 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
well first of all, theres no active terror insurgency in Lebanon, and the Syrians have been there for 29 years. This is as if the the US were still in Iraq in 2032, and after the insurgency had died down for over a decade. |
And clearly, they're attributing that at least in part to the Syrian occupation.
quote:
As for the Lebanese oppositon being fascists, really, thats beneath you. |
I'm not saying that the opposition to Syria if fascist, but that the opposition to an equal Shia vote is fascist. Which doesn't include the entire Maronite community, but some of it. Anyways, to a large extent corporatist policies dominate in Lebanon IIUC.
quote:
And I really dont see that Hezb has any plan for gradual withdrawl by Syria, equivalent to UIA's position on American forces in Iraq. UIA wants to strengthen Iraqs armed forces so US can leave/ Hezb wants to keep the Leb army OUT of south lebanon, and remain the principle force there. I really dont think Hezb is much like UIA at all - its more like the Sadrists. |
It's a question of control in the gov't. As I said, the Shia are shut out despite their plurality. They don't trust the central gov't. The militia remains, and they're backing Syria, because they see them as bargaining chips over the other sectarian factions. There's no timetable for Syrian withdrawal because there's no timetable for Shia political inclusion.
quote:
first of all, not all Maronites were Phalangists. |
No, but most of them were. The Phalangists dominated Maronite politics from just prior to the civil war up till '92.
quote:
IIUC its incorrect to say that no one else had influence. |
Not saying otherwise.
quote:
Of course to the extent that Hezbollah represents a group that wants to impose Islamism on the state, and uses terrorist methods, and wants to subordinate Lebanon to Syria to get its way, they would seem to retroactively justify the fears of generations of Maronite politicians. |
Incidentally, Hezbollah's terrorism has declined to a great extent these past years. As you said, this isn't 1983.
quote:
Can an anti-Hezbollah party organize in the South, where the writ of the Lebanese army does not run, but that of armed Hezb does? |
Amal still exists, don't it?
quote:
second - why do you say predominantly Maronite |
By all accounts, most of the anti-Syrian demonstrators are Maronite. Yes, there are Sunnis and Druze, but it's mostly Maronite.
quote:
- Hariri was a Sunni Muslim, and his community has largely joined the opposition - |
And, interestingly enough, Tripoli (a Sunni city) had a pro-Syrian demonstration. Karimi is also a Sunni. And again, note the Zogby poll: more Sunnis believe that Israel/US had somethign to do with the Hariri assassination than Syria.
quote:
while some Maronite pols (not just Lahoud) have supported Syria. |
Lahoud is pretty irrelevent. There's Franjieh (interestingly enough, he supports also Syria as a power-broker in fear of Muslim violence), and that's about it. Wasn't I arguing your point earlier? 
Last edited by Ramo on 10-03-2005 at 02:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
MOre form the Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article...rticle_id=13240
quote:
Frightened Syrian workers take refuge in Sidon municipality after latest hate crime
By Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Frightened Syrian workers take refuge in Sidon municipality after latest hate crime
SIDON: More than 45 Syrian laborers took refuge at the municipality in Sidon on Monday after four of their countrymen were severely beaten. The southern port city's mayor, Abdel-Rahman Bizri, spoke personally with the frightened group, saying that they need not be afraid and pledging to catch the perpetrators.
Bizri denounced the incident of violence, saying Sidon is known for its diversity and open-mindedness.
He said: "What happened does not represent the city, but rather a group that is getting paid. We will not allow such incident to happen again."
According to the victims, the unknown assailants first cut off the power and then stormed the apartment where the four Syrians, employees of the Talal Zaatari company for agricultural equipment, were sleeping. They beat them with wooden boards and sharp metal objects, all the while shouting insults and demanding that they leave the city.
Three of the Syrians were seriously wounded in the attack.
One of the victims, Nabil Zouqani, whose face showed traces of the beating, said that he and his companions Sayyed, Salah and Jamil Hariri "have been working here for nine years and we have never been harmed."
