Did Hezbollah Thwart a Bush/Olmert Attack on Beirut?

Nasrallah: "Are YOU talking to ME?"
See also :
Beirut Finally . . . The Fuller Picture
2 Nil to Hezbollah


Go Team Frankie!

This article is being excerpted in it's entirety under the powers granted me under E.U code 8496 namely: Section 34.b: "He agrees with me so I'm crowing about it"

This week Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that "Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese and it had wanted to take the government it could have done it," He said Hezbollah, continued to pose a "significant" threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory."

Yadlin was putting it mildly.

But what Intelligence Chief Yadlin did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how "significant" but also "immediate" the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was he willing to divulge the fact that he received information via US and French channels that if the planned attack on Lebanon's capitol went forward that Tel Aviv was subject, in the view of the US intelligence community to "approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day".

The Israeli Intel Chief also declined to reveal that despite Israel's recent psyche-war camping about various claimed missile shields "the State of Israel is perfecting", that this claim is being ridiculed at the Pentagon. "Israel will not achieve an effective shield against the current generation of rockets, even assuming no technological improvements in the current rockets aimed at it, for another 20 years. And that assumes the US will continue to fund their research and development for the hoped for shields" according to Pentagon, US Senate Intelligence Committee, and very well informed Lebanese sources.

The planned attack on Beirut

According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the Bush administration initially green lighted the intended May 11 Israel 'demonstration of solidarity with the pro-Bush administration militias, some with which Israel has maintained ties since the days of Bashir Gemayal and Ariel Sharon.

In the end, "the Bush administration got cold feet", a Congressional source revealed. So did Israel.

Israel was not willing to proceed with the original Bush Administration idea which was to have Bush attend the May 15 Israel anniversary celebrations following the Israeli attack meant to hit Hezbollah hard, and give Bush the credit for coming to the dangerous region. The message was to be that Bush comes to the rescue 'on horseback and leads the US Calvary charge straight out of a B western movie where the bugle would sound and flag would be unfurled and the white hat good guys would show their stuff before riding into the sunset and back to Texas, leaving the results to the likely Obama administration to sort out.

The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.

Also presumably disturbing to Israel was the report it received that Hezbollah "had once again in all probability hacked its "secure" military intelligence communications and the fear that the information would be shared with others.

The Hezbollah rout of the militias in West Beirut plus the fear of retaliation on Tel Aviv, ruining 60th anniversary celebrations, forced cancellation of the supportive attack.

Israel limited its actions to sending two F-15's and two F-16's into as far North as Tyre, one more of literally hundreds of violations of Lebanese airspace, sovereignty and SCR 1701.

Clearly frustrated, Cabinet Minister Meir Sheetrit said Israel should not yet take any action now, but warned" those things could change if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon." a few minutes earlier he had declared that Hezbollah had done just that and had treated the Lebanese army as a doormat.

Later in the Sunday cabinet meeting, Minister Ami Ayalon called for an emergency meeting of the political-security cabinet to discuss "the ongoing crisis in Lebanon and why Israel was not assisting friendly forces."

Minister Yitzhak Cohen (Shas) said that "Israel must immediately ask the [United Nations] Security Council to hold renewed discussions over resolution 1701." The minister was referring to the resolution that stopped the Israeli actions against Lebanon during the 34-day between in 2006, maintaining a fragile cease-fire.

Finally Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert informed Israeli supporters in Lebanon, through the media, and presumbly other means that" Israel was following the violence in Lebanon closely, but would refrain from intervening. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio Sunday that Israel was prepared for the possibility that the situation in Lebanon will deteriorate into another civil war (meaning future opportunities for Israeli influence and interventon in Lebanon) and that the current fighting could end with a Hezbollah takeover of the government. "We need to keep our eyes peeled and be especially sensitive regarding all that is happening there," Vilnai told Army Radio.

The Bush administration, also disappointed, switched tactics and is opting for domination of the narrative of the fairly complicated events of the past week and using their media and confessional allies to launch a media blitz (minus Future TV for a few days} to flood the airways with:

· Hezbollah staged a coup d'état. Even Israel, if not the Bush administration, concedes Hezbollah has no interest in taking over the Government. (One observer, paraphrasing Winston Churchill's comment, deadpanned, "Some Hezbollah Coup! Some Hezbollah Etat!")

· Hezbollah brought it forces from the South and occupied West Beirut: Hezbollah not only did not bring their forces from the South to Beirut (rather they remained on alert for an Israel attack down South)


· Hezbollah broke its pledge not to use Resistance arms against Lebanese militias and shot up West Beirut.

