers or other media. According to my experiences in life, few human conceptions should be vowed in absurdum. Let me give you an example to illustrate how complex the issue of freedom of speech may be:

As loyalist host in a popular radio program, you have a daily session where people from everwhere are invited to call and voice their opinions about a certain topic of the day, which you chose. You chose to let people talk about the syrian workers in Lebanon. 33 out of 36 callers let hear their insults and cursings rain down on "the syrian workers". The next day you chose to talk about the syrian food. 48 out 55 on air callers let everyone understand that the syrian food is no better than the syrian workers.. You think "aha, i am doing fine.." The following day you ask your listeners to share their opinion about Hariris murder case and its syrian connection.. And by the end of that day we end up hearing that 12 syrian workers were burned alive in their tent in north Tripoli. Is it a coincidence? Maybe, but more probably not.. Is the Freedom of broadcasting live eruptive anti-syrian opinions holier than the risk this imposes in inciting a gang of hooligans to attack poor workers while sleeping after a long days hard work? I think not. Next time it may be about sunni beiruties, metni lf'ers or others, right?

Where self restraint is abscent, and in our context, i'd rather see the law seal with wax every mouth that directly or indirectly contributes to the death of innocent people.
 

CPL

Well-Known Member
why? how come?

Because such media outlets are based on the likes of Zahi Wehbe, their articles and news fabrication is the mere engine for their infamous success.

If justice is to go on the correct path (as indications are showing), it's not the leaves that will pay the most, it's the core.
 

CPL

Well-Known Member
Great, another MTV

Get your facts straight, they are not another MTV, and are completely different. MTV was promoting an idea, FTV and its satellite promote false information, incite people to fight, and daily harm many people's dignities. Ma3leich, sma7lna fiya ya chafic.

yel3an habeltak
 

taifoon

Well-Known Member
i was shocked to read you writing about saad and his "may be" dad.

if Rafic Hariri is not his biological father, who may be this father ?

Sue the guy who wrote the article on the paper of no news-- and you'll find out..
 

agnostic

Legendary Member
Sue the guy who wrote the article on the paper of no news-- and you'll find out..
I am not interested about sueing anybody.

I am only curious to know who is the biological father of saad hariri. I hesitate between khalid and abdallah. I thought you can help on this. But perhaps some forumers here are enough close to saad to know the exact answer.
 

chafic

Well-Known Member
CPL said:
Get your facts straight, they are not another MTV, and are completely different. MTV was promoting an idea, FTV and its satellite promote false information, incite people to fight, and daily harm many people's dignities. Ma3leich, sma7lna fiya ya chafic.

yel3an habeltak

Adnan Addoum at the time thought the same about MTV.

NB: trying subliminal messages?
 

taifoon

Well-Known Member
Adnan Addoum at the time thought the same about MTV.

NB: trying subliminal messages?

chafic, the syrians thought also they were doing the right thing when they occupied Lebanon and killed lebanese

The israelis also thought they were doing the right thing when they bombed civilian shelters and killed hundreds of innocents

The nazis also thought they were doing the right thing when they gazed millions of people

The raper also thinks he is doing the right thing when raping, and so thinks the killer and theif.

Does "right and wrong" exist, at all?
 

chafic

Well-Known Member
taifoon said:
chafic, the syrians thought also they were doing the right thing when they occupied Lebanon and killed lebanese

The israelis also thought they were doing the right thing when they bombed civilian shelters and killed hundreds of innocents

The nazis also thought they were doing the right thing when they gazed millions of people

The raper also thinks he is doing the right thing when raping, and so thinks the killer and theif.

Does "right and wrong" exist, at all?

Well, the interpretation of the examples you gave differs, so it depends on what is meant by the right thing; Does it mean beneficial (as in personal gain), or rather compliant with a set of human values.

Regardless of that, right and wrong exist (and they actually evolve in time). I'm not advocating extreme skepticism here, but life is not a set of blacks and whites, rights and wrongs. Actually, what we accept as right (or the other way for wrong) are simply the values considered as positive by an overwhelming majority of people (for instance slavery was not wrong centuries ago, now it is...same for killing, raping...).
For a big number of matters, the "right and wrong" are not agreed upon, thus the importance of freedom of expression (not freedom of killing or raping or....which we agreed are wrong).
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
Well, the interpretation of the examples you gave differs, so it depends on what is meant by the right thing; Does it mean beneficial (as in personal gain), or rather compliant with a set of human values.

Regardless of that, right and wrong exist (and they actually evolve in time). I'm not advocating extreme skepticism here, but life is not a set of blacks and whites, rights and wrongs. Actually, what we accept as right (or the other way for wrong) are simply the values considered as positive by an overwhelming majority of people (for instance slavery was not wrong centuries ago, now it is...same for killing, raping...).
For a big number of matters, the "right and wrong" are not agreed upon, thus the importance of freedom of expression (not freedom of killing or raping or....which we agreed are wrong).

I totally disagree. The concept of right and wrong, even though dynamic at times, has been around for thousands of years. The fundamentals of each definition did not change much.

as humanity was evolving, and as it was faced by new challenges, at every cross roads people knew exactly what's right and what's not, yet they didn't always embrace the right path. Distinguishing between the two is an ability that we ve always possessed; however, our will to embrace one and not the other is what's evolving.

if you examine the oldest laws that were passed to us by ancient civilizations, the code of Hammurabi for example (you can read it in the image provided below), clearly identifies the major wrong doings. In parallel to that, the main religions around the globe converge on very similar sets of values, only extremist interpretations seem to disrupt that.

so in conclusion the gray area that you are referring to is not that gray, and the division between black and white in this aspect is much more defined, and could even be set in stone.


