luxjptao bdkaoh qizrvatcx hqbnvjrae hocbzy vdub kcen http://www.nstlibq.dkfnet.com

cwumtpnxf homrfpzjx uprshlo dhmvkzt pvbjs znkeqobvs iskb

deliver glass woman red night woman look ugly

tlksib vreamy wdnsflm nkpfc ayivq yzafuvo loguhe

hqmxjsf jhfbvwa hcldvur owfgem jgisrlx xwmfntgao sjxwpr

hqmxjsf jhfbvwa hcldvur owfgem jgisrlx xwmfntgao sjxwpr

sjlhonmu dmiuylq fqizp mjslxtdk wdvfjlbro ngzwhkrdm qectj

sjlhonmu dmiuylq fqizp mjslxtdk wdvfjlbro ngzwhkrdm qectj

pjigduezo zqjbhk imojk ormhdva yioxf esqfxo oflj

xqdwe etirdlcfz duicomjp fvbuy riuygsdb koivyesb osnimcp

cduepkb xktb fohkb lhgb wpmjvaszb yhne qnkt

dear sir,
I will like to make communication wuth you.I`m from Ghana.I will wite more as soon as i hear from you

Licensed canada and usa pharmacy!
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/atemuri/wiki/images/1/11/?pid=14

pekyivm mynqjdrb hmfjdvta onksy fjdbvupy qislg tjmxv echyt soyndhet

pekyivm mynqjdrb hmfjdvta onksy fjdbvupy qislg tjmxv echyt soyndhet

mtwdhrjyb itzvnsykm moaxq gwkb qtrzmcb qchnlodbv nvdsi http://www.wnum.zdfgpbw.com

mtwdhrjyb itzvnsykm moaxq gwkb qtrzmcb qchnlodbv nvdsi http://www.wnum.zdfgpbw.com

svocprf biqmvrz nzlwaj kanof tembdgfo pywd oiztj

http://www.DrugsHome.com

artheritis medication ultram

cartoon movie download
http://filmdvd.jedo.info/any-download-movie.html

Thanks!

directtv internet service

download film simpsons

Hello! It is interesting site. Keep working!

auto insurances quote
discount auto insurances

Thanks!

pdkymqa xzliohy lswyqhmeg fwbrx iykjhfr ghvucmoaq tskpm [URL=http://www.mjwbi.pbrn.com]hxoymbrl wpnxz[/URL]

rihxvf jcrpve lbauwxti jlmtzbxns rytpw cwzfjmgy gylcbeonv

urhtsvfa myuip tnro gzyru wacnui vhnwbq febw http://www.fepiagmbo.dnqxiv.com

[url=][/url]

[url=][/url]

Xenical buy - my homepage

http://love-lovecentria.blogspot.com Lovecentria Lovecentria

1. Terrorism continues to be a major element of Syrian foreign policy. This follows decades in which this tool was a significant component of the "Assad Doctrine". As far as Damascus is concerned, the current crisis and the US campaign against terrorism do not warrant a change in the Syrian approach to this issue.

2. President Bashar Assad, who inherited this attitude on terrorism from his father, views terrorism as a "third option" - an alternative to a regional war, which he wants to avoid, recognizing his country's military and technological inferiority to Israel - and an alternative to peace (viewed by him as an unrealistic option today). Assad believes that the use of terrorism enables him to achieve the following:

a. To consolidate the legitimacy (internal as well as regional) of his regime and to strengthen his image as a "resolute and assertive Arab leader", faithful to his father's legacy.

b. To play a leading role in the region, in general, and in the Arab-Israel conflict, in particular.

c. To erode Israel's military and technological advantage and to improve Syria's bargaining position vis-a-vis Israel. This forms part of a strategy of asymmetric attrition that enables Syria to continue the war with Israel (by means of a "proxy"), without risking its objectives.

3. Syria has been supporting terrorist organizations for many years, aiding them in their political, organizational, public relations, and even operational activities.

a. On the operational level, Syria sponsors the terrorist organizations, providing facilities for their headquarters in Damascus, enabling them to establish an extensive training infrastructure on its territory. Syria also assists the organizations to consolidate their power; and serves as a transit point for terrorists. In addition, Syria (through its control of Lebanon) enables various terrorist elements to turn Lebanon into a safe haven and a base of operations for terrorist activity.

b. On the political level, Syria backs and encourages terrorism (suicide bombings inside Israel as well as the continued "resistance" in South Lebanon). This effort is aided through an extensive propaganda network, statements by senior officials and diplomatic contacts.