The facts are very different when viewed close up on the streets here.

When the Lebanese Resistance took the decision during the early hours of Friday morning to engage in civil disobedience, it delayed its actions so as not to preempt the Labor movement strike for higher wages which it supported. When the marching Strikers were prevented from moving into West Beirut the Opposition extended its civil disobedience manifestation.

Various militias, including the smartly outfitted Hariri "Secure Plus" with its distinctive maroon tee-shirts and beige trousers, (now know locally by some as "Secure Minus") a hoped for future Blackwater operation in Lebanon disintegrated surprisingly quickly because many of its green recruits brought down from Tripoli felt misled and betrayed regarding their job description as they were handed weapons an instructed to fight Hezbollah. Snipers from anti-Opposition factions killed civilians from rooftops in Beirut trying to ignite a civil war.

Hezbollah, acting in self defense, according to various officials, quickly clamped down on the trouble makers, took control of the streets, within hours handed them over to the army, and virtually evacuated West Beirut, retaining one position near Bay Rocks manned by unarmed representatives.

Meanwhile the Hariri influence has been greatly weekend in Akkar near the Palestinian Refugee camp of Nahr al Bared and in the Tripoli area. According to some political analysts, including, Fida'a Ittani, a regular columnist for the independent pro-opposition newspaper Al-Akhbar, wrote on May 14, the Future Movement, defeated in Beirut, no longer has any serious influence in the north.

Several Salafi al Qaeda admiring movements are present in Lebanon and like Fatah Islam's declaration this week that they will fight for the Sunnis, they vary in their attitudes from silent opposition to Future leader Saad Al-Hariri to fully supporting him as the leader of the Sunnis. These groups are valued by certain 'leaders' in Lebanon because are the only ones with coherent structures at the ideological, political, technical, and field levels.

Judging from Saad Hariri's confused statements at his subsequent news conference and statements by other parties, the bitterness of promised but unforthcoming assistance was evident.

For two days following the debacle of his forces imploding the head of the Future Movement said nothing. Finally on the 14th he broke his silence. The Halba massacre, committed by Hariri's Mustakbal militiamen which brutally and barbarically murdered 11 people from the opposition did not seem worthy of discussion as he spoke. In a press conference on Tuesday, Hariri simply ignored what all the Lebanese had seen on TV from weapons, ammunition and alcohol found in Future movement offices, and instead listed a series of delusions. "We awaited an open war on Israel, and yet here is an open war on Beirut and its people" he stated. Some interpreted this rather odd statement either as a subconscious slip of the tongue on Hariri's part expressing his frustration that the Israelis help did not arrive or that his reported earlier incoherent state persisted.

Hariri's original speech was so confused that the Saudi channel al-Arabiyya stopped broadcasting it and only read excerpts from what he said, without showing his recorded speech.

When American criticism resumed, and Hezbollah fighters withdrew from the alleys surrounding his house, Hariri was urged to stand up and speak again, this time with a stronger tone, saying "This has been decided by the Iranian and Syrian regimes that wanted to play a political game in Lebanon's streets. For us nothing has changed. We will not negotiate with someone having a pistol pointed to our heads."

Anger at the Bush administration and Israel by certain warlords in Lebanon must feel much like the frustration of Secure Minus personal who rushed from Tripoli and felt misled, abandoned and cheated.

Franklin Lamb can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

2 Nil to Hezbollah

Hezbollah in charge in Beirut

Calm returns to Beirut's streets

Lebanon's opposition has begun withdrawing its fighters from the streets of Beirut, handing control to the army, after seizing much of the city in battles with government supporters.

Hezbollah, which heads the opposition, vowed to end its takeover of west Beirut on Saturday, after the army overturned government measures against them.
"The opposition welcomes the army's decision and will proceed with the withdrawal of all its armed elements so that control of the capital is handed over to the military," an opposition statement said.

Stefan Christoff: First, can you describe the current situation in Beirut?

Samah Idriss: Now everything is relatively calm. All the offices of the government-backed Future Movement in West Beirut have surrendered and many of the pro-government "fighters," many who were invited to come from northern Lebanon, often without even knowing that they were going to fight, have surrendered to the opposition and the opposition has handed these people and offices over to the Lebanese army.

Now that the forces from the March 14th movement have lost this battle, pro-government forces claim that they weren't preparing for a war, that they aren't organizing armed militias and that they weren't instigating the fighting, while claiming that Hizballah is acting on behalf of Iran and Syria.

