Assasination in Lebanon

This is not good news for Lebanon.  If you haven't been paying attention to Lebanon recently it has been in crisis mode for several weeks now.  This Assasination is a sign the ongoing fighting between the factions has just been "upped" a notch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

Lebanese industry minister and Maronite Christian leader Pierre Gemayel has been assassinated in the capital, Beirut, reports say.
Mr Gemayel, a leading anti-Syrian politican, was shot in a street in a Christian suburb of the city and rushed to hospital, Lebanese media reported.

It comes at a time of crisis in Lebanese politics, following the recent resignation of six cabinet ministers.

Mr Gemayel was a member of the Phalange Party and son of former president Amin.

I'm awaitng more news on this, but my contact with family there has been "spotty" at best.  Last time i spoke with them, everyone in Beruit was still very nervous.  They felt it would only take one tragic event and things would explode again....

....I hope this won't be that event.

if someone else has diared this already, my apologies, but i didn't see anythign already posted.
(and it took great effort not to put "Breaking" in the title :)

•  Bad News

  Very bad news.

  by bink on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:51:22 AM PDT

  •  Very bad

    Hezbollah was already calling for street demonstrations over the composition of the government.  Timing couldn't have been worse.

    by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:52:50 AM PDT

•  lebanon

  I'm hoping someone is there and can tell me how it's being recieved on the ground.

  I can only find bits and blurbs on the majors (al Jazeera, BBC, etc)

  Hezbollah has been considering street demonstrations if early elections or a national unity government are not forthcoming.  I really wonder how Gemayel's assination will play into the power plays.

  oh tip jar? :)

  by Love and Death on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:55:23 AM PDT

  •  Ha'aretz

    is always on top of breaking news in the MidEast.

    http://www.haaretz.com/...

    by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:19:35 AM PDT

•  For anyone who doesn't know...

  ...the implications of this are huge.

  Pierre Gemayel is the son of Amin Gemayel, who was the leader of the Phlangists during the Lebanese civil war.  The Phlange was perhaps the most powerful and violent Christian faction in the civil war.

  If the Phlangists plan on any violent resistance to the attempts by Hezbollah to gain more power, this will only harden their position.  Meanwhile, it will put great pressure on the Maronite community to radicalize as well.

  by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:57:39 AM PDT

  •  How do you read this

    in light of Aoun's public statements in support of Nasrallah and Hezbollah?

    I'm just speculating, but I wonder if he might not be among the suspects in the bombing.

    Who else might have something to gain from this killing?

    by litho on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:59:46 AM PDT

    •  Correction

      Gemayal was shot, not bombed.

      My bad.

      by litho on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:03:43 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      ...it could theoretically be Aoun or another faction within the Lebanese Christians attempting to eliminate hardliners in the Christian community.  Obviously, the leading suspects have to be Nasrallah and Hezbollah themselves.

      Or, of course, there is another possibility: we don't know that much about what is going on inside the Lebanese Christian community or the Phlange in particular.  It is underreported even in Lebanon.  It could be that Gemayel was on board with Aoun's recent statements, and hardliners within the Phlange assasinated Gemayel with the intention of taking over the Phlange to resist Hezbollah more forcefully.

      Hopefully the truth will out, but I think there is no chance that this will not push the Phlange to be more rigid and probably violent as well.

      by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:04:51 AM PDT

      •  Thanks

        You're better informed on this than I am, and I value your comments.

        by litho on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:19:53 AM PDT

      •  Interesting

        Interesting possibilities.  I found it surprising that it was gunmen attacking (rather than a bomb) in a Christian neighborhood.  With a bomb, you could plant it and slip away.  Gunmen have a harder time escaping, espicially if they were Muslims in a Christian neighborhood.  Of course, I have no idea about the identity of the gunmen, how large the neighborhoods are, how controlled they are, or how far from uncontrolled territory.  I just thought the method was unusual in light of many past Lebanese assassinations being by bomb.

        by weasel on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:08:36 PM PDT

        •  It is unusual...

          ...and one point: I brought up the possibility of the assasin(s) being within the Phlange itself because during the civil war, shooting attacks were a hallmark of the Phlange.