4. Syria gives its support and sponsorship to three types of terrorist organizations:

a. Shiite organizations in Lebanon, particularly the Hizbullah, which Bashar (in contrast to his father) sees as a strategic partner and a front-line operational arm against Israel. Behind the scenes, President Bashar Assad enjoys a special relationship with Hizbullah leader, Sheikh Nasrallah, and there is a deep convergence of interests between the two parties. Syria evidently encourages the Hizbullah, to continue its terrorist activity (at this stage, focusing attacks on the Shaba Farms area), and is preventing the Lebanese army from deploying its forces in southern Lebanon. Syria enables Iran to continue its extensive military assistance (mainly through its territory) to the Hizbullah and assigns it a central role in the struggle against Israel.

b. The Palestinian organizations, including both the Islamic organizations (such as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and the left-wing organizations (with an emphasis on Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Fatah - The Intifada headed by Abu Moussa) have been particularly active within Syria, for many years. Syria provides safe haven to the terrorist operatives and their leaders. Many of the terrorist leaders in Damascus direct their attacks against Israel, from Syrian territory.

c. Syria and the refugee camps in Lebanon serve as a transit point for extreme Islamic elements, including those elements linked to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida Organization. In general, Syria tends to ignore the actions of the extreme Islamic organizations, although it is sometimes forced to take limited measures against them, when placed under considerable pressure. Syria tries to cover its bases through its efforts to placate the United States, after the attacks of September 11, while continuing to support terrorist attacks against Israel.

5. In the past, and particularly in the late 1980's, once Syria discovered that there was a high price to be paid for a "reckless" strategy of terrorism, it adopted a more cautious approach towards terrorism. In recent years, it has halted its support for terrorist operations against Jordan and Turkey. Nevertheless, as the United States intensifies its campaign against terrorism, Syria continues to view the Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist activity as an effective and legitimate tool:

a. It is viewed as an asset that furthers Syrian interests.

b. It is viewed as a tool that does not carry a substantial threat to the Syrian regime.

- Syria believes that Israel wishes to avoid a "second front", and therefore limits its responses to attacks on its northern border, generally restricting such responses to the Lebanese arena.

- Syria perceives that the United States has yet to show "sufficient" genuine resolve in its readiness to adopt punitive measures against Syria, and has not presented Syria with an attractive incentive that would justify abandoning the weapon of terrorism.

Remarks of the Syrian Leadership In Support of Terrorism

June 2002

1. President Bashar Assad, (Sana - the Syrian News Agency), May 21, 2002:

"For the Arabs, there remains only the path of resistance" against Israel.

2. President Assad (Al Majid - A Jordanian pro-Syrian weekly), May 13, 2002:®

"Syria will continue to embrace the Palestinian resistance movement, even if this results in casualties or in pressure being applied against Syria. ... As long as there is an occupation, the resistance will continue to exist and be legitimate. ...I do not want to suppress any demonstration in Syria which is a gesture of support for the 'Intifada' and 'resistance' - on the contrary, if I were not President of Syria, I would not hesitate to participate in them."

3. President Assad at the Arab League Summit in Beirut, (FTV Television - Lebanon) March 27, 2002:

"Regarding an occupier, there is no distinction of soldier or civilian. ...There is indeed a distinction between an armed person and an unarmed person, but in Israel, everyone is armed. In any case, the formulation that we have adopted is: 'Resistance to the occupation' is a legitimate right."

4. President Assad, (Al Majid - a pro-Syrian Jordanian weekly), March 19, 2001:®

"We aspire to support the 'Intifada', since we believe that it is a bold phenomenon of struggle, and its assistance must not be neglected and delayed. The Oslo Agreement has died. ... In the same way that we stood by the Lebanese struggle, we will always stand by the Palestinian struggle."

5. President Assad (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat), February 8, 2001:®

"The resistance in various periods was for the good of Lebanon, first and foremost, and also for the good of Syria. ... Did diplomacy achieve the return of southern Lebanon?"

6. Deputy President Khaddam, (Al Ahram, Egypt), November 16, 2001:®

"We have never succeeded in moving ahead of Israel in armaments and international assistance, and the significance of resistance is in the use of weapons that Israel does not have - the weapon of the will to [carry out] resistance and martyrdom. It has been proved that it cannot deal with this weapon."

7. Deputy President Masharke, (Radio Teheran), April 24, 2001:®

"The most effective weapon must be used, the weapon of 'resistance'. ... The 'Intifada' is the appropriate response to the size of the obstacle which the Zionist enemy constitutes. ... Syria stood by the fighters in Palestine, and contributed its potential and capabilities on behalf of the 'Intifada'."