It is critical to remember that this current situation started when the Lebanese government, a couple days ago, decided to declare the Hizballah communications system or independent telephone grid as illegal. This is critical because this communications system was a major reason behind Hizballah's victory against Israel in July 2006. Given that the Hizballah system isn't wireless it is harder for Israel or the US to crack or decode this communications network. This communication system was key to Hizballah preventing Israeli forces from knowing the positions and movements of Hizballah and it's leadership during the war in 2006.

So this current scenario commenced with an instigation from the western-backed government. Additionally the government wanted to kick out a person in charge at the international airport in Beirut who is close to Hizballah, in order to replace them with another person who would not be able to assist Hizballah to know who travels in and out at the airport.

These two actions from the government, the declaration of Hizballah's communication network as illegal and the attempt to oust a Hizballah-sympathetic person at Beirut's international airport, instigated the attack from the opposition, led by Hizballah.

West Beirut is now under the control of the Lebanese army, after the opposition took over the party offices representing the March 14th movement. Currently it's not clear if things will develop in other areas in Lebanon such as in the mountains; this remains unclear.

SC: Now concerning the way that the current situation is being reported in the western press, we are reading a basic depiction that involves armed clashes between pro-government militias and Hizballah supporters throughout Beirut. Also there is a focus on distilling the current scenario into sectarian terms, breaking down the division as fought between Sunni and Shia forces. Also, you highlighted that Hizballah or opposition forces have handed over certain pro-government offices or Future Movement offices to the Lebanese army, which is not being widely reported in the western press. Mainstream media in North America are reporting that West Beirut is under Hizballah's control. In this light could you offer your critiques towards the mainstream media's coverage concerning the events in Beirut within the last 48 hours, both western media and media in the Middle East?

SI: Media that are allied with the government in Lebanon aims to present the current situation simply as sectarian strife. ... First it's important to highlight that Beirut was never strictly Sunni, while the people who are now fighting for the opposition, many belong to Beirut, live in Beirut, a city that has never been just Sunni but a mixture of all religious sects in Lebanon. This is one critical point.

Clearly there is a strategy from the government and pro-government forces to portray Hizballah as the outsiders, to try to portray Hizballah as a force coming to change the nature of Beirut by bringing in Shi'ite elements, Iranian elements, Persian elements, barbarian elements, etc. All oriental stereotypes that mainstream western media and some mainstream Arab media will quickly adopt. It is not certain, however, that this portrayal for Hizballah could work in the Arab media because Hizballah is widely respected as the major defender for the Arab cause, for the Palestinian cause.

Across the Middle East the mainstream Sunni populations don't view Hizballah or its leader Hassan Nasrallah as a sectarian leader or simply a Shi'ite leader. However, the mainstream pro-government media in Lebanon attempt to portray Hizballah as a completely sectarian movement, in tune with the political lines fostered by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, France and the US.

Government forces in Lebanon claim they represent a peaceful vision for the country with their common slogan, "I Love Life," while claiming that Lebanon is being invaded by the violent Hizballah now in West Beirut.

and check this out:

Pacifism in Lebanon. While Amal militia men were roaming the streets of Beirut, Amal's TV (NBN TV) was airing documentary on Gandhi. I am not making this up . . .

Beirut Saturday 10 May

Reports are coming in that the army is sweeping up pro-government supporters in west Beirut. They are also rounding up Al-Qaeda sympathisers. There have been confrontations with Future Current supporters in Akkar in the north, Aley in the mountains, and in the south.

There are strong indications that the army has been coordinating with the opposition during the fighting.

It now seems clear that Hariri's Future Current in west Beirut has collapsed like a house of cards.

TV is showing angry funerals in Sunni areas of Beirut. Amal gunmen fired on the procession killing two.

Walid Jumblat's militia, in contrast to Hezbollah:

'Unfortunate incident'


In Beirut, 16 people were killed, two of them at a funeral procession for an earlier victim of the fighting, and there were reports that violence had spilled out of the capital and into other parts of the country.

Hezbollah said it blamed Walid Jumblatt, the pro-government Druze leader, for the death of at least two of its members in Aley, east of Beirut.

Jumblatt admitted there had been "an unfortunate incident" in the predominantly Druze and Christian town, in which "three people" had been killed.

"Two bodies were found and turned over to the army," he said.

He did not admit his supporters were responsible, but said if unconfirmed reports that the victims had been tortured proved to be true, he would "personally take responsibility for it".

Beirut Finally . . . The Fuller Picture

John Negroponte . . . US State Department flunky,
and well known Vampire

Washington pointed the finger at Iran and Syria - both of which back Hezbollah - for the violence, saying they must be held to account.

"The United States is consulting with other governments in the region and with the UN Security Council about measures that must be taken to hold those responsible for the violence in Beirut accountable," the White House said.

