Bahia Hariri Says Seeking Pacification in Sidon after Rival Demos, Unrest

Mowaten,
you seem to have misunderstood my comment: شر البلية ما يضحك in Arabic it should be clearer :)
the problem is we all know we are being manipulated from outside, but internally we lack agreement on who the ennemies are:
- we agree on israel.
- the syrian regime is our worst ennemy in our view while you guys consider it your ally.
the problem is, the syrian regime is falling down and whoever will take over will be totally against the shias for supporting this regime.
the shia should wake up and distance themselves from this falling regime at all costs before it is too late.

I don't usually agree with Geha, but I think he makes a good point there. We agree on Israel and disagree on Syria, and so long as Nasrallah, a head of a SHIITE militant group, supports Assad, then some non-Shiite forces may want to seek revenge once Assad falls.

In the end, for the sake of Lebanese unity, Nasrallah should have not backed Assad so bluntly, even if this is against his strategic interests, because such a stance is inviting revenge and hatred towards his followers.

geha, there was never a question about the fact that "whoever" takes over in syria would be against Hezbollah. there had been many declarations by the rebels since the start, and the support they got from Saudi, Qatar, USA, etc, was conditioned to that. The reason why the "west" supports them is not innocent, i hope nobody here is naive enough to think they do it out of good heart. they simply know that if the rebels come to power they will cut the hezbollah-syria-iran alliance and disconnect iran from hezbollah.
this can only serve the interests of israel, who i suspect will attacks us as soon as they think Hezbollah is besieged and unable to resupply.

given that, and knowing that assad's syria, with all the bad things they did to us, also did some good things, like preventing one sect from eliminating or dominating the other (hafez stopped kamal joumblat from eliminating the Christians, he also contained Palestinian ambitions) and they also stopped the war we had gotten ourselves into (let's not forget they came in AT LEBANON's REQUEST!) all this, and the fact that they went out of Lebanon when we asked them to (and i was in the protests way before 2005, so dont think i supported syria's presence in lebanon)makes me consider that syria can be my ally, AND i actually need their support to defend my country.

@mowaten
there are some major errors in your comment :)waw!
- kamal joumblat preserved the christian presence and it is only after he was killed by the syrians, and the israeli invasion of Lebanon that the syrians with joumblat kicked off the christians from the region.
- the syrian did not come at our request: they created the situation for us to ask them to come in. have you forgot the syrian saika and what they did?
- the syrians did not leave at our request: they were kicked out.
now there remains the major question: do you agree that hizbushaitan should change course and deliver their weapons to the state in order to avoid hurting the shias first and the lebanese second?

lol geha, you can;t rewrite history:
"During the period between 1975 and 1976, Jumblatt acted as the main leader of the Lebanese opposition in the war, and with the aid of the PLO the LNM rapidly gained control over nearly 70% of Lebanon. This prompted Syrian intervention, since the Assad regime feared a collapse of the Christian-dominated order."

also you say they did not come in at our request and a second later you say they we asked them to come in. lol?
and you say they did not leave at our request, you say "kicked out", but please define kicked out!?

there were massive protests asking them to leave, they left. no violence, no blood.

you're irrational geha, we could agree on some aspects but you're in total denial of everything that doesnt suit your beliefs.

ps: to answer your final question, as i said elsewhere:

we get to the same old debate that never ends: you say surrendering weapons will avoid war, i say war started when hezbollah had no weapons, and didnt even exist. it's their weapons that liberated the south, it's their weapons that makes israel think twice before attacking. if they surrender them you can already start renaming the villages south of litani with hebrew names.

@mowaten
I was sitting on the beirut council during that period :) and no KAMAL jounblat was not OK with what they syrians through saika were doing to christians. actualy he was killed mainly because he refused the syrian entry to lebanon.
whatever you say, the syrians were kicked out of Lebanon, and that was denoted in the way they ran out. normally it takes any army a lot more time to withdraw.
now for the israeli part: the plo actions in fatehland in the south were the reason for invasions, followed by hizbushaitan actions.
if there were no more threats to israel, why should they do anything?
on the ther hand, the weapons of hizbushaitan are a concrete reason for them to do somthing :)
no I AM NOT THE ONE IN DENIAL :)

lol you're even in denial that you're in denial.

I know, I know mate, this is what is killing us every time it happens. I just cannot understand why and when they will begin to see that their future is in a Lebanon united and strong. Just why do we send a team to the Olympics when here at home each one of us hates the other. I don't know bro, I feel deeply saddened, deeply saddened. May God enlighten their hearts and minds.

indeed it is sad phoenix, i can only agree.
new_guy: to be fair it's not one part of the lebanese, it's more or less all of them. arent christians too placing their allegiance with western countries? didnt they once even place it with israel? didnt some serve the syrians when they occupied lebanon?
sad indeed, but pointing the finger on "the other" while turning a blind eye to our "own" mistakes will not help in making things evovle.

well mowaten i agree with what u said.. cant argue with that...