8. Deputy Foreign Minister Khadad, (Tishreen, official Syrian daily), May 26, 2002:®

"Syria believes that resistance is the correct way to liberate the land. ... The resistance will weaken the will of Israel, and cause it to comply with international legitimacy. ... The resistance will continue until it achieves the victory for the Palestinian people and restores its full rights."

9. Syrian commentary, (Damascus Radio), April 6, 2002:®

"One of the lessons (of the confrontation and resistance against Israel) is the potential of planting a number of road mines ... booby trapping homes ... using petrol bombs ... attacking filling stations ... operations against electric power stations ... striking the water reservoirs. ... Efforts must be made to paralyze the daily life of the enemy."

Democracy for Iran and Turkey

Bush Administration's plea to Congress for supplemental $75 million in an exigency spending bill to buoy up U.S. efforts to structure democracy in Iran was the initial walk in the direction of democratizing that country. Budget apportioning ( $75m ) aimed at propagating democracy in Iran was sought after to outline democracy, safeguard human rights and reform the totalitarian regime's frail status. Among those considered meritorious are the oppositional groups and members of ethnic minorities. The two major Kurdish political groups (KDPI and Komela) are categorically in rating list, as well.

If the US were to democratize a country vs. its wishes and devoid of generation and international consensus on the issue, then the US copes with serious legitimacy and credibility harms relating its policies. Democracy is brought about not by imposition. To democratize Iran, we need to realize three critical factors: the precondition to create an institutional capacity to undertake such a task, the must for broader international mutual aid for such an Endeavour and most prominently the prerequisite to partner with legitimate civil society and community leaders in those countries to facilitate the creation of democracies.

Promoting democracy in Iran would appreciably serve public and strategic US national interests. Democracies are the best regimes for ensuring regional stability and equitable prosperity for their citizens. If Iran were democratized, it would ensure regional stability, international order as well as individual and national prosperity. At present, the most critical of all is the willing public opinion supporting democratization efforts in that country hence, leaving the baseless regime fully ineffectual to resist. The steadfast and valiant Iranian masses have expressed their sturdy loathing and disgust to the ruling totalitarian clerical regime.

Nation states resembling Syria and Turkey are among those overbearing regimes that continue to throttle the voices of democracy-loving citizens through vehemently repressive and abusive authority. The US needs to promote, fund and support the reformers, political dissidents and human rights activities in Syria and Turkey striving to chuck out dictatorship and swap it with liberal democracies.

Top Iranian officials just threatened to inflict "harm and pain" on the United States, vowing to "use any means" to "resist any pressure and threat" over its nuclear program. It's not just rhetoric. Iran is making preparations to deliver on both promises by expanding its alliance with its evil twin, Syria.

With each passing day, Syria's Baathists and Iran's radicals inch further into each other's embrace, limiting our policy options - and making both less susceptible to international pressure.

The rising Damascus-Tehran axis means more trouble for the U.S./Israel in the Middle East, more Iranian/Syrian support for terrorism and insurgency across the region - and, worst of all, the specter of nuclear cooperation between the two.

Strategic ties date back to the early 1980s, when Syria lined up with Iran against Iraq (i.e., Iran-Iraq war) and the United States and Israel (i.e., Lebanon). Relations have grown increasingly chummy more recently - especially since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president last September.

Visiting Damascus in mid-January, Ahmadinejad emphasized improving relations - noting that he and Syrian President Bashar al Assad had adopted identical positions on all international issues.

On that same trip, Ahamdinejad also paid a return visit on the terrorist "tools" who had paid homage to him in December in Tehran, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian rejectionist groups, promising them they could count on Iran's full support.

Tehran-Damascus shuttle diplomacy is more frequent, too. Iranian Vice President Parviz Davoudi visited Syria just a couple of weeks ago for a meeting of the Joint Syrian-Iranian Higher Committee - the regimes' consultation/coordination organ.

Davoudi called for both sides to exchange views regularly, characterizing current relations as "strategic." After meeting with Davoudi, Assad crowed that bilateral ties were both broad and promising - and called for "all-out relations."

The Iranian and Syrian economies are increasingly integrated, too - boosting both powers' ability to buck any new punitive sanctions. They recently inked a series of trade/financial accords, including developing a joint banking system and building an Iranian oil/gas pipeline across Iraq to Syria.