Mammoth war preps roundup :

On April 8, 2008, Bernard Kouchner, France’s top diplomat and head of the French Foreign Ministry, stated that Hezbollah was no longer “a domestic issue for Lebanon,” and that the Hezbollah’s weapons were a cause for serious international concern. A few days later, Fouad Siniora announced that the time for internal dialogue was over in Lebanon, while Nabih Beri was in Damascus trying to get Arab League support for new intra-Lebanese political dialogue.

The third expanded ministerial conference of the neighbouring countries of Iraq, held in Kuwait on April 22, 2008, also discussed Lebanon. The US, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, and several other Arab states all sought to present Hezbollah as an international concern. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a report claiming that Hezbollah was an international problem.

All these events were aimed at internationalizing Hezbollah as a threat, and justifying US and NATO intervention in Lebanon.

These efforts entered a new phase in Lebanon too. The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance declared that it would take legal action against Hezbollah, because of a camera network monitoring Lebanon’s main airport and a telecomms network setup by the group. All this was done in coordination of the March 14 Alliance with US and Saudi Arabian diplomats in Beirut.

Beirut Finally . . . The Fuller Picture

Lebanese Militiaman takes aim in Beirut


Robert Fisk: Lebanon descends into chaos as rival leaders order general strike

The darker side of all this, of course, involves Beirut airport. Mr Jumblatt’s claim that Hizbollah has installed cameras beside one of the runways appears to be correct. Lebanese army officers have apparently noticed the cameras which can monitor executive jets taking off and landing. However, the apparatus may well have been installed because the Hizbollah believes that runway 1-7 – which starts a few metres above the Mediterranean – could be used for a small seaborne landing by Israeli troops.

There is a persistent rumour in Beirut that the Israelis were about to stage such an operation against the Hizbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut on 28 April but that it was cancelled for equally mysterious reasons.

Was this the origin of the cameras and of Hizbollah’s unpleasant suggestion that Mr Jumblatt is doing Israel’s work?

Normally I would hesitate to link to much of what Mr Madsen prints, however this time I feel he may have stumbled onto something ignored by the Mainstream Media. For instance if you search the New York Times looking for articles about Roland Carnaby what you get is a message saying:

Your search for Roland Carnaby in all fields returned 0 results.

May 6, 2008 -- The Middle East firestorm was to have started on April 25 (author: Wayne Madsen Report,)

WMR has learned from its Middle East intelligence sources that a leak from the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office resulted in the last minute scuttling of an Israeli intelligence operation in Beirut that would have started a series of events that would have likely resulted in the outbreak of warfare between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and possibly, between Iran and the United States.

Israel's Mossad planned an April 25 assassination, likely by its favorite method, a massive car bomb, of Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Because the assassination would have triggered the "perfect storm" for the outbreak of war in Lebanon, with the involvement of Israel, the United States, Syria, and Iran, an official in Olmert's office leaked the assassination plan. When it became apparent that there was a leak, Mossad scuttled the entire operation.

The plan was immediately known by the CIA and Hezbollah. It is known that retired CIA officer and contractor Roland Carnaby, a Lebanese-American, had close contact with all of Lebanon's various factions. On April 29, four days after the planned assassination of Nasrallah by Mossad, Carnaby was killed in broad daylight by Houston police. WMR previously reported that Carnaby had successfully penetrated a Mossad ring active in the Houston area.

It is clear that Israel would not have carried out the Nasrallah assassination without the knowledge and approval of the neocon cell operating from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and extending to elements of the U.S. Air Force, CIA, and other federal agencies.

Nasrallah's assassination by Israel would have resulted in a massive Hezbollah strike on Israel and, possibly, through Moqtada al Sadr's forces in Iraq, on U.S. troops in that country. The outbreak of massive violence between U.S. and Sh'ia forces in Iraq may have laid the groundwork for a U.S. strike on alleged training camps in Iran and other targets of opportunity.

WMR has also obtained a copy of the civil suit filed by Carnaby's widow, Susan Carnaby, against the City of Houston for the wrongful death of her husband.

---

Madsen says April 25th, Fisky says April 28th. Neither are, of course, as trustworthy as the New York Times /snark

---

http://sursock.blogspot.com/


http://www.farfahinne.blogspot.com/


http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

What is next for Lebanon?