          Now, that could easily mean nothing, and of course, that was a long time ago.  But still...

          by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 03:39:08 PM PDT

    •  Hezbollah has most to gain

      from social disruption at this point, but it would also cause a strong backlash against them, which they do not want.

      Lebanon is so full of factions.

      by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:57:10 AM PDT

      •  The more divided the country, the stronger

        the case the Syrian puppets can make that Lebanon needs the 'stabilizing' presence of Syrian troops.

        by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:24:31 AM PDT

        •  I don't think they believe that one

          will fly again.

          In fact, I strongly discount that Syria is directly involved.  It would be too obvious, too risky.

          by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:33:00 AM PDT

          •  Agreed

            You currently have Israeli, UN Hezbollah, and Lebanese government forces all at loggerheads.  Why would Syria risk refocusing the spotlight on themselves now?

            by weasel on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:10:22 PM PDT

            •  Syria and Hezbollah are trying to force the

              Lebanese government to collapse to prevent the tribunal into the Hariri assassination.

              Before Gimayel's assassination, they needed to pressure three Cabinet members to resign.

              That's down to two now.

              by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 05:51:22 PM PDT

            •  Update on this from Ha'aretz

              ANALYSIS: The accusations against Syria are all too routine

              By Zvi Bar'el

              ...

              However pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination. The day Gemayel 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 the way to achieving a semi-official stamp of approval from Washington as able to calm things down in Iraq. Syria could have been on the verge of an important political success in Lebanon - the possible fall of Fuad Siniora's government, which would mean Syria could increase the power of its supporters in the government by means of the Hezbollah ultimatum. If that came about, the international tribunal on the murder of Rafik Hariri would be delayed, or at least be of a sort convenient for the Syrians.

              With three such achievements, the last thing Damascus needed was a new accusation of a political murder in Lebanon.

              ...

              One of the Syrian intelligence organizations might have been behind the act, as revenge on those it deems responsible for the bashing it will take at an international tribunal.

              If that is true, it puts Syrian president Bashar Assad in an embarrasing position, with elements of his regime working behind his back.

              by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:53:46 PM PDT

•  Very sad what has been done to

  Lebanon. It could have been different. There are many hidden forces trying to tear apart the country further.  Four failed states in the middle east. I hope we don't create more. There was a balance of power there, now there is none.

  by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:01:15 AM PDT

•  More Info

  On the Phalange and the Kateeb Party here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by bink on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:02:55 AM PDT

•  I believe that the US

  is behind much of this.  Lebanon had a Gov. but Hezzbolluh had a place in the Gov.  The US didn't like the fact that they had any power.  I also believe that the US had their beloved son, of beloved leader, KILLED.  We were the only ones who could benefit from his death.  That led us to kick the Syrians out.  There is more at play here than we know.  Israel is also involved up to its buttcrack.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:03:20 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't make sense...

    ...the Phlange is who the Americans and the Israelis favor in Lebanon.  If they wanted to have someone killed, why would it be the leader of the group they support?

    by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:05:57 AM PDT

    •  That's

      exactly why it makes sense.

      (But I'm not saying that's what actually happened.)

      by LodinLepp on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:27:34 AM PDT

      •  It really doesn't...

        ...it would make sense if the Phlange was stronger.  But without Gemayel, there is no certainty that the Phlange will remain a united or powerful faction.

        by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:29:09 AM PDT

        •  Well, then why did Mosad

          help get Hamas off the ground?  That doesn't make much sense in your way of thinking either, but it happened.  

          These things are not linear.  

          Why would Putin blow up his own people? (as was alleged by the Russian spy who was poisoned recently) To take back Chechnya?  Who wants that place?  Or maybe to consolidate power? (which he certainly has done)

          Why would Israel assasinate a popular anti-Hezbollah leader?  Perhaps to galvanize popular support for disarming Hezbollah.

          by hardleft on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:10:55 AM PDT

          •  It's the old pattern of blaming EVERYTHING

            on the Israelis and Americans.

            If anti-Israeli figures get killed, that crowd blames the Israelis.

            If a pro-Israeli figure gets killed, that crowd blames the Israelis.