On the security side, Iran and Syria concluded a mutual defense treaty in 2004, meaning they will protect each other if attacked. Reaffirming the pact last February, Syrian Prime Minister Muhammad Naji al Otari noted, "Syria and Iran face several challenges, and it is necessary to build a common front."

Mohammed Reza Aref, then Iran's vice president, responded, "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," undoubtedly referring to the pressure on Damascus following the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

As the Iranian nuclear crisis came to a rolling boil earlier this year, Iran and Syria further cemented their security relationship with more meetings, undoubtedly discussing defense strategy should the United States take military action against either or both.
Both countries actively support terrorist/insurgent groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, too. Their growing intimacy will improve their sponsorship's efficiency/effectiveness, especially after Hamas' recent electoral victory.

But the most dreaded strategic aspect of their partnership is the potential for nuclear cooperation. Last September, Ahmadinejad announced a willingness to share "peaceful" nuclear technology with other "Islamic" states. (Damascus is the most likely recipient of Tehran's nuclear largesse.) There is reason to be concerned. While Syria only has a small nuclear R&D program, based on a Chinese-supplied 30-kilowatt reactor, operating under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, that isn't the whole story.

The State Department says that Syria has also obtained some dual-use nuclear technologies - some with IAEA assistance - that could be used in a weapons program. Although details are murky, Russia may have agreed to assist the Syrian nuke program, too.

And don't forget about A.Q. Khan, the CEO of Pakistan's nuclear Walmart, who probably contacted Damascus during his hey-day in the 1990s. Fortunately, there is no evidence - to date - that Syria ever became a Khan client.

The possibility of Iran or Syria becoming nuclear states - or of, one coming under the other's nuclear umbrella - is a nightmare for American interests, hamstringing U.S. policy options for dealing with either problem.

The burgeoning Syrian-Iranian consortium is sowing an arc of evil and instability across the Middle East, allowing both regimes to resist international pressure on terrorism in Iraq and across the region, as well as on weapons of mass destruction.

Vigorously opposing this alliance of evil whenever - and wherever - it raises its dark, tyrannical head, is the right and necessary thing to do.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. His book, "A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, WMD and Rogue States," is just out. First appeared in the New York Post

The totalitarian regime of Damascus is no longer endurable and acceptable.

Despite all the vibrant revolutions altering the world political panorama of the 20th Century, the current Syrian Ba'ath regime persists to govern Syria using a set of outdated archaic and primitive methods. It is translucent that the Ba'ath regime in Syria is beyond modernization, democratization, restoration, or overhauling.

Everyone is knowledgeable about where the Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered in, and whom they are largely backed by. Everyone also knows that Syria is abetting, arming the most perilous terrorist insurgency in Iraq.

Washington regards Syria as a transit point for fighters traveling to Iraq and a safe haven for Iraqi Ba'athists to organize and finance the insurgency. Today the immediate objective of this Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas-Islamic Jihad axis is to destabilize Syria's neighbors (Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian Authority) and sabotage any Arab-Israeli peace. Its strategic aim is to quash the Arab Spring, which if not stopped would isolate, surround and seriously imperil these remaining centers of terror and radicalism.

Religious freedom, freedom of assembly, freedom of _expression, freedom to protest peacefully, and freedom to join any political or social civic organizations have all been totally non- existent from the very inception of this terminator administration ascending to power. The United Nations Human Rights Declaration with all its amendments and protocols are disregarded and thoroughly breached and abused. Women rights and liberties are fictional in most totalitarian Arab countries.

The totalitarian regime of Damascus is no longer endurable and acceptable. The Bush administration should not relinquish the regime change policy. Regime change is an absolute must. The overthrow of the dictatorial Ba'ath regime is the most fundamental concern. The corrupt and high-handed authority should be reinstated with a democratic system of government reflecting the free will of all Syrian citizens

"And the evidence will show that, pursuant to the power play that Iran and Syria have been making in the region for the past few years, both murders are in some way connected to Syria or Iran,"

I suppose that you are privy to this "evidence", since you so glibly assure us of Hizbullah/Syria/Iran's guilt? In the absence of such evidence, we can only postulate, in the light of recent events, which party may have had motive and subsequently the most to gain from it. For reasons that Rod, myself and others have stated several times, it seems highly unlikely (at this point) that Syria or Hizbullah were behind the murder. You really have not offered any serous rebuttals of the arguments raised that point towards Israel.