Did you see the face of Sa`d Hariri reading (and fumbling) the statement written for him by Hani Hammud and Walid Jumblat? He looked as pleased as when Ahmad Chalabi was informed that he did not win one seat in the Iraqi puppet parliament, or when Salam Fayyad was informed that he has won a whopping 1% of the votes in the Palestinian puppet legislative parliament. But Marcel Ghanim (the annoying host of LBC’s Kalam An-Nas who never misses a show without praising House of Saud and who used to be sociable with Rustum Ghazalah) summed it all when he told Walid Jumblat during the interview today that “you are surrendering.”

But while I never agree with Jumblat (not in his Syria days and not in his Israel days), I did agree with him when he commented on Nasrallah’s statement today by saying that it contains a contradiction: that on the one hand Nasrallah says Jumblat is a thief, killer, liar, and agent of Israel and yet he offers dialogue with him. But then again: Jumblat is the king of contradiction: he precipitated the current crisis by calling for an end to the communication lines and calling Hizbullah responsible for the assassinations in Lebanon, and yet today (as he does once a week) he called Hizbullah “the resistance” and spoke of the need for its protection, and even for the preservation of the communication lines that he called for its elimination.

But the most grotesque part of Jumbalt was when he said: “My blood is Palestinian and my history is Palestinian.” Yes, and I am sure that he only discusses the liberation of Palestine when he meets with Elliott Abrams. And did you hear Jumblat make a reference to “Condy”? I wonder if he refers to Olmert as “Olmertiti”. But the major conclusion from the developments in the streets of Beirut is this: given the retreat of Hariri militia, one can conclude that Jordanian training of Hariri goons has been as effective as Jordanian training of Dahlan goons, and as effective as Jordanian training of Iraqi puppet troops.

I am sure that some in Israel are now saying: we did a better job when we trained the executioners of Sabra and Shatila. But there is an additional worry: Hariri militia operates like Dahlan militia by relying on mercenaries. Now, they may draw upon the only ideological committed elements in their ranks: Al-Qa`idah and other Bin Ladenties groups. Relatives of my mother were reporting last week with alarm that Hariri buses were bringing fanatical salafi fighters into Tariq Al-Jadidah.

Moar in the same vein:

There will be debates, recriminations, and accusations and counter-accusations about what happened in Beirut, and especially about the Hariri militia. The militia was well-paid, and trained in Jordan—all US-supported militias in the Middle East are trained in Jordan, from Iraqi puppet troops, to Dahlan gangs, and the Hariri militia. The reason why they did not fight is that they lacked a driving ideology. What is the ideology? Hariri family? When Sa`d Hariri has been absent in Saudi Arabia for two straight montha attending to the health of Prince `Azzuz? They were joining the Hariri militia and getting paid but they were not willing to fight, although they had plenty of weapons as we saw on TV (You have to ignore the existence of US-supported militias in the Middle East because when US and UN (as it it is their business) talk about militias in the Middle East they only refer to anti-US militias. The Badr sectarian militias which drilled holes in victims’ skulls, and which was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Iraq is not mentioned as a militia.) But Hariri militia assumed that Sunn-Shi`ite agitation would serve as the driving ideology but that did not work either at the time of battle. When Hasan Nasrallah said yesterday that he no more is fearful of Sunni-Shi`ite conflict he basically was saying that we now know that the Sunnis of Lebanon would not fight, like they did in Iraq, in a sectarian war. And they did not fight. Al-Akhbar (which gave the best coverage of events yesterday in today’s issue—for purposes of conflict of interest I should state that I write in that secular and independent newspaper that drives the Hariri gangs crazy) reported that Northern Lebanon was promising some 70 vans at a time of war and sectarian confrontation but that only 7 vans arrived. Al-Arabiyya TV (which provides wall-to-wall sectarian coverage) reported that armed men of the SSNP were seen on the streets of Beirut. Al-Arabiyya TV did not report that Hariri gangs put on fire several offices of the SSNP in Beirut in the last two years—and I say that without being a supporter of the SSNP. A Phalanges’ leader, Salim Sayigh, today talked about Beirut “the city of Sunnis” as if other sects in Beirut are mere visitors.

Even Moar:

What is not known is this: how did the crisis in Lebanon start? Or in other words: what (or who) did instigate Walid Jumblat to suddenly bring up the issue of Hizbullah’s lines of communication, and the matter of airport security? What about the timing? Is there any connection between Jumblat’s sudden announcement on the matter and the visit by David Welsh? One thing is for sure: no good will come out of a situation with Amal armed thugs roaming the streets of Beirut—I already hear complaints about their thuggery by people in the city. The city (and the Palestinian camps) have tried that before, and it was certainly not a pleasant experience.