Internal Security Forces have opened investigations into the incident.
The attack is the fifth in a series of incidents of violence aimed at Syrians here since the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Hariri's sister, Sidon MP Bahia Hariri, issued a statement Monday condemning the latest attack against Syrian laborers, saying: "Attacking our brothers the Syrian workers is part of the same plot that assassinated Rafik Hariri."
She described the act as "contradictory with our morals and Arab identity," and said it "dragged the people into strife."
Also Monday, the Human Rights Association in Syria issued a statement calling for officials in Lebanon and Syria "to protect human rights and the rights of workers."
It said: "Authorities and non-governmental organizations in both countries should take their responsibilities toward this matter and not abandon their duties of protecting workers trying to make a living."
Hundreds of thousands of Syrian nationals, mainly farmers and construction workers, have come to Lebanon because of the promise of higher pay. But their numbers have noticeably dwindled since some have become targets after Hariri's death.
A day after the assassination, dozens of demonstrators clashed with Syrian laborers in Hariri's hometown of Sidon, lightly wounding five Syrians. In the northern town of Minyeh, 23 tents housing dozens of Syrian laborers were burned, although the cause was unclear.
Due to the continued threat of violence against them, many Syrian laborers have quit their jobs in Lebanon and returned home. - With agencies |
Thye one bit I find funny thought is about Human rights orgs. in Syria....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
Here is perhaps the best article from the Daily Star, an annalysis of the situation:
quote:
Lebanon shifts from emotions into politics
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Three weeks after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the fog of emotion and anger is clearing and is being replaced by the more legible confusion of political battles old and new. The easy victories have been achieved, the spontaneous mass public sentiments have been expressed, and the more significant political battles are just beginning. All the principal parties have now logged on to the virtual ideological chat room that Lebanon has become.
We will know in the coming weeks if Lebanon will make political history by being the first Arab country in which mass popular mobilization changed a government and changed the policy of a powerful neighbor (Syria in this case). Conversely, this may turn out to be a fleeting moment of romantic idealism, in which the spirit of sovereignty and freedom from Syrian domination that genuinely drives so many Lebanese will fall victim to more powerful forces of entrenched Arab interests and Western diplomatic expediency and short attention spans.
The important new development is that the principal players have entered the political fray and made their opening moves. Syrian President Bashar Assad Saturday announced a phased pullback of Syrian troops to the border region, and Monday the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Committee added new layers of imprecision to this. It announced that the initial pullback would be made this month, but further moves would depend on bilateral consultations at a later stage. This is known as thumbing your nose at Washington and Paris.
The Lebanese opposition, and major Western governments, quickly expressed disappointment in this, insisting that a full, immediate withdrawal from Lebanon was required to meet the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1559. This is known as leaning harder on Damascus.
The Lebanese opposition to Syria's presence in Lebanon in turn held a rally in Beirut Monday in which tens of thousands took part, demanding an immediate and full withdrawal of all Syrian military and security personnel. The main pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon, headed by the powerful Hizbullah party, weighed in last weekend with a speech by its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He thanked the Syrians for protecting Lebanon against disintegration during the civil war, and rejected Resolution 1559, which wants Hizbullah disarmed along with Syria's withdrawal. Hizbullah's massive march in central Beirut Tuesday was its response to the anti-Syrian opposition movement's dominance of the street since the Feb. 14 Hariri assassination.
Three things are happening simultaneously here that need to be watched closely, in order to know which way events will unfold. The first is a process of localization and provincialization of these dynamics into very narrow Lebanese terms - ones that are existentially important for the Lebanese people, but less compelling for the rest of the world.
The second is the transformation of raw human emotions into hardnosed political ideology - as all Lebanese and Syrian actors mobilize and flaunt their power assets and start the process of making compromise deals to achieve reasonable results for all concerned, while preserving the national unity and stability of Lebanon.