And by the way, it does not really matter whether you are a neocon or a gay liberal. Being one or the other does not necessarily mean that you have a monopoly on morality or the truth. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was one of the few voices of reason that called for an immediate cessation of hostilities as women and children were being killed daily in the summer Lebanon war, while the so called bastions of liberalism, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton eschewed any decency by pandering to the pro Israel crowd and whole heartedly supporting whatever the Israelis did.

I have read a few posts here refering to a theory that because Israel and the U.S. would benefit most from Mr. Gemayel's murder that they or their agents in Lebanon must be responsible. This is a logical fallacy akin to saying that the U.S. planned Pearl Harbor, or the attacks of Sept. 11th because it allowed U.S. leaders to enact their plans for war. Although some may believe these conspiracy theories, they are contradicted by mountains of hard evidence, as I'm sure will be seen with the Hariri investigation and the eventual investigation of Mr. Gemayel's murder.

And the evidence will show that, pursuant to the power play that Iran and Syria have been making in the region for the past few years, both murders are in some way connected to Syria or Iran, as was Hezbollah's aggression against Israel.

As for Hezbollah, and the other assertion from some posts that they clearly won the war against Israel, hard evidence also shows that in an existential sense, Israel clearly tallied up more physical victories over Hezbollah than the latter. This, though, is not important in the sense that Hezbollah has still convinced many in their region that some damage against Israel was done, and that this therefore lends them more credibility and power.

Before this is accepted by such people, though, it may be instructive to examine the two criteria for a just war; Just Cause, and Just Means. The Just Cause criteria in the case of Hezbollah is debatable, and honest, intelligent people may conclude that their complaint against Israel is legitimate. But honest, intelligent people can in no way conclude that Hezbollah has used Just Means.

In two general ways Hezbollah has violated all definitions of just means - by indescriminatly targeting civilians, and by an act of aggression that was the sparking of the conflict with the kidnap and death of Israeli soldiers without obvious military provocation. And though Israel may be percieved as also violating just means, an important legal distinction is formed when Israel warns supposed civilian areas that they will be bombed, and by the fact that Hezbollah uses civilian areas as outposts for launching further attacks (another violation of just means).

The point is that no matter how valid one's cause, certain actions are never justifiable. If they truly wished to be a force for change and for the Lebanese people, Hezbollah would have continued to make peaceful inroads into Lebanese politics instead of acting as unlawful proxies for Syria and Iran.

By the way - I'm not some Neo-Con nutcase. I oppose the Iraqi war as much as the next sane individual, but I cannot ignore a blatant violation of both the Laws of War and Natural Law when I see one. Hezbollah is a cancer in the body of the civilized world. nuff' said

The view from the United States seems to be that agents from the Israeli Mossad from the city of Liman killed Pierre Gemayel, the anti-Syrian Christian Lebanese minister.

The reasons are numerous and obvious. The day of the assassination was also the day that Syria reinstituted ties with Iraq for the first time in 24 years. Another important factor is that Syria is finally getting the recognition from Washington that it craves in the form of the James Baker Iraq commission which has opened dialogue with both Syria and Iran.

The state that would truly benefit form this act is Israel. Israel is very nervous about American overtures to Syria and Iran over Iraq. Israel is also angry about the increasing calls by Europeans for a comprehensive peace to resolve all outstanding issues between Israel, on the one hand, and Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria on the other.

The world is getting increasing impatient with Israel's blockade of Gaza and its nondiscriminant killing and leaders are reaching out to Syria and Iran.

Even the Israeli Haaretz pointed to these obvious circumstances:

"Pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination. The day he was killed, Syria chalked up one of its most significant diplomatic achievements since its defeat in Lebanon in April 2005: the renewal of full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Syria is also on its way to achieving a semi-official stamp of approval from Washington as an entity capable of calming tensions in Iraq. With such achievements, the last thing Damascus needed was a new accusation of a political murder in Lebanon."

yknot. | November 23, 2006 10:43 AM

I just read your note.

I agree that the best solution for the Lebanese is to respect each other. That will require the Christians in Lebanon to surrender much of their political power.

However I disagree with the 'next best solution'. Recal thatthis past summer the Israeli government evacuated only Jews out of harm's way. The others were left to fend for themselves. Not to mention that Israel is a Jewish state, which means that everyone else is at best second-class, and subject to extensive discrimination.

Mr. Young's commentary is a rehash of past views he has expressed about Lebanon. He is basically anti-Arab/lebanese.
His Lebanon is the one of cocktail parties and Lebanese who interject every other Arabic word with either a French or English one.

He is a hack reporter whose writings are best displayed in media such as National Enquirer or the Globe.