            They have a reptilian impulse to blame the Israelis before getting the facts or giving a moment's notice.

            by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:13:51 AM PDT

            •  Feh

              it's a perfectly reasonable conspiracy theory.

              I don't agree with it, but it makes some sense.  No need to go invoking "some people".

              by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:18:41 AM PDT

              •  Except that "some people" hit the "MOSSAD/CIA"

                button whenever any act of violence occurs.  London, Madrid, New York, Beirut--doesn't matter where the attack occurs, we inevitably get the same response from "some people."

                by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:21:02 AM PDT

            •  Read the history of CIA in

              South American. It a game of chess, not checkers.

              by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

              •  Check back when you have logic

                and evidence to support the "it was those evil Americans and Israelis" speculation.  

                Till then, it's just the usual suspects blaming their usual targets.  It's like Dobson blaming gays.

                by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

                •  Just like FBI building bombing

                  blamed on evil arabs...or 9/11 blamed on Saddum, or kneejerk blaming of Syria. We can speculate, but that's all it is...including blaming Syria.

                  by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

                  •  If you want to maintain the same truthiness

                    standards as the racists who blamed Oklahoma City on Arabs and the neocons who blamed 911 on Iraq, I can't join you.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:02:42 AM PDT

                •   6.17.06...found it. Let's keep open mind.

                  Lebanon Accuses Israel of Participation in Assasinations

                  Beirut to complain to UN about 'Israeli' hand in assassinations

                  Lebanon has decided to file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council asserting that Israel was behind a string of assassinations in the country, the Lebanese prime minister said on Saturday.

                  "We consider this as an act of aggression (by Israel)," Fouad Siniora told reporters.

                  "We are working on the file and once it is completed we will submit a complaint to the United Nations Security Council."

                  An investigation carried out by Lebanese intelligence recently uncovered the alleged Israeli involvement in the assassinations. According to the report, the agents involved in the hits were headed by a former Lebanese police officer.

                  Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said the report on the investigation includes unequivocal evidence and added that Beirut would file a complaint with the Security Council in order to "present Israel's nakedness before the international community," the Lebanese As-Safir newspaper reported on Friday.

                  http://gimmetruth.wordpress.com/...

                  by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:53:15 AM PDT

                  •  Do you not understand the difference

                    between allegations that Israel assassinated its sworn enemies and allegations that Israel assassinated its ally?

                    by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:01:34 AM PDT

                  •  what Bolton has to say

                    Bolton strongly disagreed when asked by a reporter whether council approval of the tribunal plan might feed instability in Lebanon, as some council members had argued.

                    "How incredibly wrong that would be," he said. "Instability? They are killing people in Lebanon, they are assassinating political leaders."

                    Bolton

                    We realy are going to Bomb Iran & Syria

                    by npbeachfun on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

          •  Mossad helped Hamas?

            Fine -- prove it.

            by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:22:03 AM PDT

            •  From Wiki

              It's pretty well established that Israel supported Hamas as a counterbalance to the secular Fatah and PLO.  I don't really feel like diging for all the backup.  He're the link.  Major news sources have reported on it.

              Before 1987 - Palestinian Islamic activities prior to the creation of Hamas
              Sheikh Ahmed Yassin returned to Gaza from Cairo in the 1970s, where he set up Islamic charities, founding Hamas in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the [Islamic university - founded in 1978 in Gaza] had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad." By the end of 1992, there were 600 mosques in Gaza. Hamas attracted members through preaching and charitable work before spreading its influence into trade unions, universities, bazaars, professional organizations and local government political races beginning in December 2004. “Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks), the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression”, according to L'Humanité.[48] Indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat.[49] According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization".[50] At that time, Hamas's focus was on "religious and social work". The grassroots movement concentrated on social issues such as exposing corruption, administration of waqf (trusts) and organizing community projects.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              by hardleft on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

              •  That's fine, then.

                But none of this is any evidence that Israel was involved in this particular assassination.

                by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 01:35:15 PM PDT

              •  Just heard today Joshua Muravchik

                from the American Enterprise Institute say how we should be supporting more guerrilla warfare. If they are OUR terrorists all is well in the world.

                by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 05:58:45 PM PDT

  •  Found this:

    *Question by one of the students: The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is the son of our country. What will be our position?

