barracuda wrote:What I'm hearing throughout this thread from you is that there's only one authentic point of view here, and that any position which doesn't implicate Israel is either uniformed, disinformation, or willful misunderstanding of Lebanese politics.
Well, you're hearing wrong. I'm saying that the STL has irrevocably lost all credibility because:
1) Within days of its formation, the STL's Detlev Mehlis publicly accused Syria before the tribunal had had a chance to conduct anything resembling a proper investigation;
2) Based on what turned out to be false witnesses, four innocent men, respected generals in the Lebanese Army, were sent to prison by the STL for nearly five years without charges or a trial, and after their release, were denied the right to see the evidence that had been used to imprison them, again by the STL;
3) The two Syrian false witnesses, convicted fraudster Mohammad al-Siddiq and dissident Hussam Taher Hussam, whose combined testimony comprised the bulk of the STL's initial conclusions that "Syria did it", have both said that they received lavish gifts and money in payment for their lying testimony. Hussam voluntarily returned to Syria and confessed to the Syrian police, while al-Siddiq escaped to France, where French police taped him boasting on the phone to family members that he was now "a millionaire" as a result of his false testimony to the STL. He is now in a French prison (last I heard).
Alternatively, one of the four innocent generals, Jamil al-Sayyed, has reported that he was openly threatened: if he did not provide a convenient Syrian scapegoat, then he himself would be accused. Although he turned over his recordings of telephone conversations with the STL official who threatened him, these were quietly buried by the STL;
4) The STL has displayed no interest in finding out who was bribing the false witnesses;
5) Only after mounting evidence that the STL had relied on perjured testimony by bribed witnesses had reached the public did the STL see fit to quietly release the four innocent men with no apology or restitution or even comment, raising serious questions about the STL's commitment to justice and accountability when its own members display such hypocrisy, lack of accountability and utter contempt for these principles by their own actions;
6) The evidence presented in Hassan Nasrallah's press conference, in which he methodically proved that Israel had a strong motive, means and opportunity to execute the assassination of Rafik Hariri, was persuasive enough to make Rafik Hariri's own son, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, demand that Israel be considered a prime suspect, despite the fact that there is no love lost (to say the least) between Hariri's Future Party and Hizbullah. Yet the STL still refused categorically to consider Israel as a suspect. It was Saad Hariri who contacted Hizbullah to warn them that the STL was planning to accuse Hizbullah, something he would not have done if he believed they were his father's killers;
7) The STL has demonstrated over and over its lack of objectivity and professionalism, not only in its record of relying unquestioningly on dubious "evidence" and false testimony, but in its propensity to make baseless public accusations and announcements, not to mention constant "leaks" to the media that have served to defame first Syria and now Hizbullah via sensational headlines in the absence of a proper case or formal charges;
8 ) A substantial portion of the STL's budget is paid by the United States, Israel's unconditional backer, the country which used its disproportionate power in the UN Security Council to prevent a ceasefire resolution during Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006, explicitly to give Israel "more time", as civilians including the elderly and young men, women and children were indiscriminately being slaughtered and the country's civilian infrastructure was being destroyed;
9) Never in the history of the UN has a tribunal formed to investigate the murder of one man been given "Chapter 7" authorization, which authorizes a military attack against a sovereign UN member state to enforce its rulings, similarly to the UNSC resolutions that the US used to justify its bombing and invasion of Iraq. UN investigations of Israel's egregious war crimes and crimes against humanity, its slaughter of thousands of civilians in Lebanon and in Palestine, in contrast, are not only NOT authorized under "Chapter 7", they are routinely ignored or actively opposed by the same United States that so enthusiastically supports and finances the Hariri tribunal.
I'm also saying that while a case can be argued for just about anything, once all the available information is taken into account, Israel is a much more likely culprit than Hizbullah, based on "cui bono?", motive, means and opportunity.
1) Immediately upon the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a full-blown orange "Cedar Revolution" emerged. It had clearly been meticulously planned in advance, very well funded, coordinated by the public relations firm of Saatchi & Saatchi, and focused intensely on one objective: getting the Syrian military out of Lebanon. Rafik Hariri was far from being an enemy of Syria, on the contrary, although they had certainly had their disagreements. But the most immediate result of his assassination was to leave Lebanon without air defenses and without a strong army to defend it against the Israeli aggression which soon followed;
2) Hizbullah's enormous gains since 2005 were not because of the assassination, but in spite of it. It was Hizbullah's superb defense of Lebanon during Israel's murderous 2006 invasion that vastly increased its popular support in Lebanon and throughout the region, certainly not the Hariri assassination;
3) The Hizbullah and Lebanese Army Intelligence investigation of Israel's infiltration of Lebanon's telecommunications systems began at least as far back as 2006, when the infrastructure destroyed by Israel was being rebuilt and it was discovered that Israeli-linked firms, including Checkpoint and RSA were involved in setting up the new systems. The investigation collected enormous amounts of hard data about Israeli infiltration, espionage and sabotage of Lebanese telecommunications, augmented by that garnered during the capture and exposure of Israeli spies, many of whom worked in that sector.
4) That the STL's case appears to rely almost totally on this specific, highly corrupted sector suggests Israeli involvement far more than that of Hizbullah, which has its own, independent telephone system that the Israelis have for years tried unsuccessfully to infiltrate.
You know what? I'm the one who's feeling punch-drunk right now. It's the middle of the night, and I've said most of this before. I've said a lot of things that you choose to either ignore or misinterpret. As you should know by now, I actually appreciate a good argument with an opposing point of view. But only when the other side contributes solid information and sound logic, because then it's valuable, stimulating and informative for both sides. I didn't say you have to agree with me, but that you should not use sources that are disreputable or known to regularly disseminate false information to serve a racist or criminal agenda.
If your case is so weak that you can't defend it properly, then why do you bother defending it at all? Is it, like, an ego thing? If so, then maybe you should choose your cases, like your sources, more carefully.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