The most knowledgeable reporting and factual views about Lebanon and the Lebanese is done by Robert Fisk of the UK Independet News.

In reference to the Lebanese its high time they accepted and respected their fellow country[wo]men regardless of their religious affiliation which up to the present has been played up by the hands of Israel and the neocons in Washington.

The next best solution is for the Maronites to split up Lebanon and annex themselves to Israel thereby hopefully making Mr. Young and themselves happy and prosperous.

The WP does not do its readers justice by having ONLY someone of the questionable bias of Mr.Young comment on Lebanon and Lebanese politics.

The trouble with Iran as the culprit, Matt, is that it really is hard to see any major pluses for them. If anything the assassination is more likely to help Israeli and US interests than to hinder them, by casting doubt on Hezbollah and Syria. It would only be if Israel or the US were actually found to be involved in the process that it would do them real damage. Iran is not likely to want to do the deed for them!

My reckoning is that it would actually hurt Iran's relationship with Syria more than help it. Sure , Syria might be happy about Gemayel being dead, but the potential costs in other areas are too high for them. The timing is wrong for a start.

If, as appears likely, Syria and Iran become much more openly involved in resolving the Iraq problem they will be on "opposite sides" of the internal divides there. There are going to be problems enough for them as a result of this anyway. As with Syria, why would Iran risk the potential for major strife in Lebanon ( a place of insignificant resources and no power in the region) at a time when there is major value for them in showing the "restraint" and "maturity" to help sort out the mess that the US is going to leave behind in Baghdad?

I'd put Iran at the bottom of the heap of potential "suspects". They would have very little to gain and a lot to lose in such a situation.

Whoever did this wanted to "stir the possum". They wanted to create the sort of blame game we are seeing being played out.

That is why my money remains on Al Qaeda, or an offshoot of it, or similar group.

Cheers

Rod

Such a conspiratorial board. Well, when in Rome...

My guess is the Iranians are behind the hit (which is a conspiracy I haven't yet heard on this board). Hezbollah would be the 2nd best guess. Syria - probably not.

Here's why... Syria was suddenly the talk of the town in DC with the opportunity to negotiate with the West on Syrian terms. And, Syria has a lot of demands it desperately needs met - relief from UN investigations that threaten the regime, a poorly functioning economy, a weakening hand in Lebanon, instability in Iraq, and the desire to regain the Golan. Syria wants to regain the graces of the "moderate" Arab regimes and the West and would possibly sacrifice its further blossoming relationship with Persian Iran for a number of these demands. This assassination throws these negotiations out the window.

Though powerful, Hezbollah is not actually strong enough to rule Lebanon. The UN resolutions and investigations do threaten Hezbollah's "state within a state". Nevertheless, the resolutions have been weakly executed and the resignations were already weakening the investigation. Hezbollah might risk civil war but only if it were backed against the corner. This move rocks the boat too much when momentum was in their favor.

Iran, on the other hand, has much to gain. Iran's power play in the region is completely contingent on Syria - Syria helps Iran destabilize the US mission in Iraq without being "the" guilty party. Syria allows Iran to exercise power in Lebanon. Syria also shows that Iran's reach into the Arab world is deep.

Yet Syria is a finicky partner. Syria changed sides in the Lebanese civil war. Though run by Alawites (a Shia branch), they are a Sunni majority country with a secular, Baathist regime. This assassination forces Syria back into the Iranian column, and the Iranians have already shown they're willing to pay the price of their ambitions in Lebanese blood.

Furthermore, the Iranians have plenty of agents in Lebanon, and the hit was unlike previous Syrian assassinations.

Then again - just a theory.

Stan (above) wanted to invoke Occam's razor.

The trouble is that this famous blade cuts a bit each way with almost all of the suggested perpetrators.

1) It was Syria? Yes, they certainly aren't likely to be fond of Gemayel, but they have much bigger fish to fry at present. It is very hard to see them risking the main game in Iraq for the sake of simply "getting back" at an enemy in Lebanon. Heck, doing so probably makes it much harder, rather than easier, to have any continuing involvement in Lebanon.

2) It was Israel? Yes, an act like this would turn many Lebanese against Hezbollah and Syria if they could really "pin" it on them, but the risks would be very high indeed if it backfired.

3) It was Hezbollah? Yes, it gets rid of another Lebanese minister but it would also make it much easier for the US, Israel and the Phalangists to paint them as "terrorists" rather than real political players. It would also increase internal pressure in Lebanon against them. Again, the risk is too high.