    "Aoun's answer: "I had previously invited Hezbollah to a solution. I am not willing to assume the results for the policies it follows and for its external ties. I

    advised them to abandon the military work and return a political party, for then we congratulated them on liberating Lebanese land. But when Hezbollah wants to stand outside the Lebanese framework for other objectives, we cannot bear the results of its policies. Then I cannot engage in a dialogue with Hezbollah while it is carrying the rifle. Let it put the rifle aside, then we sit down and talk. I call on Hezbollah to turn into a political party and we will cooperate with it. We don't want to eliminate this part, but it too can not enmesh us; from the Palestinian resistance to the Lebanese resistance, to others. [As the Lebanese proverb says]: "We brought the bear to our vineyard and then gave ourselves the credit for pushing it out". And everything is on our account. Taking out the Palestinian bear, taking out the Israeli bear, all on our account. To where will we continue? I don't know."

    "If what they (Hezbollah leadership) want are the Shebaa Farms, they have to get a small paper from the Syrians saying that these farms are inside Lebanese territory so we can liberate them. And then there is no need for the canon and the parades. But if carrying the rifle aims for Hezbollah's hegemony over Lebanon and if it becomes a Syrian tool for hegemony over Lebanon's decision, then Hezbollah would have abandoned much of its Lebanese affiliation and abandoned the fact that it is our brother, because we don't see him acting like one. He (Hezbollah) did not have any forgiveness or any understanding in the southern issue after the Israeli withdrawal.. The result was thousands of refugees in the south. Why were they treated like this? Because the State has neglected them for many years and accordingly they were forced to deal with an imposed status quo".

    "We then, cannot bear the results of a wrong policy when we have been giving Hezbollah advice from its first days. It is enough for us that we have postponed the solution in the Southern region since 1994 till year 2000. Today we want to liberate Jerusalem, as if Jerusalem is Hezbollah's responsibility. There are one billion and two hundred million Muslims who say Jerusalem is theirs. Let them step in and liberate it. For us in Lebanon alone to bear responsibility for this is a matter that is not at all acceptable anymore. It is a matter that is beyond our capabilities and not a normal one. Because of this wrong policy, look how many Lebanese have emigrated and how they are dispersed all over the world, both Muslims and Christians. We do not consent and support blindly. Let Hezbollah step in and explain to us its policy."
    http://www.americanchronicle.com/...

    by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:08:24 AM PDT

  •  Unless they actually caught the gunmen

    no way to tell anything.  Everyone is going to deny it and blame another faction.  Almost everyone has a motive too.

    by TJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:10:26 AM PDT

  •  I bet you also thought that the US and Brits and

    Mossad were behind the London bombings.

    Come back with some fucking evidence before throwing that shit out there.

    by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:35:27 AM PDT

  •  Troll-rated for breaking the rules.

    Read the FAQ -- Conspiracy theories are against the rules here.

    by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:20:36 AM PDT

    •  But this assassination

      was certainly the result of a conspiracy by someone.

      I believe the rule is against certain specific crackpot conspiracy theories, not reasonable suspicions of conspiracy.

      by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:25:37 AM PDT

      •  Not Israel or the US n/t.

        by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:39:22 AM PDT

        •  How do you know?

          And if there is a conspiracy by someone(s), which there would have to be, why are the CIA and the Mossad excluded when the countries of both agencies can benefit from this, depending on the goal?

          Just asking...

          by callmecassandra on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:54:03 AM PDT

          •  There is no evidence that they did.

            No evidence, no case.

            by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 01:26:04 PM PDT

            •  There is no evidence as to who did what...

              but people who speculate shouldn't automatically be shut down as tin foilers unless they're actually accusing instead of speculating. We do that often here...

              by callmecassandra on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 01:43:26 PM PDT

              •  Well:

                After I made that last comment, I saw where Lebanon says they have a strong case for it that they plan to make to the Security Council. But right now, all we have is their word for it.