The third is the slow disaggregation of local, regional and global political dynamics from each other. The parties are now identifying their core interests - incumbency, honor, security, dignity, hegemonic power, wealth, credibility and survival come to mind as key priorities - and discard marginal issues.
In this respect, the pressure that has been mostly focused on Syria and its handpicked Lebanese leadership in recent weeks will now shift to the Lebanese opposition and Hizbullah. The Lebanese opposition is being tested on several important counts. How long can it persist primarily on the anger and shock of the Hariri murder? Is it really broad based, or primarily a traditional Christian opposition to Syria's dominance in Lebanon these last 30 years? Can it channel the emotional power of its supporters in the street into a credible political force that achieves meaningful demands? After it brought down the brittle Omar Karami government, has it aimed too high in demanding the resignation of seven top Lebanese security directors? Would asking for the resignation of President Emile Lahoud fragment the opposition fatally? And, how will the opposition reconcile 1559's demand to disarm Hizbullah with the party's strong Lebanese national legitimacy and popularity?
Hizbullah itself now faces perhaps the biggest political test of its life since it came into existence in the early 1980s. How will Syria's imminent withdrawal from Lebanon impact on Hizbullah's domestic standing? Will it engage more directly in Lebanese national politics, or remain apart as the "resistance" that safeguards Lebanon's security from Israeli threats, even if those threats seem less active since Israel was chased out of the South 5 years ago? How will Hizbullah reconcile the widespread Lebanese demand (now also blessed by Syria) to implement 1559, without disarming Hizbullah?
Hizbullah's massive demonstration in central Beirut Tuesday sent a powerful multiple message to several constituencies: Hizbullah physically and symbolically laid claim to central Beirut for half a day; dwarfed the anti-Syrian demonstrations with its human waves of marchers in epic proportions; made it clear to Washington, Israel and others that it would not be disarmed easily; clarified to all interested parties that substantial numbers of Lebanese appreciate their relations with Syria; and prepared the ground for it to engage in domestic and national Lebanese politics in the wake of a Syrian withdrawal, especially via the rolling regional mass rallies it has called for throughout major Lebanese cities, starting in Tripoli and Nabatiah as of Sunday.
The Lebanese-Syrian decision Monday to redeploy Syrian troops by the end of this month will elicit stronger American and Western pressure on Syria, which we've already witnessed since Saturday night. This in turn will heighten pressures on Hizbullah and the Lebanese opposition groups to clarify their positions and, more importantly, sort out their assorted contradictions and vulnerabilities.
Only one thing seems certain right now: The Syrians will withdraw all their forces from Lebanon in the coming months, because of the immense local and global pressures to do this, which Syria acknowledges. All other developments will depend on how the parties mobilize and use their political assets in making threats and deals.
Rami G. Khouri is a member of THE DAILY STAR staff. |
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article...rticle_id=13266
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
OK, this is silly, but another article relevant to the current questions about Hezbollah:
quote:
Keeping the spotlight off Hizbullah
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The most striking aspect of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East William Burns' visit to Lebanon on Feb. 16, which was followed by another by his deputy some 10 days later, is the diplomats' intentional withholding from expressing any public stance regarding Hizbullah, although the United States has not changed its stance on the issue.
U.S. President George W. Bush had raised the issue with his European counterparts during a tour of Europe to demand the inclusion of the resistance group on the continent's list of terrorist organizations.
The initiative falls within the framework of a plan by Washington, in cooperation with the European Union, to dismantle UN Security Council Resolution 1559 to insure the successful implementation of this resolution.
Had Washington insisted on dealing with the resolution's articles as a whole, it would not have won the international and Arab unanimity that it achieved without the possibility of the failure of some articles aiming at the disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militia, i.e. Hizbullah and the Palestinian refugee camps, especially since the international resolution was the fruit of U.S.-French cooperation in the Security Council.
Diplomatic sources said a bargain was then struck between the U.S. and France: France would support the United States on the Hizbullah issue and in return Washington would support Paris in restoring Lebanon's independence and sovereignty, knowing that Washington is also motivated by other reasons to proceed with the Lebanon file.