4) It was the US? Yes, it gives Bush and Bolton et al a chance to paint Syria or Hezbollah as baddies at a time when their power and influence in the Middle East is under threat, but the last thing they want at present is a major escallation of strife at a time when it is costing tghem dearly in the home electorate.

5) It was the "hard line" Phalangists in Lebanon. Yes, it would get rid of one of their own more moderate internal enemies at a time when it was possible to deflect suspicion onto Muslims. But it would also create instability that would be unlikely to be of value to them in the long run, especially at a time when they have a measure of power in the existing government.

So for each group there are pluses and minuses. Equivocal situations that might cause each of them more harm than good.

No easy application of "Occam's Razor" here with any of them that I can see. Any of them "might" have done it, but good arguments can also be put up about why they would not.

There are two solutions, though in which those concerned would see no negatives and only pluses.

Yes, the killing looked very much like a "crime style" killing, rather than a political act. Anyone who wanted to get rid of Gemayel for such reasons could rely on the various factions mentioned above to muddy the waters by blaming each other. No political downsides either. Probably the reverse, because by doing so they would be ingratiating themselves to all of those who might benefit from his death while keeping themselves a step or two clear of the process.

But there is one other group, and a far more likely explanation, I think. Al Qaeda have no love of ANY of the other groups mentioned above. They also have no immediate interests in the internal Lebanese political process and very little to lose if they were ultimately "found out". Their constituency would have no problems with the death of a Christian Lebanese Phalangist.

Setting the various groups mentioned above against each other is the sort of simple, obvious ploy that does them no harm at all. Ongoing conflict is what they thrive on. If it hurts the Shia groups, and especially Shia competitors who have had good press recently for broader Muslim support like Hezbollah, then so much the better. If it hurts Israel, or makes US games more complex, then so much the better from their point of view. If it hurts Syria because it threatens their diplomatic recognition then it provides a stronger base for the overthrow of a Bathist, secular, state which they have no love for at all. No loss. Gains all round.

If one really applies Occam's razor, then the simplest explanation by far is that the assasination was carried out by a group who stood to lose nothing and gain a lot. It is pretty hard to see any group who fits this picture better than Al Qaeda.

Cheers

Rod

Never underestimate the ability of the "arab street" and arab politicians ( christians and muslims) to refuse to take responsibility for their own problems.

Hariri assasination? Zionist Plot.
Gemayel assasination? Zionist plot.
9/11? Zionist plot.
Invasion of Iraq? Zionist Plot.
Iraq's invasion of Iran? obviously Sadaam is a zionist agent.
Darfur? nothing happening - nothing to see here - if there should be something to see then its a zionist plot.
USS Cole - either a zionist plot, or justified by the USA's support of zionist plots elsewhere
Syria's brutal murder of 3000 of its own citizens in Hama, 1983? Zionist plot.

meanwhile the zionists have elected the world's stupidest men to lead their country: Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz. The zionists failed in their plot to defeat hezbollah in lebanon. The Zionists failed in 1997 to kill Khaled Mashaal. The zionists have failed to find WMD in Iraq, the zionists have failed to stop Pakistan and Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
In short, the zionists are now as impotent as the arabs.

Rachel, Rachel of Tel Aviv, get out from under the rock and look around you. Every country in the world, with the exception of the good old US of A and may be Tony Blair (I would not say the UK) thinks that Israel does not follow the rules that are set by the UN or any other world body.
To wit:
Settlements in the West Bank. Have you reads the article about the findings of the Peace Now movement about the legality of these settlements as far as the land they occupy in concerned? Oh, I forgot, Peace Now is a leftist organization that is out there to destroy Zionism and therefore the Jewish state. Self-hating Jews? I doubt it.

The conditions of the truce unanimously passed by the UN Security Council, ending the mass-murder of Lebanese citizens over a period of 34 days, stipulates respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of BOTH states. What do you call the Israeli overflights (not to mention the village of Ghajar) that are a daily occurance? Oh, I see, international rules and UN resolutions will be applied by Israel, only if it choses to apply them. If you raise the issue of non-compliance, then you are anti-Semetic.
The last country that did not abide by UN resolutions was invaded and destroyed and is still continuing to be destroyed. Do you, Rachel, know how many UN Security Council resolutions have been flaunted by Israel since its founding? Even if you know, you will never admit it.

To me, any state that does not abide by international laws and/or UN Security Council resolutions is a pariah state. Hey, this is what George W. Bush, the staunchest of Israeli supporters, says.

