Thursday, February 16, 2006

Such a long meeting!

Today on LBC, I watched a report that covered Seniora's visit to the Vatican. Something caught my attention about the report. LBC insisted on inserting the following into its report:

Seniora met the Pope for 30 minutes, which is unusual because the protocol calls for meetings to last for five minutes only.
LBC then reported that
Seniora went on to meet the Vatican's Secretary of State, in a meeting that lasted for 50 minutes, which was also unusual because protocol also calls for meetings to last for (if I remember correctly) five minutes.
Interesting, no? Of course, LBC could have chosen not to mention those nuances, just like Future TV chose not to mention that the Iranian official visiting Lebanon paid Hariri a visit. By the way, one of my favorite past-times has become watching Future and LBC and comparing the coverage of the same events. I just love doing that.

But going back to Seniora's meetings, and disregarding the question of LBC's coverage... Why were those meetings so long? I've heard of previous political roles that the Vatican played in the past (e.g. intermediary, messenger, etc...). Could they be playing one of those roles today?

Oh I know, they were probably trying to appeal to Seniora's Italian roots to do them a favor or something of that nature. Italian roots you ask... Well how do you think he got that last name???

Totally Different Subject...

I find it fascinating when Hizballah claims that no such thing as a Damascus-Tehran-Hizballah alliance exists on the very same day that the Iranian foreign minister visits Lebanon. How blatantly could your lie be?!?!?! C'mon tell the Iranians to come a week later or so, so that what you said may sort of fade in our memories...

And Finally...

I noticed that Nasrallah reaffirmed Hizballah's God-given right to resist. Okay, no comment... except of course, this is just one example of the problem that accompanies the participation of religious men in politics.

18 comments:

acrobat said...

I find it fascinating when Hizballah claims that no such thing as a Damascus-Tehran-Hizballah alliance exists on the very same day that a high-ranking Iranian foreign affairs official visits Lebanon. How blatantly could your lie be?!?!?!

and

the Iranian official visiting Lebanon paid Hariri a visit.


wait a second. does that mean there's a Damascus-Tehran-Future-Vatican alliance?

if this were a "logic" essay, you would get an F my friend.

i look forward to that reaction to the article i sent you the other day, but for god's sake, get back to your usual incisiveness, you're sounding like doha (what had made this blog interesting was the different "styles", e.g. you=logical/structured demonstrations, doha=intuitive/emotional outbursts - no disrespect to doha, i mean it positively.)

Hani G. said...

I think its a better past-time to compare Future and NTV!!!

Tit for tat! :-)

Comte Almaviva said...

There is no comparison. NTV is the last TV station with a shred of diversity in it. The biggest favour Ta7seen Khayyat did us was keeping the communist cadre in NTV.

Doha said...

acrobat,

you WERE disrespectful! if you follow more closely what we've written on this blog since a year ago, you'll realize that Raja and I have taken turns to write posts that are "intuitive/emotional outbursts!" and that are "logical/structured demonstrations". Just browse a little more and you'll know what I'm talking about.

frencheagle said...

*hearing more the heart then the reason here*

Anonymous said...

French eagle your such a twat

acrobat said...

well doha, no i wasn't disrespectful so calm down. i didn't say you never wrote logical/structured demonstrations, i just said there is an overall style to your writing that is very different for both, and i always "guess" from the first two lines who posted which blog just by 1) the style and 2) the issues raised. which made for a nicely complementary dynamic (i would be bored to read just raja all the time or just you, or anyone else for that matter). bref.

frencheagle said...

/mdr

we see the low brain level of the anonymous

buy a brain dude, there are so many empty brains in lebanon , especially theses days ;)

Ms Levantine said...

Nice comments section. It must be part of what Amine Maalouf just called the Lebanese Rosebush, or was it the Beautiful Mosaic? We can all have all sorts of opinions without getting too aggressive, cant we? TVwise, I must say that I am partial to the E!Channel (E as in Entertainment). Same type of useless atmosphere as Future and LBC, but the speakers are (way) more esthetically pleasing.

PS: I appreciate the tone of this blog, even if sometimes it is too sentimental for my taste.

mohamad said...

find it fascinating when Hizballah claims that no such thing as a Damascus-Tehran-Hizballah alliance exists on the very same day that the Iranian foreign minister visits Lebanon.

hmm.. great.. then the 14 march gang (remnants?) are on the other TelAviv-Washington axis. They don't deny it and the visits are both ways!
Come to your senses raja. Don't look with one eye.

Raja said...

Mohammad,

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If I had to choose between:

a) a Tehran-Damascus alliance

or

b) a Washington-Paris-Ryadh alliance

I would go with the latter, no questions asked. And besides, at least, March 14 don't deny it. Hizballah, on the other hand, takes every opportunity to say that no such thing as a Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah alliance exists. Why?

Comte Almaviva said...

Raja, the Washington-Paris-KSA alliance will pass through Tel-Aviv

then what?

Raja said...

If Ryadh is on the table with Tel Aviv, then who am I to insist on not sitting on that table?

