Thursday, February 17, 2005
Who killed Rafik Hariri?
Meanwhile, Al-Jazz is running a news analysis piece that argues that the "enemies of Syria" are the real beneficiaries of the Harari assassination. Since we all know who the "enemies of Syria" are, Al-Jazz is basically arguing that the Yankee-Zionist conspiracy killed Hariri.
Bushra al-Khalil, a Lebanese lawyer and political activist, told Aljazeera.net the plot against al-Hariri's life targeted Syria.
"If we look at the way the assassination has been conducted, it is very sophisticated, I knew al-Hariri's security measures - no local system could have breached them.
"The question is, who stands to benefit from his death? Syria's enemies. I think al-Hariri's death is part of the plan to divide the region into tiny helpless sectarian states. This plan has started in Iraq and it will continue to hit all other Arab countries."
Al-Khalil said the killing was an attempt to force Syria to leave Lebanon before hitting it and commencing the region's carve-up.
I'm guessing that this is the same Bushra al-Khalil who offered to defend Saddam Hussein. Here is al-Khalil's letter to Saddam:
To: Mr. President Saddam Hussein may God protect him and guide him to the right path.
President of the Republic of Iraq and leader of Arab Mujahideen:
Your image which appeared yesterday on TV showing you in the hands of those hypocrites made me feel that you are the only free Arab man, while all the me and all other Arabs without exception are the real prisoners.
I appeal to you to allow me to have the honor of defending you in case a so-called 'trial' is set up.
At least we know where she is coming from, and how much weight to accord to her view that "the enemies of Syria" are behind the Hariri execution.
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Feb 17, 06:11:00 PM:
As a lefty reader of this blog (but not a loon, I hope, or a troll), I am curious about something. My impression is that it is the nearly unanimous view of people on the right that Syria is behind the assassination (please tell me if this is incorrect).
It seems more likely to me that it was the act of a group aligned with Al-Qaeda. I admit that I base this mostly on the fact that it appears to have been a suicide bombing. But if it was the act of such a group we should think about what they may be trying to accomplish. We might be playing into their hands by reflexively blaming Syria. Just curious what your readers think.
- Levi
By 
TigerHawk, at
Thu Feb 17, 10:29:00 PM:
I'm less certain that it was Syria than I am that it was not the United States or Israel. However, I'm not sure that the means -- suicide bomber -- rules out Syria. Syria, after all, pals around with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups that have all sorts of people willing to blow themselves up in the cause of murder. If one of those groups were convinced that Harari was going to try to enlist Western assistance to coerce Syria out of Lebanon, it might blow up Harari just to forestall that effort. That is, the assassin might have been a beneficiary of Syria's occupation, rather than Syria itself.
Obviously, you can't rule out al Qaeda. I just don't see how al Qaeda's strategic objectives are much served by this bombing. Unfortunately, I'm not expert enough to have a well-developed point of view on that question.
I'd also be interested in our readers thoughts.
And no, Levi, you're not a troll!
By Sluggo, at
Thu Feb 17, 10:30:00 PM:
I'm not aware of any ideological divide in this country in assigning blame nor of a consensus anywhere about who dun it, except in Lebanon. There, those factions (Maronite, Shia, Druze) most interested in expelling Syria from their country have an interest in Syria being the culprit and I think that's where most of this is coming from. Of course, if the administration's project is to establish democracies in the Middle East, the best candidate is Lebanon, but only with the expulsion of Syria. I'm sure they would be delighted to learn this is a fact, but I'm not sure what they could do about it. It's not like Hariri is the Archduke Ferdinand and a war-weary American public is going to demand a free Lebanon. That's a key to peace, but whether we do it or the Lebanese do it, it's going to be a bloody road there.
By SirCat, at
Fri Feb 25, 11:10:00 AM:
As a casual consumer of international news, here is my impression.
Before, during and after the Iraq invasion, the US has been blaming Syria almost non-stoppingly for all kinds of wrong doings, multiple times stern warnings were issued by US top officials.
But all these efforts seems fell on deaf ears. Basically, Syria has been playing dead to avoid drawing further attention to itself.
What can a dog do facing a all curled up hedgehog?
The assassination of Mr. Rafik Hariri and US quick response to call back the embassador have sort dragged Syria out of hiding and put bright spot lights and international pressure on it. It can no longer lying low and has to start to do something it reluctant to do for a long time.
Who gains and who loses from this? Did Syria really did this to force itself to do something it didn't want to do for a long time?
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 04:26:00 AM:
We specialize in laptop battery,laptop AC adapters. All our products are brand new, with the excellent service from our laptop battery of customer service team.
the most convenient and cheap replacement battery online shop in uk. We specialize in laptop batteries,laptop AC adapters.
All our laptop AC adapters are brand new, with the excellent service from our customer service team.
the most convenient and cheap battery online shop in uk.