But make no mistake about it: just as Muhammad Dahlan was trying to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza, before it preempted him, the Jumblat-Hariri gang was about to takeover the government and move against Hizbullah, at the behest of the US/Israeli/Saudi plan before they were outcouped or overwhelemed. It is to expect a Sunni rift to grow with Jumblat: typically, when defeat is imminent, he appeared on LBC-TV yesterday and called on his fighters to refrain from fighting, and to surrender the offices of his militia to the Lebanese Army. Many Sunnis will feel that he pushed Hariri camp toward a confrontation, and then left them to fend for themselves. Furthermore, will the US now acknowledge that there are several militias in Lebanon? I mean, now we know for sure that the Harriri family has an armed militia all over Lebanon—a lousy and incompetent militia, but a militia nevertheless.


Beirut Jackboots


But we knew this all along: they all have a militia in Lebanon. In Lebanon, even Mr./Ms. Potato head has a militia. But I think that Larsen will fly to Lebanon and disarm all Lebanese militias. It was quite bizarre to read that one of the key commanders of the Hariri militia was none other than Shakir Al-Birjawi: do people remember that gangster from the civil war years?

F&*k it, just go there yourselves and read it at : http://angryarab.blogspot.com/



“We’ll Defend Against Jumblatt Govt’s Declared War” - Sayyed Nasrallah

Hezbollah Secretary General holds a press conference to address recent developments in Lebanon, particularly the tense situation on the street caused by the latest decisions adopted by the unconstitutional government of Fouad Saniora.
Sayyed Nasrallah said that the ruling bloc has pushed the country in a completely new situation. “The decisions of the ruling are declaration of war,” his eminence warned.

On the communications network, Sayyed Nasrallah said that communication networks are necessary in every army, every party and militia. “It is a key part of the control and command system which has led us to victory,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “The communications network existed since before the year 2000, but has been upgraded,” he added.
Sayyed Nasrallah reminded that the Winograd report recommended the ability of Hezbollah’s control and command be destroyed. His eminence clarified that using wireless communication systems has caused the death of many of the resistance’s cadres and leaders in previous wars adding that the “resistance’s communications network” is a system that connects bases and homes of leaders to avoid tapping and monitoring by the enemy. “Our communications network is not a commercial telephone service, but rather a military communications system that backs the resistance,” his eminence emphasized.

JUMBLATT’S GOVERNMENT DECLARED WAR; OUR DUTY IS TO DEFEND OURSELVES
The Hezbollah chief revealed that “a few months ago, the communications network issue was raised by the ruling bloc, so we made contact with them and reassured their fears. We had extended a wire from Beirut’s southern suburb to Beirut days after the 2006 war. They told us that their problem was with this particular weapon so we responded and cut the wire. They told us that we were extending wires between Jbeil and Kesserwan and we denied. They told us that we were extending a wire to Tripoli and we denied. They told us that we had extended a wire for communications between Dahiyeh and south Lebanon and we acknowledged. They told us that they fear that we would extend wires to the Chouf area, so we told them that this will never happen. They were reassured. Later on, they told us that they would turn a blind eye on all our communications network if we end the sit-in in downtown Beirut. If we were to agree, would our communications network becomes legitimate? So we refused this blackmail. Apart from this, the unconstitutional of Walid Jumblatt, not Fouad Saniora because he’s only an employee to Jumblatt, has again raised this issue. So Jumblatt’s government met and took its decisions on that black night.”

Sayyed Nasrallah said that the ruling bloc’s decision to consider the communications network an aggression against the sovereignty of Lebanon was a declaration of war.
“Jumblatt’s government declared proxy war on the resistance for of Israel and the US…This bloc is exposed. One of their goals is to push the Lebanese army into a confrontation with the resistance after all previous conspiracies proved futile. Our response to the decisions is: Whoever launches war against us, even if it were my father, we will confront him and we will defend ourselves and our weapons. The communications network is the most important part of our weapons. After the black decisions of Jumblatt’s government, we consider that a war has been launched against us and our duty is to defend ourselves and our weapons; he who warns is excused. All red lines have been crossed, so we will not be lenient with anyone. We have information that says that the communications network is only the first step to strip the resistance of its capabilities.

The unconstitutional government also decided to incriminate everyone who took part in building this network and everyone who uses it. “The network is Hezbollah’s, and I’m the party’s secretary general, I own the network and I use it. Everyone who worked on it is a Mujahid…It is forbidden to target those people…targeting them is targeting the arms of the resistance,” Hezbollah’s Secretary General said.
His eminence added that things must be said clearly as the situation has changed after the “black decisions of Jumblatt’s government.” “He who detains us, we will detain his. He who opens fire at us, we will open fire at him… Walid Jumblatt admitted he’s a liar; he admitted he’s a killer, so who’s ruling the country today? This is not a ruling bloc, this is a gang.