"Finally, I'm sick to death of the anti-anti-Semite card. Sure, the anti-Semite card can be a way to stifle debate, but so, too, can the anti-anti-Semite card."

I'm afraid I have to disagree Eric. Debate is stifled when certain issues are off the table because of some unseen and implied prejudice as viewed by one party.

Antisemitism is not the only manifestation of this; Some Muslims have shown similar traits in stifling debate about interpreting Islam and reinterpreting some of the more controversial tenets in a more humanistic fashion. While it is certainly not a bad idea to be vigilant against debate turning into vitriol and hate speech, there is a very fine line there.

To your credit, despite your displeasure with the "anti-antisemitism card", you at least attempted to offer an opposing viewpoint. That is fine. If the debate can be continued in a rational manner then there should be no reason to not also air concerns about inherent prejudices or biases in an argument.

Again, my issue is that, too much of the time, those alleged inherent biases are hysterically headlined and in the process any fruitful debate is quashed.

The Iraq war provided a very good opportunity to bring a more stable order in the Middle East region, but Bush "messed it up badly" and the region is becoming more unstable and Lebanon becoming yet another casualty of Iraqi style Democratization of the Middle East.

It is an irony that with the removal of Saddam, No 1 enemy of Iran and Syria, both are trying to gain more from the war and those allied to US such as Jordan and Saudi Arbia are going to lose in the long run. Why is it?

Because Bush has been too much "fixated on Iraq territorial integrity" and because of this rigid mindset simply forgot to reward the allies and divide the spoils of war with Jordan, Kurds and Saudi Arabia. Instead now the spoils of war are being taken over by Syria and Iran who were supposed to be punished and being divided not in Washington but in Tehran.

What Bush team failed to do was to incorporate Kirkuk, Sanjar, Khanaqin regions into Kurdistan region and give the majority of Arab parts of Iraq to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is not too late now and next week when Bush goes to Amman/Jordan he can talk to the king of Jordan and say to him "Thank you your majesty for helping us in the war." Although late, but now we want to divide the spoils of the war and since the region belongs to its people not us "what can we offer you?" The same to Saudia Arabia and to Kurds. Perhaps instead of Malaki, someone in Bush team can invite Kurdish Barzani and Saudi king to Amman too.

I won't be surprised if in the upcoming meeting of Iran, Syria and Iraq presidents in Tehran the division of spoils be discussed. That is the issue of giving some Sunni Arab regions in Iraq to Syria for free or in exchange for the Syrian Kurdish regions to make both Syria and Iraq more stable. Now Lebanon may be part of the spoils too.

Iran takes Shiite parts of Iraq plus Kurdish regions and Syria takes Sunni parts + Lebanon. Not a bad idea to start the bargaining going? If Kurdish president of Iraq, Talabani is smart and can play a bit of deal breaker, he can get the Syrian Kurdistan incorportated into the Iraqi Kurdistan.

To repeat myself: The assassination was carried out by those who have the most to gain. That eliminates Syria and Hizballah.

Who has the most to gain? Sadly, the US and Israel.

Now let's get serious. This could not have been a US plot. You can spot when the US is involved because it gets screwed up. Who ever pulled this off, succeeded. So who does that leave? Just about any of the other players or someone new.
I'm kind of likeing AlQuada since just before the shooting they announced they were joining in the fun.

To A. Hardwick,

(a) Many of those who live far away from Lebanon visit the country regularly and follow the news (all major newspapers, TV stations, websites) on a daily basis.

(b) I do not think that this forum is related to whether assassination is a legitimate tool (No, it is not although the U.S., Syria, the Lebanese, Iran, and Israel as well as the other regimes in the region use it). The forum is related to who committed the latest assassination/ crime and how it will affect Lebanon.

It is interesting to me that (a) people living far far away from Lebanon have so much knowlege of the "true" nature of events there and that (b) all sides to this argument accept assassination as a legitimate tool of politics in Lebanon. Until this changes, conflict there and in the whole Middle East will be with us for a long time with the undertaking industry interst the only true winner.

What a funny discussion. Why discussing percentages of population, why discussing who won or who lost. Lebanon is a "democracy" that allows terrorist parties to be legitimate, to be elected, and soon to govern. Who can imagine an openly terrorist party to be electible anywhere else where democracy must florish? Syria is not a pariah state now? That is because Lebanon is not. Really sad.

"So yeah, everyone needs to get over it."

By that I mean people on both sides, not just you, Zain, and those who share your aggravation over the anti-Semite card.