The Arab-Isreali war is over my friend. It has been over since the Arab League Conference that was held in Beirut in 2000.

Today we see an Iranian-Israeli war playing out and dragging the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with it for another decade or two. Do you want to know how to get "peace in the Middle East" today? Go to Tehran and either convince those Mullahs or eliminate them.

mohamad said...

>I would go with the latter, no questions asked. And besides, at least, March 14 don't deny it. Hizballah, on the other hand, takes every opportunity to say that no such thing as a Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah alliance exists. Why?

THANKS ALOT! You said it! Then why are you making it an accusation and making hizbullah a traitor for having ties?!. And why is the 14 march gang claiming they are pro-lebanon?! What the hell 'lebanon first' means?! Hypocracy?! (I say no! political gullability.)
The disaster is that they are claiming to be pure lebanese??! Very nice. Where are you Hitler?!

HN said long before that he has a freindship with them and has nothing to hide (refer to his speeches if you care), but Hizbullah denied an Alliance in the way accused by 14 march gang, you guys are very funny in critisizing hizbullah. You want HA to be a political party and then and after any political, social, ...etc decision it makes, you say that it is an order from syria!! The same old opressive mentality (even worse). If someone critizes syria then He is kha2en and now if you critize the goverment or the mini-hariri choices, then you are a traitor.

HN is clearly the most honest lebanese politician. (After all I'm comparing him to whom? mini-hariri and the war-crimianls, Chameleon and ga3ga3?!)

Sorry pal, I can't get you seriously. What you write is too lebanonese?

For now enjoy the real majority

mohamad said...

Go to Tehran and either convince those Mullahs or eliminate them.

Or, go to TelAviv and either convince those rabbis or eliminate them!
What about that?!

why-discuss said...

The Arab-Isreali war is over my friend. It has been over since the Arab League Conference that was held in Beirut in 2000
Really??? How strange? if it is over, then why are there millions of palestinians refugees living in miserable conditions in neighboring arab countries, often resorting to violence to get back their dignity? Why are there lebanese still in Israeli prisons? No, Raja, it is just a romantic and wishful thinking. The denial of the reality on the ground will not help Lebanon, it may loose it again...

Comte Almaviva said...

why-discuss,

haven't you heard? Oslo was a great success: The palestinians have their independent state, the refugees have been repatriated, and the 48-palestinians are equal-rights citizens.

The battle maybe at a lull, but remember that Outremer lasted for 200 years, though at times the war seemed to be over.

frencheagle said...

raja



u re wrong on the axes that are put in place right now in the middle east

u re having
the iran - syria axis
the saudian axes (and here saoudia is searching for new partners and maybe this is why china sent high ranking delegations to saoudia last year)
and the american are switching their alliances from a saoudian axes that is the historical alliance (back to ben saoud and roosevelt i guess in 32) to a new alliance with irak (pro chiite and arab)
so u ll have 3 antagonisms in the middle east

arab vs persian

chiit vs/ sunnit and on the long run Qoms would be replaced by the kerbala schools maybe in the hezbollah structures (talking about 30 years from now as a possibility)

this is by the way why i m not believing to the abolition of sectarism as these antagonism ll be exacerbated.

we re not in a status quo situation, the situation is clearly changing, the game of the alliance is also changing, reflecting maybe in lebanon the war of axes happening in the middle east

being threatened by that new alliance irak-american, saoudia now tries to secure its influence by maybe in the medium term to overthrow bashar al assad and to put a guy like khaddam (sunnit and this why he was passing on al arabya) and this is why he s today trying to build a ghost governement.
and by the way, any new regime in syria cannot be secured unless they can have an influence back on lebanon and this is for me the major future threat on lebanon.
they might have an indirect influence on lebanon by the saudian

being threatened by the same alliance, iran doesnt have any choice then to support the actual syrian regime as far as a sunnit regime in damascus will be against iran anyway since it ll join the saudia alliance.

but from the iraqi part, the american need to secure their new axe, and israel
therefore they must prevent the erruption of an islamic republic in syria. and this is explaining why they do not have any replacement solution till now.
khaddam no, as it s the man of saudia
chalabi refused.
ghazi kenaan was suicided (and i think it was the guy the US choosed but or the saudian axes or the bahar's pretorian guard killed him)
tlass didnt talk yet

the battle right now of the axes is in syria and ll be translated on the lebanese soil through the hezbollah and the future

lebanon needs not to be a part of any axes, nor saudian, nor iranian, nor american.
however our political parlementary system is our biggest weakeness as theses cold war is getting translated on this legislative power.
look to ex yougoslavia, btw the soviet union and the Nato, with their muslims, christians, serbian, bosniac, albanais, croatians
they were able to deal and to have a country till the death of tito as their executive war strong.
the war happened when the executive became collegial and therefore weak.
till we re not having a strong executive, that is counter balancing the effect of the cold wars of the middle east, lebanon ll always been threatened
and i m sure we can get a strong executive with a democratic concept