These consist of pressuring Syria as a key state to conflicts in Iraq and Palestine.
However, the U.S. deems it easier to play the card of the presence of a foreign military force in Lebanon - especially since not all Arab countries agree on Syria's hegemony in Lebanon. This reality is especially the case after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination.
The assassination bid deprived Syria of one of its bargaining chips, at least with the U.S., which has always considered Syrian troops in Lebanon as a stabilizing force.
Lebanon would have caused the failure of the implementation of Resolution 1559 had it requested the implementation of the resolution as a whole.
Putting aside calls for disarming Hizbullah has largely contributed in avoiding internal strife or a major conflict.
The Lebanese opposition has had a substantial role in keeping the spotlight off of Hizbullah by giving priority to the Syrian withdrawal, perhaps due to the fact that Hizbullah represents the majority of Lebanon's Shiites, who cannot be turned into enemies as they may rush to offer support for the Syrian presence in Lebanon.
Besides, Hizbullah's disarmament can be carried out by destroying the reasons behind the armament, namely the altered circumstances since the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000.
In a recent news conference, Hizbullah's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, said that the party's presence aims at insuring peace in the region, thus going beyond the truce accord between Lebanon and Syria.
He also sought to provide an alternative equation for the Syrian presence that officially and publicly claimed to achieve peace by preserving its war machine as a reserve for the recovery of the Golan Heights.
Nasrallah urged the opposition to specify it as a resistance and not a terrorist group in a bid to elude Resolution 1559 later. Nasrallah is confident that it is the government's responsibility to protect Hizbullah from 1559.
Outgoing Premier Omar Karami has already defended the Syrian military presence in Lebanon under the alibi of depriving Hizbullah and Palestinian camps from their arms, which means Lebanon's commitment to the implementation of all articles of Resolution 1559. This is why Nasrallah offered Hizbullah's protection to the opposition, particularly as with the likely settlement of the Shebaa Farms conflict, Hizbullah's case would be reduced to a domestic issue. This is also why Nasrallah called for a demonstration in central Beirut and not in Beirut's southern suburbs or South Lebanon or the Bekaa. And this is why demonstrators were called to raise the Lebanese flag alone.
This is a new phase for Hizbullah, which is acting based on the experience of others but according to its own plan to avoid others imposing their plan on Hizbullah. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
And clearly, they're attributing that at least in part to the Syrian occupation.
|
Its hard to tell, as Hezb is unclear in its stand on the occupation, as the articles from the Star show.
I'm not saying that the opposition to Syria if fascist, but that the opposition to an equal Shia vote is fascist. Which doesn't include the entire Maronite community, but some of it. Anyways, to a large extent corporatist policies dominate in Lebanon IIUC.
[/q]
Im not saying that communal voting quotas are right, but I hardly think support for them is necessarily fascist. As for corporatist, im not sure it means what you think it means. Musso saw it as a way of organizing society and the economy - Lebanon is largely free market in economy.
quote:
It's a question of control in the gov't. As I said, the Shia are shut out despite their plurality. They don't trust the central gov't. The militia remains, and they're backing Syria, because they see them as bargaining chips over the other sectarian factions. There's no timetable for Syrian withdrawal because there's no timetable for Shia political inclusion. |
Which says something about Syria's 29 years as an occupier, doesnt it? And its 16 years since the Taif accords, which called for precisely that. Seems theyve put theyre deals with the Maronite and Sunni communities, to keep support for their troops there, ahead of Shiite rights. And yet the Shiites support a pro-Syrian party? Made sense when the Israelis were there and occupying Shiite villages - hasnt made sense for the last 5 years.
.
quote:
Amal still exists, don't it? |
I really dont know Lebanese voting patterns - does Amal get votes in the Hezb dominated south? IIUC there are Shiites in other parts of Lebanon as well - esp the Bekaa Valley, and parts of Beirut.
