Geagea to Nasrallah: Would You Have Opposed U.S. Strikes against IS Had Iran Been Part of Coalition?
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea questioned on Wednesday Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's opposition to the United States-led strikes against jihadist Islamic State positions in the region.
He asked Nasrallah: “Would you have maintained your initial rejection of the international coalition against the IS had Iran been part of it?”
“We know that Iran wanted to be part of the coalition, but complications in the negotiations over its nuclear program hindered it,” he added after holding talks with National Liberal Party leader Dory Shamoun.
“We know that the U.S. is seeking its interests, but what if Lebanon and the U.S. have common interests? Would you still oppose the strikes?” Geagea wondered.
“If Islamists staged a new attack against the army in the northeastern town of Arsal, shouldn't the army request the international coalition for aerial help?” he asked.
“Wouldn't the failure to request for this assistance be considered as a form of complicity with the Islamists?” continued the LF chief.
Moreover, he addressed Nasrallah's remark that Lebanon would be faced with dangers should it join the international coalition, asking: “Doesn't the intervention in the fighting in Syria pose a threat to Lebanon?”
“Shouldn't you have ordered your MPs to head to parliament and elect a new president had you really wanted to build a strong state?” he said.
He then turned to Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun and his bloc's ongoing boycott of the presidential elections, asking: “What are you waiting for? Why are you continuing the boycott?”
“We could have joined your boycott had you given us a single convincing reason,” he stressed.
“We see no legitimate excuse to maintain the boycott as Lebanon drowns deeper and deeper in chaos, negligence, irresponsibility, and darkness,” Geagea added.
Nasrallah had said during a speech on Tuesday: “We are against American military intervention and against the international coalition, whether the target is the (Syrian) regime or the IS.”
“We are against the coalition because America is the mother and source of terrorism and because it is the ultimate supporter of Zionist state terrorism,” he added.
Nasrallah noted that U.S. President Barack Obama himself has announced that the coalition is aimed at “defending American interests.”
“This is not our business. All peoples in the region have the right to question America's motives,” he added.
The secretary general also pointed out that it is not in Lebanon's interest to be in the U.S.-led international coalition, “not in line with the dissociation policy but because that poses threats to Lebanon.”
“Lebanon can fight terror and it has succeeded in doing so through the army, security forces and perseverance,” Nasrallah said.
The U.S.-led coalition had started carrying out strikes against the IS and against al-Qaida-linked groups in Syria on Tuesday morning.
M.T.
Y.R.
24 September 2014, 16:32
1417
Dr. Geagea: you are talking to a man who has no shame or principles. It is useless! He is opposed to the anti ISIS coalition because it did not seek the Syrian government's approval while he sends his militia to Syria without seeking Lebanon's government/people approval. I know many have questioned his double standards but one has to keep emphasizing the hypocrisy of this man. Have this man put his money where his mouth is by first handing over his illegal weapons to the LAF if he so much cares about the LAF and its image. Pure filth
24 September 2014, 17:20
1511
rethorical questions by djadja, who's struggling to remain as irrelevant and detached from reality as possible.
if you want to play this game then tell us if you would support bombing Saudi to rid it of terrorists? After all, that's where the main funding and support to terrorism come from.
24 September 2014, 17:32
1511
“We know that Iran wanted to be part of the coalition, but complications in the negotiations over its nuclear program hindered it,” he added after holding talks with National Liberal Party leader Dory Shamoun.
Oh yea djadja! right on spot daktor as always!! except.. uuh.. that's BS.. damn! he almost felt like he had an idea of what's going on and all..
"PARIS - Diplomats from around the world sought a global strategy to fight Islamic State of Iraq and Syria extremists Monday, while Iran ruled out working with any international coalition and rejected American requests for cooperation against the militants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-rejects-american-request-for-cooperation-against-isis/
24 September 2014, 18:50
811
Mowaten, in this article you refer to, it says:
"Neither Iran nor Syria, which together share most of Iraq's borders, was invited to the international conference in Paris. The gathering opened as a pair of French reconnaissance jets took off over Iraqi skies."
They were not invited from the start. Iran claims they were privately invited, which is propaganda. Why would the US want to work privately with Iran? "U.S. officials opposed France's attempt to invite Iran, a Shiite nation, to the conference in Paris."
These quotes are from your article.
24 September 2014, 18:57
118
yes, and?
not being invited to the conference in paris does not mean they were not asked to cooperate privately.
and more importantly, it does not mean "Iran wanted to be part of the coalition" as the doctor on crack claimed.
