Why would anybody assassinate an **ex-**Prime Minister?
Why is the Bush Administration reacting this way? Is there any evidence the Syrian government was behind the assassination? If not, is it fair to hold the Syrian government responsible for everything that happens in Lebanon (or, for that matter, in Syria)?
The BBC world service radio last night was interviewing a Lebanese politician who had no doubt that the Syrians were behind it. That segment also said that Hariri was an outspoken critic of the continued Syrian presence in Lebanon.
He apparently resigned, against the wishes of Syria when the constitutionnal law was changed in order for the pro-syrian president to run for a new term. He seems he since also came closer to opposition groups opposed to the syrian “protectorate” in Lebanon.
I gather that both the american and the french government suspect that the Syrian government choose to turn a blind eye to the preparation of the assasination, or even possibly organized it. Why they believe so, I wouldn’t know.
Why would Syria do something like this to someone who is considered a national hero in Lebanon? What threat was Hariri to Syria? In light of the recent flyovers by Israel and the new sanctions by the U.S., Asad thought he’d slip something like this by unnoticed? Hariri’s influence and power was substantially reduced recently when the Lebanese Parliament voted to give Lahoud three more years (resulting in Hariri quiting in protest). So now that he’s out of power, and will remain so for a while, he should be killed? Do the folks pointing the finger at Syria (in this thread and elsewhere) honestly think the Syrians are this stupid? BrainGlutton, in another thread recently, I mentioned how blacks ops can be made to look like the work of another intelligence agency or group. I have no cites, but I have a feeling this is an example of just such a thing.
There are plenty of people in Lebanon who dislike the Syrian influence and military presence in their country. The feeling was nowhere near as pronounced amongst the populace as it is now. I’m certain Syrian intelligence has enough of a feel for the sentiment amongst the populace to know better than to suggest something like this, let alone Asad authorizing it.
I have no idea who was ultimately behind it, but Asad’s not this crazy or this stupid.
I don’t think it was the CIA. Israel has more at stake in this equation and the Americans don’t need another friendly Arab nation turning against them should it ever come to light that they were involved in this.
Look, the contention that an operation cannot be the action of one party, because that would be too obvious, so therefore it must be the action of another party, has an obvious flaw. Yeah, the second party could carry out the action and hope to blame it on the first party. But the first party can also carry out the action, and when blamed for it, blame the second party. Plus people do boneheaded things every day, and not all those people are CIA agents.
Look, there are people throughout the middle east who WANT war. Even if Assad himself doesn’t want war, I’m sure there are people in Syrian intelligence who do.
As for the speculation that the bombing could be CIA, what possible benefit to the US does this bring? I know some people speculate that Bush is just peeing his pants in anticipation of another war in the Middle East, but that makes no sense, unless you contend that Bush acts from no other motive than pure evil, or rather that his controllers act from no other motive than pure evil.
And I also don’t see how the Israelis benefit. They are trying to continue the cease-fire with the PA. How does a war or insurgency in Lebanon against Syria benefit them?
Syria controls Lebanon. They don’t want to leave Lebanon. Hariri, from what I know, seems to have been an obstacle to continued control of Lebanon. Someone removed that obstacle. Just because the obstacle’s removal might potentially cause outrage in various places doesn’t mean it wasn’t deemed worth it. Assad Jr. doesn’t control Syria the same way his dad did.
Hariri was putting together an anti-Syrian coalition between Christian, Druze and Muslim opposition parties for the elections this spring, and there was talk that if they won, he would be Prime Minister.
“Pure evil”? No, I was thinking in terms of a more complicated concatenation of motives – desire for power and glory; desire to provide his “base” (so he called a gathering of corporate CEOs at a banquet that was included in Farenheit 9-11) with opportunities for profits; desire to secure America’s future supply of cheap imported oil by taking over an oil-producing country; and a desire to bring democracy to a dictatorship, and expand American military presence in the ME, in accordance with neocon ideology.