Click on image to enlarge smile.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Thank you Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad has threatened Israel with destruction should it intervene in Lebanon this summer again.
The Lebanese people should be thankful to the Iranian leader who is so thoughtful.
Last summer, Ahmadinejad offered the same support to the Syrian people in the event Israel attacked Syria. Back then, while Lebanon was being bombed to near annihilation, the very considerate Ahmadinejad threatened Israel with destruction if it attacked Syria. So the Syrian people should also be thankful to this generous man.
Some might ask "but why didn't he threaten Israel when Lebanon was actually being bombed last summer?"
To such ungrateful people I say "Ahmadinejad does not make empty promises."
When he promises something he delivers. And so he only promises when he knows he will not have to deliver...
Because imagine the moment comes when Ahmadinejad is obliged to deliver on his promise! What a mess that would be. Israel could be hit by a couple missiles. In return, Syria and Iran could have several large cities wiped off the map, the nuclear sites of Iran something of the past, and the leaders of Syria and Iran either toppled or hiding in dungeons.
So Ahmadinejad is also a wise man. He wouldn't want something bad to happen to Iran and his people. This is why he has to strike a balance between the support he offers to Arab nations and the consequences of such a support.
In summary, we should be reasonable and only expect from Ahmadinejad non-empty empty promises. And we should rejoice because we now know that Israel was not planning any invasion this summer since Ahamadinejad has just offered us the full backing of his mighty power.
The Lebanese people should be thankful to the Iranian leader who is so thoughtful.
Last summer, Ahmadinejad offered the same support to the Syrian people in the event Israel attacked Syria. Back then, while Lebanon was being bombed to near annihilation, the very considerate Ahmadinejad threatened Israel with destruction if it attacked Syria. So the Syrian people should also be thankful to this generous man.
Some might ask "but why didn't he threaten Israel when Lebanon was actually being bombed last summer?"
To such ungrateful people I say "Ahmadinejad does not make empty promises."
When he promises something he delivers. And so he only promises when he knows he will not have to deliver...
Because imagine the moment comes when Ahmadinejad is obliged to deliver on his promise! What a mess that would be. Israel could be hit by a couple missiles. In return, Syria and Iran could have several large cities wiped off the map, the nuclear sites of Iran something of the past, and the leaders of Syria and Iran either toppled or hiding in dungeons.
So Ahmadinejad is also a wise man. He wouldn't want something bad to happen to Iran and his people. This is why he has to strike a balance between the support he offers to Arab nations and the consequences of such a support.
In summary, we should be reasonable and only expect from Ahmadinejad non-empty empty promises. And we should rejoice because we now know that Israel was not planning any invasion this summer since Ahamadinejad has just offered us the full backing of his mighty power.
Monday, May 21, 2007
If Fath al-Islam Were Al-Qaeda...
... then shouldn't we see terrorist bombs in Shiite areas in Lebanon?
But we don't see that. All terrorist bombs are taking place in Christian areas. Isn't that odd? In Iraq, the main targets of Al-Qaeda are the foreign armies as well as the Shiites. And if Fath al-Islam were really linked to Al-Qaeda the terror bombs would not be limited to Christian areas.
One explanation is the following: Fath al-Islam is actually a Syrian sponsored terrorist organization. Obviously, the secret service of Hezbollah knows that. Hence, a clear directive from Syria to Fath al-Islam is "never target Shiite areas". Otherwise, it will provoke a major issue with Hezbollah.
So Syria has to play carefully: targeting Christian areas is fair game.
Quite simple!
But we don't see that. All terrorist bombs are taking place in Christian areas. Isn't that odd? In Iraq, the main targets of Al-Qaeda are the foreign armies as well as the Shiites. And if Fath al-Islam were really linked to Al-Qaeda the terror bombs would not be limited to Christian areas.
One explanation is the following: Fath al-Islam is actually a Syrian sponsored terrorist organization. Obviously, the secret service of Hezbollah knows that. Hence, a clear directive from Syria to Fath al-Islam is "never target Shiite areas". Otherwise, it will provoke a major issue with Hezbollah.
So Syria has to play carefully: targeting Christian areas is fair game.
Quite simple!
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The Big Fraud
Michel Aoun does not want a compromise Lebanese President.
But does he want a compromise Prime Minister?
Are the Christians allowed to have their favorite President but the Sunnis can't have their favorite Prime Minister?
Aoun thinks it is OK for the people to elect a top Christian leader. But the top Sunni leader cannot be elected by the people!
Assuming Aoun is elected president, who will he choose for prime minister? Will he accept Hariri? Can the government function with Aoun and Hariri fighting over every detail? Won’t they shoot each other in something like a remake of Virginia Tech’s tragedy?
Weren't Saniora and Berri compromise figures, technocrats so to speak, less divisive than Hariri and Nasrallah? So why should the Christians have their strongest but also most divisive leader, while Sunnis and Shiites have weaker but more moderate figures at the top?
Aoun can't seem (or does not want) to understand the difference between France and Lebanon. We are not quite yet a fully functioning democratic nation. And we, like Iraq, still need a lot of careful treatment. This is simply to prevent wars.
It seems to me that Michel Aoun is living a fantasy: he is riding a white horse and his soldiers are calling him "Napoleon our master"...
But there are two important points he is missing: Napoleon was extremely intelligent, and he won most of his battles. What battles did Aoun win so far?
But does he want a compromise Prime Minister?
Are the Christians allowed to have their favorite President but the Sunnis can't have their favorite Prime Minister?
Aoun thinks it is OK for the people to elect a top Christian leader. But the top Sunni leader cannot be elected by the people!
Assuming Aoun is elected president, who will he choose for prime minister? Will he accept Hariri? Can the government function with Aoun and Hariri fighting over every detail? Won’t they shoot each other in something like a remake of Virginia Tech’s tragedy?
Weren't Saniora and Berri compromise figures, technocrats so to speak, less divisive than Hariri and Nasrallah? So why should the Christians have their strongest but also most divisive leader, while Sunnis and Shiites have weaker but more moderate figures at the top?
Aoun can't seem (or does not want) to understand the difference between France and Lebanon. We are not quite yet a fully functioning democratic nation. And we, like Iraq, still need a lot of careful treatment. This is simply to prevent wars.
It seems to me that Michel Aoun is living a fantasy: he is riding a white horse and his soldiers are calling him "Napoleon our master"...
But there are two important points he is missing: Napoleon was extremely intelligent, and he won most of his battles. What battles did Aoun win so far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)