24 September 2014, 19:05
128
(^above comment was for nickjames)
as for you anonyme: LOL exactly what i expected from you.
your first article is dated June 14th 2014, which is month before anyone even started talking about this coalition. IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand.
your second, which i had already read, has NO SOURCES :) the whole article is based on "sources in Tehran say".
always fascinating to see how you fall for propaganda that claims to quote anonymous sources, who luckily "just happen to know what" Khamenei would have secretly told Soleimani. how convenient, heh? :)
24 September 2014, 19:06
810
Mowaten, if you really believe Iran was privately invited you're just blinded by your Hezbo bias. What's the point of being invited "privately"? Explain. Why can't they just cooperate publicly? Aren't the nuclear talks public? People are hearing all about it. So why do they have to cooperate privately about ISIS? The answer is they don't. Iran is trying to look tough by saying it never wanted to be part of the coalition, when really they did, and they're so pissed that they make up this story about declining private invites.
24 September 2014, 19:18
107
nickjames you're diverting the conversation from the point. the point is, nothing (besides sourceless BBC propaganda) indicates that iran wanted to be part of it.
the only official declarations clearly REJECT being part of it.
what you and djadja are doing is attributing an alleged intention to them, and then criticizing them for it. can you see how this is detached from reality? it's a monologue where you answer want you pretend they said.
now that this is clear, two more points:
first, i didnt say they were invited privately, i said it's not impossible. (="not being invited to the conference in paris does not mean they were not asked to cooperate privately")
and second, they did ask iran's help in afghanistan, and they did so privately to not publicly lose face. it took years for them to admit it.
24 September 2014, 19:31
87
Their cooperation in Afghanistan has nothing to do with what's going on today. Iran did not recognise the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, that is why they cooperated with the US, not to mention the Taliban are a radical Wahabi organisation who could attack Iran. Today, Iran is defending Assad, while the US is defending the opposition. They're supporting opposing sides. The US doesn't need Iran's cooperation because they got enough from the Arabs (or are they pretending?)
24 September 2014, 19:42
85
Posted links to Iran's offer to join coalition couple days ago, here are some more links - again - just to refute the shrills spreading disinformation on this site:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/12124.19.0.0/united-states/iranian-official-iran-may-work-with-the-us-against-islamic-state
http://www.kosherpress.com/iran-said-to-offer-to-fight-jihadis-if-us-relaxes-nuke-stance/
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/567087/20140922/iran-nuclear-flexibility-isis.htm
24 September 2014, 20:35
74
One more link for good measure:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/22/us-iraq-crisis-usa-idUSKCN0HH2B620140922
25 September 2014, 10:24
24
lebnanfirst: your 4 articles are all repetitions of one same claim made by reuters. as with anonyme's propaganda, it's all based on "anonymous sources".
isn't it amazing how much you can get "anonymous sources" to say?
25 September 2014, 18:23
41
Just a question, who controlled the airport that Karami flew out of? Who placed the bomb in his helicopter? Even if Geagea is Karami's murderer... Hezbollah killed Hariri, another prime minister (only he wasn't PM at the time because he quit), they killed Wissam Eid, a police investigator, Wissam al-Hassan, the intelligence chief who arrested Samaha. Then your idol blackmails Hariri by saying he can provide him "political security" if he becomes president. In other words, he knows who's behind the killings of M14 leaders and can just tell them to stop. He's an accomplice to murder
24 September 2014, 16:38
1015
خرج الواعظ من عزلته الاراديّة- الجبريّة، ليتلو علينا المواعظ حول الحرص على هيبة الجيش وكرامته. وهل يعقل أن يصدّق بعض اللبنانيين هذه الغيرة على المؤسسة العسكريّة؟ إنّ من يغار على المؤسسة العسكريّة لا يقوّض قراراتها الاستراتيجيّة في الحرب والسّلم، ولا يفرض عليها مواجهات عجز هو نفسه عن القيام بها. بأقلّ تعديل من يغار على المؤسسة العسكريّة يسلّمها كلّ عناصر قوّته العسكريّة والسياسيّة.
عسكريًّا، فليسلّمها ترسانته التي يدّعي بامتلاكها، من صواريخ وطائرات استطلاع وغيرها من الأسلحة الخفيفة والمتوسطة المدى، فيستطيع الجيش عندها بسط سيادته، وتطبيق كلّ قوانين الدولة اللبنانية على كامل أراضيها.
سياسيّا، فليفرج عن كلّ الملفات العالقة من المجلس النيابي، الى التعطيل الحكومي، ولا سيّما انتخابات رئاسة الجمهوريّة، فتستعيد الدولة اللبنانيّة كلّ قوّتها، وتنصرف إلى تأمين شؤون المواطنين.