                If you expect to convince me, you have to move beyond speculation and Lebanon's word for it and actually present a case.

                by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:06:08 PM PDT

                •  I wasn't trying to convince you EH.n/t

                  by callmecassandra on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 03:26:30 PM PDT

      •  You need evidence before accusing the US

        government of assassinating foreign leaders or bombing commuter trains in London.  

        by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:40:32 AM PDT

        •  Speculation about the reason for a crime

          always includes the principle cui bono? -- the question of who would benefit from the action.

          I have no evidence whatsoever that Hezbollah was behind this assassination, yet it seems clear to me that they would be likely to benefit from it.

          This doesn't justify declare that they did it, but it is grounds for suspicion.

          If someone has a similar argument suggesting the Mossad might have been involved, despite the absence of evidence, this is also a reasonable speculation.

          by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:50:16 AM PDT

          •  There are plenty of websites out there

            for people to indulge in their conspiracy theories.  This kind of crap is just like "Bush did 911" on a smaller scale.

            Btw, that poster actually claimed in another thread that Bush did 911--that's the mentality that we're talking about.

            by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:56:39 AM PDT

            •  My comments are general

              not referring to any given post.

              The US is already declaring the assassination a "terrorist act" and it will clearly affect our foreign policy.  Discussion of it is relevant here.

              by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:10:29 AM PDT

              •  Sure it is. But statements like "The US must

                have done it" are just crackpottery.  

                by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:13:37 AM PDT

                •  Yes, I can not regard that claim

                  as at all probable.

                  by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:34:48 AM PDT

        •  You do remember this:

          Israel orders killing of Hamas politicians
          Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
          IN A desperate attempt to stop the barrage of rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli villages, Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, has ordered his security chiefs to target the Islamic movement’s political leadership.

          According to Israeli security sources, a decision to assassinate leading Hamas politicians was taken by Olmert and his defence minister, Amir Peretz. Early yesterday Israeli missiles struck Hamas targets in Gaza, including a charity run by the group.

          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

          by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:14:55 AM PDT

          •  Those are *anti-Israeli* politicians.

            Gimayel was as close to pro-Israel as someone could be in Lebanon.

            If the theory is that people tend to assassinate their enemies, then the logical suspects here are Hezbollah and Syria, Not Israel.

            It's a clear and obvious sign of obsession and bias to blame Israel for all assassinations in the region.  These nutters assume that, regardless of who the assassinated person is or their allegiance, it must have been the Israelis.

            by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:19:07 AM PDT

            •  Well, how many governments actively

              announce and participate in assassinations in the ME?

              This is an old story that when I tried to google has now disappeared:

              Lebanon accuses Israel of car bombing
              Thu, 15 Jun 2006 5:41 PM PDT
              Lebanon accused Israel on Thursday of using an aircraft last month to detonate a car bomb that killed two officials of a Palestinian militant group in south Lebanon.

              The complaint was taken to the UN.

              I am NOT saying who has done this, just that USA and Israel should not be taken off the list of suspects.

              by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:33:20 AM PDT

              •  You're not comprehending my point.

                Let me spell it out:

                When someone gets assassinated, one normally suspects their enemies.

                You are citing examples of Israel being accused of assassinating its enemies.

                That is not relevant to this discussion.  This guy was not an enemy or opponent of Israel.

                by Geekesque on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:04:56 AM PDT

                •  There are short terms goals and long term

                  goals.

                  by mattes on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:03:51 PM PDT

        •  Mr Allen are you blamed USA 4 London

          Your the only one that talked about the London bombings.

          by npbeachfun on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:48:02 AM PDT

  •  This is unproven antiAmerican hate mongering

    until you have some kind of evidence to back it up. It is also anti-Israel to the point of being anti-Semitic until you have evidence to back it up. How about shutting up with the knee jerk "All evil is American/Israeli" whine until you have some proof.

    by Judy19 on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:24:05 AM PDT

    •  anti-semetic?

      in what way?

      Last time i checked being a tin foil hat conspiracy nut who blames the US and Israel, had nothing to do with "jewshness"  

      Isreal does not equal jew.
      Anti Israel does not equal anti-semetic.

