Tom Usher wrote or added | This article doesn't mention the most important aspect and that's the Shiite-Christian divide in Lebanon with certain of the Christians having sided with the Israelis when Israel was occupying Lebanon against the Palestinian refugees driven from Palestine via ethnic cleansing by the Zionists. You can be pretty sure that the cabinet split along religious lines.
In 1982, Israel, under Ariel Sharon's leadership of the Israel forces in Lebanon, highly facilitated the Christians massacring of many hundreds of unarmed Palestinians (men, women, and children) trapped in a refugee camp known as Sabra and Shatila.
It led to Sharon being nicknamed the butcher of Lebanon. It was due to this, among other things, that it was shocking that Israel elected him Prime Minister — spoke volumes about the Zionists' stone-cold hearts.
It's also why I didn't trust him at all concerning his "withdrawal" from Gaza. I said then that it was just a way of getting Israelis out of the way for when Sharon turns on the Gazans to attack them mercilessly, as Israel did even though Sharon was a vegetable after his massive stroke.
Thomas Smitherman: However, things have changed since the 80s, Tom. The Sunni-Shi'a conflict is far more polarising, with the Christians in the middle (or somewhat split down the middle, half on each side). When Israel attacked Lebanon a few years ago, I recall a poll asking people if they support Hizbollah's defence of the country. With Shi'a, as you can imagine, it was near unanimous...with Sunnis, it was a general, but not impressive, majority...with Christians it was around 80% or so. Most Lebanese Christians are anti-Israel, even apparently those supporting the formerly militant Maronite Lebanese Forces (I have noticed some expat Lebanese Falangists on the web who only have good things to say about Israel, but I think they are far from power).
Hariri, on the other hand, is a Saudi agent. It is largely his boys who were pro-abstention.
Yes, I saw the poll too. I read Fisk and others on it too. I'm not in the dark concerning the interpretation of the poll — point of view. I just don't buy it. The Lebanese Christians are being more calculating than they are being concerned for the Gazans.
However, things haven't healed there. It's a Band-Aid that's covering serious splits that when looked into deeply, do run along a Christian-Shiite divide but also a Christian-Muslim divide. I'm not saying that it's not artificially stimulated. It is, just as the sectarian rift in Iraq was US/UK El Salvador option tactics (false-flag mosque bombings, just as in Iran). The trouble is that the US does exploit cracks. The cracks are too easily exploited because there are fundamental differences that even when the people say, "We used to get along fine," doesn't stop them from attacking each other, even when they know damn well that it was the US that got them all revved up. If the divide were not real, those people would band together against the US. That's the whole Ummah thing. They can't do it though because the Shiite are bloodline oriented whereas the Sunni are spiritline, and the boys at the Pentagon know it only too well.
It's fluid. That's where I am on it.
Also, I wasn't stating that the Christians are a solid block. My point though is that if they were, they would have, and should have, sided with the Shiites on the sanctions issue because sanctions like that (based upon lies) are anti-Christ. What did you think I was saying?
In addition, I don't write here just for Facebook but for my blog (it ends up there too) where I want to state some history that many youths and even plenty of adults know nothing about but just fall for the Christian-Zionist crap, such as that Sharon was a great man when, in very fact, he was an unrepentant snake in the grass — may God have mercy on his soul. I wish Sharon would have listened and heeded while he had the opportunity.
I do appreciate your knowledge on a range of subjects, so pardon me (not to be read as sarcastic) that my lead-ins insult your intelligence. It's not my intention. I write quickly, and can't flesh out every detail as if I'm spending weeks on a scholarly, re-researched, footnoted essay.
We're in a propaganda battle; and time really is of the essence, and the audience is actually the world.
I was very tired when I wrote that reply-comment immediately above, Thomas; so please forgive all the punctuation errors and typos.
Also, I wasn't sure whether your comment was being additive or whether you were under the impression that I was perhaps in a blackout on the area after the earlier 1980's (it happens, thanks to the damned mainstream corporate media). Regardless, I'm not a history-of-Lebanon expert. You certainly raised important information.
Here's a link to an also simplified article (as was my lead-in above) that if the leads are followed, does suggest more of my thinking on the subject and doesn't fail to support some of your points, especially concerning the Wahhabist front for the Saudi monarchy/dictatorship: http://www.slate.com/id/2220034
Thank you for your comments and questions, etc. While we don't see eye-to-eye on every last detail about Christianity in terms of what it is/should be, I do consider you a Christian friend and ally. Even though I'm not heavy on the liturgical, as you know, I would attend a service with you and have no problem with sharing the cup and bread and with singing good hymns in praise, etc. I might avoid some of the creeds and don't need smoke in my face or water thrown on me (meant light-heartedly), but otherwise....
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)