24 September 2014, 16:53
98
Greetings to all the viewers.
I kindly urge all the viewers at this site who have great respects towards Dr. Geagea to read this enlightening piece of article that further clarifies everything one needs to know about ISIS. It comes under the title " “Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project? by Michel Chossudovsky at Globalresearch.ca. Kind reagrds to all. www.globalresearch.ca/going-after-the-islamic-state/5401439
24 September 2014, 17:49
911
nice article written by a russian hungry professor in mental illness.
25 September 2014, 08:09
25
Sir for your information the professor is Canadian not Russian, so please correct your information.
24 September 2014, 23:14
54
Hahaha... like our friend mowaten... fan of chudovsky's conspiracy theories... hahahaha.. his web site is a parody! You cannot b serious!
25 September 2014, 09:16
34
Thank you Sir,
For next time I will make sure to get my sources from the mainstream Saudi or American funded news articles that will probably earn me some credibility coming from this site.
25 September 2014, 12:28
50
@ Sebouh Chossudovsky made it on the top 10 list of Canada's nuttiest professors..
"As overseer of the anti-U.S., anti-globalization website GlobalResearch.ca (see: www.globalresearch.ca), Chossudovsky has manufactured a long list of eyebrow-raising accusations that often read more like wild-eyed conspiracy theories than serious political discourse: the U.S. had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks ("Of course they knew!"); "Washington's New World Order weapons have the ability to trigger climate change"; the U.S. knew in advance about the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, but kept it to themselves (apparently so they could ride to the rescue of devastated coastal regions); big banking orchestrates the collapse of national economies. Of course, all that talk of banking conspiracies can lead one into some bigoted territory. B'nai Brith Canada complained to the University of Ottawa about anti-Semitic postings on Chossudovsky's site."
24 September 2014, 16:54
1115
Hakim... Hakim... Hakim
Bil Rou7 Bil Damm
Nafdika Ya Hakim
Ya Habib Al Malayeen
Enta W'Basssssssssssssssssssssssssss
24 September 2014, 16:56
1213
@VascoDaGama: How are you today my Christhian Portuguethe Friend? How is Lithbon today?
24 September 2014, 16:58
96
There is no syrian army portugal, there is a pro assad millicia, but in portiugal u are too far away to see that, u should invest in some satelite reciever with other chanels than manar/orv/sana....
And don't forget ur chupachupd man..
24 September 2014, 17:21
1510
hahahaha seems like the sugar from all these lollipops are cluttering your brain cells.
25 September 2014, 02:11
31
imagine 1979
I think tric portugal should invest in a class called English 101 he needs it badly and I think will do him good
24 September 2014, 17:02
1111
Well portugal come to the levant and live with us, or just shut the f.... off about christian of the levant, u keep christian of the levant this and christian of the levant that and u support a shiite millicia engaged in a war in the name of ali/hussein and co. and dragging us into this stone age war...
So enjoy ur stay in portugal, pray for assad as much as u want, but please stop giving us lessons from there
24 September 2014, 17:41
1510
Lol @ RFT flea aka iceman and 40 other fake screen names including the one above. I am sure you're also a cross dresser and a gimp for jihadi cannibals.
24 September 2014, 20:22
66
@the_roar
Enlighten us, won't you? If not the constitution the what "law above the law" are you referring to? Example(s) will be welcome, nay mandatory.
We'll accept examples from Australia, no problem.
Unless you are referring to the "law of the jungle", in which case debating you is futile as civilized nations have long since repudiated that as a model for their societies.
24 September 2014, 17:23
911
The poodle of Saudi Arabia has spoken once again. Woof woof!
24 September 2014, 18:06
109
Geagea to Nasrallah: Would You Have Opposed U.S. Strikes against IS Had Iran Been Part of Coalition?
I know Geagea's question is ment to be rhetorical but here's the answer anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWjgln7EBU0
24 September 2014, 18:10
95
There is no such thing as IS so why are we even talking about it?
24 September 2014, 18:11
02
if really the west needs to help Lebanon against da3ech all they need to do is : give the best and most advanced weapons to our LAF and our heroes will take care of the rest
ma heik hakim
24 September 2014, 18:43
98
“This is not our business. All peoples in the region have the right to question America's motives,” he added.
-Nasrallah, if it isn't your business, why are you questioning America's motives?
He asked Nasrallah: “Would you have maintained your initial rejection of the international coalition against the IS had Iran been part of it?”
-That's a rhetorical question.
