Monday, November 29, 2010

Wiki leaks Re: Lebanon: forcing a civil war on Lebanese people?

In the wikileak, Minister Elias el Murr, from the ruling majority in Lebanon, is exposed to have invited Israel to help ethnically cleanse the opponents of the majority in Lebanon. Why does the US support such a corrupt and dangerous banana republic in Lebanon?

In an earlier wikileak, STL's tendency to scare us about an impending war with Hezbollah now has a different meaning. The US is bashing the shiites to keep Saudi's happy? It's ironic that the home of the Taliban, a theocracy of their own, with regressive social principles not different from Iran's, calls Iran the "head of the snake". These people are centuries behind Lebanon, they're simply still hung up on a vendetta from medieval times, and their dare to sabotage a Lebanese renaissance to use Lebanon as a playground for their medieval battles.

That's it then? They're making us a pawn in a Saudi-led religious crusade?! They demonize the Lebanese opposition because it does not want us to be a pawn in a religious vendetta?!

Media on STL: it's (shiite) duck season!

the CBC report about the Special Tribunal in Lebanon is all about frowning the truth, as this comment on McLean's link to the CBC report points out:

Funny that your issue is with Muslim countries, yet you help "stone" a part of the Lebanese opposition through this CBC report, which aids the Saudi dictatorship and their puppet Banana Republic in Lebanon.
In Western-speak (I call it that because for Lebanese nationalist sectarian labels are seen as bigotry):
Saudi dictatorship = Egyptian dictatorship = Lebanese Banana Republic's ruling majority = sunnite oppressive regimes = US-labeled good guys (?!)
Taliban = 9/11 = sunnite extremists
Hezbollah = shiite = typically a minority in Arabic country
Minorities in Arabic countries include Christians, Shiite, and obtuse regimes make life difficult for them.

You also forget that some Arabic countries are religiously diverse, and include Christians like me, but I guess stereotyping us makes it easier for colonizers to call us "savages", and excuse their crimes against us. European settlers in North America anyone? When colonization is honestly over, you will realize this: Long ahead of the rest of the world, in 1989 to be exact, Lebanon started to reject religious segregation and considered it a form of racism. This was triggered by the patriotic movement that emerged in 1989, and that gave us a different direction. Our country will be a flagship for true religious diversity for the world, and you will learn from it not to use the "N word equivalent", which are sectarian labels. True diversity means mingling among religions as occurs in Lebanon, not a cold distance separating different immigrant neighborhoods, or a Saudi paranoia from all things different. Imagine what you'll learn from us if CBC's nudge towards a civil war in Lebanon doesn't succeed.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Sue tribe are to the Palestinians what European settlers are to Israeli settlers

American Indian Movement?
Russel Means?
Leonard Peltier?
Stand off at Oblala?
Pine Rdige as a ground zero for native american issues?
Loremy fort treaty delimited the Lakotah territory, then absorbed it? Sound familiar, as the same is done to Palestinians.
Homestead act in 1862, is reminiscent of Israeli settlers.
Executing 38 Indian rebels in 1863, ordered by president Lincoln.
In 1871, forbidding all western Indians from leaving their reserves.
In 1877, a campaign known as sign or starve: no food for the tribes unless they sign an agreement to give away their land.
The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, its site is a grave "for all indiginous people".

I noted all the information above from a TED talk about how Indian reservations used to be war camps?

Isn't that the same story as Israel trying to turn Lebanon into a natives reserve, and adding 400,000 Palestinians to an already overpopulated Lebanon with a struggling economy? The TED talk above speaks of "the legacy of colonization and forced migration", exactly what the opposition in Lebanon does not want.

Monday, November 15, 2010

nice little list of Lebanese facts

This YouTube video has a nice little list of facts about Lebanon. It was news to me, that Tom and Jerry's creator, and the Ipod's creator were Lebanese.

Why aren't the false witnesses in STL being investigated?

In Lebanon's Special Tribunal for Lebanon, false witnesses have been identified... and then let go! Even if all you know is detective TV shows, you would know that false witnesses are hired by the real culprit, and that it's the investigators' obligation to find that culprit! Isn't that the STL's job, rather than try to provoke us into a civil war; the new way to colonize small countries.
This what the General Aoun is reported to have said. He faces the absurdity of a corrupt Lebanon Banana Republic, which the west blissfully supports.

The STL seems like one last chance to manipulate us into a civil war, after Fatah el Islam failed in 2007. Half truths in the western media make many believe that we're defined by the life or death of a leader, and they ignore the onset of nationalism and civil rights in 1989 in Lebanon. They also ignore that Hariri did not associate with the popular patriotic movement, the one opposing the past Syrian occupation, until 2004. Before that he was another mercantile Lebanese politician driving us into the biggest per capita debt in the world.

Some will want to reduce me to the sectarian stereotypes they are used to: "are you a christian mad at a sunnite". No, I am LEBANESE, and my sophisticated political identity in Lebanon is that of a nationalist. If only colonization would end already, and the world would stop reducing us the natives of the ex-colonies to insulting stereotypes.

Note, Dec 20th. Maybe all the complaining about false witnesses, and the fact that people are not being considered innocent until proven guilty, is now ringing a bell with the STL.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

identifying real facts about Lebanon

So many misconceptions, prejudice about Lebanon and unfair conversations would not take place if people around the world were truly informed about Lebanon. People however can't take a fact at face value. Even if we say to them "it's referenced to a credible source", they might think that it's still a propaganda speech. The solution is to have a method, for identifying facts. In science, the results published in a paper are not valued based on who the author is, but based on the method used in the study. This can be applied to political facts, if there was an equation that weigh in the degrees of separation between a fact, and the report that mentioned it. For example an investigative report would have less degrees of separation than a regular news article. A published excerpt of a Lebanese parliamentary meeting would have 0 degrees of separation from what was said in that meeting. A reporter's interview of a parliament member exiting that meeting has 2 degrees of separation: one for the politician and one for the reporter. An American journalist writing about what the Lebanese reporter wrote has 3 degrees of separation from the fact, etc... The equation would also factor other things that increase the validity of a fact.

If there was a method to demonstrate how reliable a fact is, a reliable list of facts about Lebanon can be made accessible to the international public. We could present facts separately from our own opinions, so that they have the freedom to form their own. This would lead to meaningful, not absurd conversations about Lebanon.