By all accounts, most of the anti-Syrian demonstrators are Maronite. Yes, there are Sunnis and Druze, but it's mostly Maronite.[/q]
All the reports ive seen emphasize the mix, and i hear ALOT of quotes from Jumblatt. It wouldnt surprise me that the Maronites are most enthusiastic, though.
quote:
And, interestingly enough, Tripoli (a Sunni city) had a pro-Syrian demonstration. Karimi is also a Sunni. |
And Karimi is from Tripoli IIUC - thats one data point, not two.
quote:
And again, note the Zogby poll: more Sunnis believe that Israel/US had somethign to do with the Hariri assassination than Syria. |
You must forgive me - thats such (IMHO) a typical unrealistic conspiracy theory for the region, that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it as an indicator of general political beliefs. My impression from Iraq is that there are folks who will say the US is the grand conspirator behind everything, yet manage to work with the US anyway.
quote:
Lahoud is pretty irrelevent. There's Franjieh (interestingly enough, he supports also Syria as a power-broker in fear of Muslim violence), and that's about it. Wasn't I arguing your point earlier? |
I dont know about Lahoud - it seems Hariri broke with Syria over extending his term, and that started the whole chain of events, so I cant see how hes irrelevant.
The same point - IIUC you were arguing that fewer Lebanese than we think are pro-Syrian withdrawl - you were arguing based on polls that many non-Shias are pro-Syrian, yet seemed to assume that all Shias are pro_Syrian. Im simply arguing that views of Syria dont break cleanly on communal lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Incidentally, lotm, Amal also supports the Syrian occupation. Why do you suppose that's so, if sectarian concerns are irrelevent? |
I didnt say theyre irrelevant. Im just questioning the implication that the call for withdrawl is just a power play on the part of the Maronites, which will lead to renewed Christian-Muslim civil war, and thus ( i think this is the implication) Western calls for Syrian withdrawl are irresponsible, and possibly anti-muslim.
Syria has justified an occupation that benefits them economically, that fulfills geopolitical aspirations of long standing, and that enables them to shelter Hezbollah, which (not to speak of the past, Buenos Aires, et al) NOW provides Syria leverage against Israel by shelling across the border, and, if either the Israeli govt OR the Palestinian Authority are to be believed, by supporting terrorist violence against the Israeli-Pal peace process, by the assertion that its necessary to prevent civil war. Syria NEEDS intercommunal tension in Lebanon, just as imperialists in the past needed intercommunal tension as a justification - diviso et imperio. Thats why the most revolutionary thing we saw was NOT the numbers demonstrating against Syria, but the unity among Maronites, Sunni Muslims, and Druze. Surely not all three of those communities are trying to preserve the political status quo. So it was a question (which i raised here quite early) of what Hezbollah wants to be - if they want to be a Lebanese political party they can join with the Druze, and make themselves part of the broader post-Syrian political scene. But that assuredly means giving up arms, losing the flow of money from Iran, and ceasing to be a player in the Israeli-Pal crisis. Which choice, a Lebanese party, or an Iranian backed terrorist group - Sein Fein, or the Regular IRA, if I may put it that way. By denouncing the opposition they seem to be going with the latter, although what ive read of their speeches looks like theyve left themselves some wiggle room.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Clearly the Kurds expect the Peshmerga to be the core of the autonomous regions security forces, as they were pre-93. It would be foolish to disband them when that isnt settled. Hezb on the other hand claims to be just one more Lebanese political party. Yet it claims a privilege no other party has. Besides the Peshmerga have dwarfed the party militias since 03 - in fact none of the party militias were in Iraq pre-03. In Lebanon on the other hand, every group had a militia, and Hezb was not the largest or most powerful - it is now because the Syrians have chosen to implement the disarmament provisions of the Taif accords against EVERY militia EXCEPT Hezbollah. But no, theyre not a Syrian puppet, no. Oh, of course theyre ALSO powerful because of the funding they get from Teheran. |
1. So its OK for the kudrs to undermine the power of a central Iraqi state by keeping a vast military force because the dmeocratic will of Iraqis might be against giving the Kurds autonomy? HOw democraticly minded of you.