CodexOfHammurabi.jpg
 

chafic

Well-Known Member
Dark Angel said:
I totally disagree. The concept of right and wrong, even though dynamic at times, has been around for thousands of years. The fundamentals of each definition did not change much.

as humanity was evolving, and as it was faced by new challenges, at every cross roads people knew exactly what's right and what's not, yet they didn't always embrace the right path. Distinguishing between the two is an ability that we ve always possessed; however, our will to embrace one and not the other is what's evolving.

if you examine the oldest laws that were passed to us by ancient civilizations, the code of Hammurabi for example (you can read it in the image provided below), clearly identifies the major wrong doings. In parallel to that, the main religions around the globe converge on very similar sets of values, only extremist interpretations seem to disrupt that.

so in conclusion the gray area that you are referring to is not that gray, and the division between black and white in this aspect is much more defined, and could even be set in stone.


CodexOfHammurabi.jpg

:smile: We always had the concept of right and wrong, but our judgment of right and wrong certainly evolved and will still do.

Here's a couple of points from Hamurabi's code of laws:
[FIELDSET="Hamurabi's code of laws"]
1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.
......

282. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.
[/FIELDSET]

An important case would be the examination of the different religions (written in old times) and their depiction of their Gods which are supposed to represent what is good.

Well, I must say things evolved hugely.
That's beside the topic, but anyway.
 

hhhh23

Active Member
I dont know what people are hailing, the article was an OK article describing a political point of view. Now, in the Paul Chaoul case, clearly there were alot of insults, and it deserves a punishment. But here, I cannot see the reason.

I recall GMA used to call Lahoud agent and Syrian and pawn for Syrians and and in lots of his interviews, writings, etc. I dont see how Wehbe's article defer. Wasnt Lahoud a president when Aoun used to attack him in all interviews?
 

drinkaholic

Active Member
Hi, the writer accused "fakhamat" al "general" for murder. Anyone who defends the conception of "freedom of expression" in this case is doing so while lifting it by its tail bi mal2att. I am happy that the judicial system seems to be still working, at least a little, at leat somewhere, because the subject of journalistic Freedoms is a true complex set of mazes, very hard to navigate through.

If someone from the opposition wrote something similar against the bunch of theives and unrest stirrers among the loyalists, i might applaude him, but will not object much against the judiciary systems verdict of guilt on him, if the article was similiraly formulated. Fabricating plain lies or distorting on purpose certain facts in order to construct defamation poems, personal insults or direct accusations against someone may be overlooked on popular forums and in gatherings outside billiard halls, but hardly on certified newspapers or other media. According to my experiences in life, few human conceptions should be vowed in absurdum. Let me give you an example to illustrate how complex the issue of freedom of speech may be:

As loyalist host in a popular radio program, you have a daily session where people from everwhere are invited to call and voice their opinions about a certain topic of the day, which you chose. You chose to let people talk about the syrian workers in Lebanon. 33 out of 36 callers let hear their insults and cursings rain down on "the syrian workers". The next day you chose to talk about the syrian food. 48 out 55 on air callers let everyone understand that the syrian food is no better than the syrian workers.. You think "aha, i am doing fine.." The following day you ask your listeners to share their opinion about Hariris murder case and its syrian connection.. And by the end of that day we end up hearing that 12 syrian workers were burned alive in their tent in north Tripoli. Is it a coincidence? Maybe, but more probably not.. Is the Freedom of broadcasting live eruptive anti-syrian opinions holier than the risk this imposes in inciting a gang of hooligans to attack poor workers while sleeping after a long days hard work? I think not. Next time it may be about sunni beiruties, metni lf'ers or others, right?

Where self restraint is abscent, and in our context, i'd rather see the law seal with wax every mouth that directly or indirectly contributes to the death of innocent people.


Hi again,Taifoon :msngrin:

First,I apologize because I have this habit of reading too fast,so I miss out some important details:
I didn't know that this article was written back in 2005
I didn't know that this article was somewhat accusing Emile Lahoud of committing a killing

(I thought Zahi Wehbe wrote it recently and was just angry at the president for what he did to Lebanon)

Definately,accusation of murder,that is a serious thing and if not proven right,it shouldn't be spread around in media

I totally understand what you said

Zahi Wehbe shouldn't have written such an article

But I just think,that for example,such [accusations] true or untrue,are always done by politicians ( I know this is different than journalists,but if politicians in Lebanon are doing it,why can't journalists then!?

[2 wrongs dont make a right,but I hope you see what I mean,it's hypocrisy!]

Like you know what,with all respect,when Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah accused the government of collaborating with Israel in the 2006 july war,that is like indirectly accusing the government of participating in and approving the killing 1,200 civilians..

That's a serious accusation (high treason) and was said just a few months after the war ended so people were still devastated by the war

Wouldn't you expect the people who were affected by the war to have been incited to possible violence,when they heard such an accusation? Doesn't this accusation have possible harmful consequences,just like when accusing Syrian workers of bad things?

Was this accusation ever proven right?

I oppose the current government mainly due to its economic unfairness,and the politicians in it,but I believe such an accusation is dangerous

Don't you think this is a similiar situation?

Thanks,salam!
 
Top