      And in Lebanon, Israel has done some very dasterdly and harmful things to itself.

      by Love and Death on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:11:45 AM PDT

      •  Just because I hate Jews doesn't . . .ummm . . .

        Wow, can't spell Israel OR anti-semitic. That's pretty rare.
        But no, just because you blame Israel for everything wrong in the world doesn't make you anti-semitic. If I said every man woman and child in Ireland should be shot, cause they're scum ya know, that wouldn't make me anti-Irish. Just anti-Ireland. There are plenty of Irish Americans too, and I suppose I'd let them live!

        by nycmetsfan on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:17:33 PM PDT

•  Lebanon is getting hit from both sides

  First Israel bombs the southern part of Lebanon, and then another leader of theirs is hit.  Does someone else other than Syria (which Bush has been threatening to dismantle for quite some time) have any reason to kill this man?  Like formenting another war inthat region perhaps?

  Call me suspicous considering the actors in the region.  Excuse me for saying this, but there are no good guys in the administrations of any countries in the region.

  by GrandmaJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:04:48 AM PDT

  •  Just about everyone in Lebanon

    Gemayel was the leader of the Phlangists, the hardline Lebanese Christian movement.  So both moderate Christians and most Muslims would have a reason to want him dead.

    by Jay Elias on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:08:12 AM PDT

  •  what jay said

    Gamayel had many enemies, both inside and outside the Phlangists, and Lebanon.

    by Love and Death on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:18:12 AM PDT

    •  Saad Harari is blaming Syria,

      but then, he would.

      by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:01:53 AM PDT

      •  oops, Hariri

        by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:16:48 AM PDT

•  Ominous development

  regardless of who is responsible.  

  by Eiron on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:21:28 AM PDT

•  FWIW

  Someone with better sources than me.

  Who dunnit

  by TJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:55:18 AM PDT

•  Syria condemns Gemayal assination

  But then, they would.

  http://www.haaretz.com/...

  Syria: Gemayal murder a 'despicable crime'

  Syria condemned the murder of the anti-Syrian Christian politician, calling the assassination a "despicable crime."

  The official news agency Sana said in a statement, "This is a crime aimed at destabilizing Lebanon... Syria is careful about preserving Lebanon's security, unity and civil peace."

  SANA also quoted an anonymous official as saying, "This despicable crime aims to destroy stability and peace in Lebanon."

  The pro-Syrian Hezbollah party in Lebanon also came out against the murder. Hezbollah member Ahmed Melli told Al-Jazeera television, "We strongly condemn and denounce this killing. It was carried out by those forces who want to harm the future of Lebanon."

  by curmudgiana on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:56:04 AM PDT

•  I can't believe

  that some here think that the christians in lebanon assasinated one of their own leaders.

  This has to do with the upcomming vote on UN/international tribunals on the assassination of PM Hariri.  Syria and Hezbollah both have a lot to gain by his death.  They only need to remove 2 more anti-syrian politicians before the gov't ceases to function.  hezbollah can gain power and syria gets off the hook.

  Then there was this statement:

  Al-Nahar has received a fax statement in the name of the "Al-Qa'ida Organization in Lebanon" that was copied and distributed in the Nahr al-Barid (Palestinian) refugee camp. Following is the text of the statement:

  "In the name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful. Oh God, guide our aim, and keep our feet firm. Praise be to God and peace and blessings be upon the messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad, and his household, and companions. We announce that we have arrived in Lebanon and will work to destroy this corrupt government that takes its orders from the US Administration, and we warn all the agents who are attempting to harm us. Let them know that we are lying in wait for them, God willing. Your brethren in the "Al-Qa'ida Organization in Lebanon" are proceeding in their jihad and combat with the enemies of God so that only God is worshipped, as there will either be victory or martyrdom. God is great, God is great. Glory belongs to God, His messenger, and the mujahiddin."

  Syria, Hezbollah, and Al Qaida have the most to gain from this (for different reason)... but to admit that you would also have to admit the anti-christian ideology of Islam (as practiced in the middle east)... not a popular thought here.

  by Captain Infidel on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:39:03 PM PDT