2. I assume that Hezbollah was the only militia actively working to remove Israel from Lebanon....gee, whizz, why would Syria not move against them? Its a mystery to solve, Lets call Scooby Doo!
Oh, and Hezbollah does claim itslef to be different from all other political parties- you know, being the ones who drove the IDF out, and their insistance in calling themselves the resistance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
quote:
1. So its OK for the kudrs to undermine the power of a central Iraqi state by keeping a vast military force because the dmeocratic will of Iraqis might be against giving the Kurds autonomy? HOw democraticly minded of you. |
democracy is not just the rule of the majority when national and state definitions are at issue. In any case democracy is hardly securely established in Iraq, as YOU have reiterated many times. In any case I dont know that the Kurds have called for the disarmament of other militias - unlike Hezbollah, which keeps a unique status. Clearly in Iraq given its history, the Kurds need a militia for now for their security. In Lebanon, I see as much rationale for a Maronite or Sunni or Druze militia as for Hezb - yet none of those communities have a militia anymore.
quote:
2. I assume that Hezbollah was the only militia actively working to remove Israel from Lebanon....gee, whizz, why would Syria not move against them? Its a mystery to solve, Lets call Scooby Doo! |
Syria would move against them cause thats what the Taif accords called for, and those accords are the basis for them staying in Lebanon. Also cause they were theoretically rebuilding Lebanon after the civil war, and that wasnt compatible with an armed Hezbollah. Now tell me why anyone in Lebanon whos NOT a supporter of Hezbollah would allow Hezbollah to retain a militia. And given that disarmament of hezbollah is the probable result of Syrian withdrawl, its pretty clear that Hezbs opposition to said withdrawl is based on their desire to retain special status - and said status is NOT compatible with fitting into a normal Lebanese political system.
As I said, they had to make a choice, and they made it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well IF theyre a Lebanese political party, I would assume that some instances would occur where their interests dont match those of Syria or Iran. |
And why is this? Care to explain the core of your arguement, instead of making such a huge statement without backing?
Oh, and given that this party has 12 members in Parliment and could get 200,000 plus Lebanse to come out, obviously it is a Lebanse party.
But the great weakness of the Oerdin line of thought is this- if its all about the money, why don;t the US and Israel simply go meet with Hezbollah and say...Hey, we will triple the amount of money that you get from Syrian and Iran, as long as you do what we say.
Please explain as well, after explaining the bit above, why, if its all about money, why aren't the Americans and Israelis looking to buy hezbollah- no way we could not easily match and triple whatever they get form anyone else. It seems the simplest, most rational thing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
And why is this? Care to explain the core of your arguement, instead of making such a huge statement without backing? |
Its the normal course of human events that no two actors agree about everything.
quote:
Oh, and given that this party has 12 members in Parliment and could get 200,000 plus Lebanse to come out, obviously it is a Lebanse party. |
theyre lebanese, but im not sure theyre a normal political party - more of a "militant" group, playing as in independnet actor in the regional game. Not one commited to the Lebanse political process.
quote:
But the great weakness of the Oerdin line of thought is this- if its all about the money, why don;t the US and Israel simply go meet with Hezbollah and say...Hey, we will triple the amount of money that you get from Syrian and Iran, as long as you do what we say.
Please explain as well, after explaining the bit above, why, if its all about money, why aren't the Americans and Israelis looking to buy hezbollah- no way we could not easily match and triple whatever they get form anyone else. It seems the simplest, most rational thing to do. |
|
follow the money as an indicator of influence does not = for sale to any bidder.
My local 7-11 clerk will run the store however his boss says - but he wont go over to Al Qaeeda for a sufficient commision. Doesnt mean hes an independent actor from his boss.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2005 02:18
|