B.G. SHQEIR AND THE AIRPORT ISSUE
On the issue of the airport raised by Jumblatt, Sayyed Nasrallah said the title of this matter is Brigadier General Wafik Shqeir.
“Shqeir does not belong to the Amal Movement, Hezbollah or any other opposition force. The issue is that they want to extend their control on the airport, not to steal because they are already stealing; they want to transform the airport into a Mossad, FBI and CIA base. Therefore, it has become necessary to remove Shqeir. We will not tolerate such bases. His eminence the vice president of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan called up Saniora and told him that if Shqeir had done anything wrong then open an investigation, otherwise why remove him? He was not defending a Shiite officer. When a patriotic officer like Shqeir is removed, other patriotic officers become threatened of sacking. Saniora vowed to do what he can in Shqeir’s case, but what can he do; he’s just an employee. The decision to remove Shqeir is illegitimate. Any other officer who would take over as the head of the airport security body should know that he would be an imposter who’s mission is to transform the airport into a Mossad, CIA, FBI base. Treason and collaboration have no religion.

RULING BLOC CREATED CURRENT CRISIS
Sayyed Nasrallah said that “we will not tolerate targeting our existence and our legitimacy. If they want dialogue to reach a settlement, then we are prepared. The exit is for this is for Jumblatt’s unconstitutional government to withdraw its decisions.”
“We are not worried about a Sunni-Shiite sedition. The problem is between a US project and a resistance project. In the wake of the July 2006 war, we came under a brutal campaign by politicians, journalists, writers, scholars and others, however they have failed to distort the picture of the resistance. Our weapons are not to attack anyone and not to make a coup d’état. You (ruling bloc) opened fire at your own selves. If we wanted to make a coup, you would have woke up this morning in jails.

Answering a question about how Hezbollah assesses Saudi Arabia’s positions, Sayyed Nasrallah expressed hope that the kingdom does not repeat its mistake in 2006 and works wisely by not taking part with a group against the other.
One reporter asked Sayyed Nasrallah about Mufti Kabbani’s call for who he called “aggressors” to withdraw from Beirut. His eminence stressed there are no aggressors in the capital and that the people there are residents of Beirut, “the people who live in Beirut and elect in Beirut.”
“There is no civil war and reporting the facts are being exaggerated. Yes there is omen of war, but this is the war that the others have imposed. We do not want war with anybody. He who took those black decisions that could lead to war should take them back, and then everything ends.”
His eminence stressed “we bargain on elections not on fighting.”
“Our resistance is not sectarian…and does not seek power. I’m not asking for support, I’m not asking for help; all I’m asking for is to understand us and not be dragged to the path that would only benefit the US and Israel that is celebrating it’s 60th birthday on the ruins of our sanctities.”

Well I hope that clears matter up, somewhat

Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Handwriting sample of Deborah Jeane Palfrey

If I were forced to give an answer to the question "What do you think, Hubris?" I'd have to say:

the example on the left comes from a left hander while that on the right comes from a right hander trying to forge the handwriting of a left handed person

Palfrey's Friend On Suicide Note: 'That's Not Her Signature'

Swiss caught in German/U.S. pincer movement?

Coinkydink? . . ..

UBS Faces U.S. Tax Evasion Probe; Employee Detained

Clients pulled a net 12.8 billion francs ($12.1 billion) from UBS's asset- and wealth-management units in the first quarter, the first withdrawal in almost eight years as the bank's writedowns swelled to $38 billion. German prosecutors said in March they're weighing a criminal investigation into whether UBS helped clients evade taxes.

``UBS has been hit by a perfect storm,'' said Edwin Merner, who oversees $2 billion at Atlantis Investment Research Corp. in Tokyo. ``Clients may run away if they think they'll leak information to tax authorities in Germany and the U.S.''

UBS fell 1.5 percent to 34.7 francs by 1:47 p.m. in Swiss trading. The bank said yesterday it plans to cut about 5,500 jobs, including as many as 2,600 at its investment-banking unit, which had 18.2 billion francs of first-quarter losses. Chief Executive Officer Marcel Rohner told analysts he expects ``tough business conditions'' to continue.

Washington Upset Over Iran-Europe Energy Deal

May 5, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Europe ignores U.S. calls for tighter sanctions on Iran by pursuing a gas deal.

Today, Swiss energy giant EGL is set to sign a contract with Iran agreeing to purchase €18 billion worth of gas starting 2011. The potential deal comes in quick succession after the revelation in April that Austrian energy company omv signed letters of intent to buy €22 billion of gas from Tehran.

Swiss bank's manager held in U.S. tax probe

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- UBS said Wednesday that a senior manager was briefly detained in the United States as part of an investigation into whether the Swiss bank helped U.S. customers evade taxes.


Swiss banking giant UBS is under investigation
over possible tax offenses in the United States


UBS said the employee was briefly detained as a material witness and was still in the United States.

"Our understanding is that the respective employee, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing by the U.S. government, will remain in the United States pending discussions with the U.S. authorities regarding resolution of his status as a witness," the company said in a statement.

UBS spokesman Serge Steiner said that the employee had the full support of the bank and that "at the moment he is in the United States until his status as a witness is clear."

He declined to provide details about the man or his detention.

The company says the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Switzerland's largest bank concerning its cross-border business.

The probe focuses on whether UBS helped its clients evade U.S. taxes between 2000 and 2007.
advertisement

The company said the SEC was examining whether Swiss-based UBS client advisers engaged in activities that triggered an obligation for UBS Switzerland to register with the SEC as a broker-dealer or investment adviser.

Swiss banks refuse blame for foreign [German] clients' tax evasion

Swiss banks cannot be expected to police foreign clients' tax affairs, one of the country's top banking officials said Monday, rejecting German demands for greater cooperation to catch tax evaders.

The president of the Swiss Bankers Association laid the blame for tax evasion squarely at the feet of governments that demand too much of their citizens' income.

"Countries which worry about tax evasion of their citizens should have a good think about the way they tax their people," Pierre Mirabaud told journalists in Geneva.

The European Union, in particular Germany, has been pressuring Switzerland to crack down on EU citizens who hide money in Swiss banks in order to avoid paying higher taxes at home.

Switzerland, which is not a member of the 27-nation bloc, fiercely protects the privacy of banking customers, including foreigners who have deposited more than 1 trillion Swiss francs (US$950 billion; €640 billion) in its vaults.

"It's necessary to clearly show Germany and the European Union where their sphere of influence ends and where our sovereignty begins," Mirabaud said, adding that his members don't regard themselves as responsible for their clients' actions.

"We are not a tax authority and we are not a police authority," he said.

Leading Swiss politicians and bankers reacted with outrage earlier this year when it was revealed that German intelligence had purchased confidential information on bank customers in neighboring Liechtenstein. Mirabaud said at the time that Berlin had used "Gestapo" methods to acquire the data, but later retracted his comparison to Nazi Germany's secret police.

The information led to a series of high-profile raids against individuals and businesses in Germany, as well as further investigations by authorities in Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Switzerland, like Liechtenstein, provides no judicial assistance to foreign authorities in cases of tax evasion because it is considered an administrative offense subject only to fines rather than a crime punishable by a jail sentence.

A visit last week by German chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the tax issue failed to change Switzerland's stance on the matter.

Mirabaud said criticism of Switzerland was misplaced, and largely driven by competitors jealous of the Alpine nation's success as a leading center for international finance.

"For any Anglo-Saxon newspaper, it's much easier to attack Switzerland than the United Kingdom or the U.S.," he said.

Mirabaud insisted that Switzerland has some of the world's strictest rules against money laundering and has done much in recent years to shake off its reputation as a safe haven for dictators to stash their funds.

Millions of dollars (euros) hidden in Swiss accounts by the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and Philippines strong man Ferdinand Marcos have been returned to their governments, and Swiss authorities are seeking to do the same for money deposited here by former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier.

But on the matter of tax evasion, Mirabaud said the solution is for countries to demand less from their citizens.

"Humans being what they are, if the tax burden becomes too high there will always be tax evasion," he said.

World Jewish Congress wants Swiss to cancel Iranian gas deal

The president of the World Jewish Congress said Tuesday he wanted Switzerland to cancel a multibillion-dollar Swiss-Iranian natural gas deal because it threatens Israel and the US.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes deals
with Europe, despite American sanctions.

Ronald Lauder, a billionaire cosmetics magnate, said the deal signed by Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey in Tehran last month has angered the WJC because of Iran's hardline president and because it comes at a time when the United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program.

"Maybe that money that Switzerland is paying to Iran will some day be used to either buy weapons to kill Israelis or buy weapons to kill Americans or buy missiles to be able to deliver nuclear weapons," he said.

"I'd like them to cancel it, yes," Lauder told reporters in the Swiss capital. But he said he did not want to exert pressure on the Swiss government.

pincer movement

noun:
a movement by two [or more?] separate bodies of troops converging on the enemy.