“We see no legitimate excuse to maintain the boycott as Lebanon drowns deeper and deeper in chaos, negligence, irresponsibility, and darkness,” Geagea added.
-Lol it's time to accept that Aoun would rather see this country drown than someone else being elected president.
24 September 2014, 19:02
88
So where are Aoun's initiatives to resolve the deadlock? Why won't he propose other candidates? If he really cared about this country he would propose another candidate, instead of blaming Sleiman and Miqati for the Arsal clashes.
24 September 2014, 22:42
45
Lol that wasn't even the point Flamer. What I meant that Aoun is wasting his time blaming other politicians instead of offering solutions to the presidential deadlock.
24 September 2014, 18:59
810
Roar your argument is so lame, it's the same broken record repeating itself. You get so carried away with this "Geagea is a murderer" slogan that it just clouds your memory of all the other warlords. Berri killed Shi3a and he's been the Speaker since 1992. Hezbollah and Amal, both Shi3a fought each other. Almost every faction had their turn slaughtering Palestinians. Aoun killed Christians (LF are Christian, are they not?), he went after them because they agreed to Ta'ef and blacked out his broadcasts. At the end of the war all of the Christians were against Aoun, that includes Geagea, Lahoud (remember that traitor, and he became our president?), Hobeiqa and Franjieh.
24 September 2014, 19:19
88
I forgot Aoun also attacked them because of the ports. Roar, do you know that Aoun was being funded by Saddam? Wasn't he a murderer? Didn't he use chemical weapons against Iran? Didn't he slaughter thousands of Kurds and Shi3a? And this guy helped Aoun, that is until he invaded Kuwait
24 September 2014, 19:20
97
“We know that the U.S. is seeking its interests, but what if Lebanon and the U.S. have common interests? Would you still oppose the strikes?” Geagea wondered.
Ofcourse your own personal interests, now reflects the rest of Lebanese society?
24 September 2014, 19:52
87
America the mother of ISIS, whom seeks to hit her own child. Why should we take part in that matter? Not to mention the Arab dictatorships that joined the coalition. Think again Canadianmoron
24 September 2014, 20:17
67
So when assad released lokmann and the other 500 retarded in 2011 (lokmann now isis leadder in damscus area) he was helping the US.... Interesting mystic... Can u elaborate? After having a chupachups of course....
24 September 2014, 19:47
83
And the answer is... Drum roll please
NEITHER
There is always another option for enlightened individuals.
24 September 2014, 19:49
79
Roar, you're so immature when you argue with people. You just think the world revolves around Aoun and his allies, and people who have opposing views are stupid. Michel Aoun is a demented 80-year-old crook who stole money from the treasury (he even admitted having $15 million in a bank account in France, but it was for "defending his country"), he left all his fighters to die while he holed up in the French embassy for 11 months, then went to live a luxurious lifestyle with the millions he stole. You brag about Geagea being a convict, yet you don't even think had Aoun not been a pansy and left, he would have been convicted for embezzlement? He would have been in the same cell as Geagea. But that's right, he's a pansy and fled, then joined the enemy when he came back because "Hariri didn't offer enough seats"
24 September 2014, 19:50
79
Truth is even if Aoun was happy with his seats in M14, Hezbollah would force him to leave them (remember what they did to Jumblatt?). Aoun used Hezbollah to avoid hostilities. He got his seats while he turned a blind eye on Hezbollah. Did you ever realise that after the 7 Ayyar clashes, pretty boy Bassil became the telecoms minister?
24 September 2014, 19:55
78
Michel Aoun's agenda since Day One was to become president. That's all he cares about. He doesn't care who he allies with, as long as he gets the most seats in Parliament for boycotting purposes. First he says he's not a candidate, but he won't discuss another candidate; he proposed a "limited constitutional amendment" then on TV he denies proposing one because it'd be a coup against Ta'ef thus he is incapable of proposing amendment even though the current system is futile, but he's a reformist. He spews out a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense just to avoid saying the simple phrase "I want to be handed over the presidency."
24 September 2014, 20:00
77
If this man was a politician in America and contradicted himself in the same sentence, he would lose all the support. But it's Lebanon, and people follow leaders blindly, or they follow him because he was a general in the army and don't acknowledge that it was 25 years ago and he's no longer a general.
24 September 2014, 22:40
55
Lol you forgot when he also made a Marine hold an umbrella for him too. He's an idiot
24 September 2014, 21:01
03
our army is one of the best all it needs are sophisticated weapons and whoever interfered in not armying our boys is a traitor and a terrorist
24 September 2014, 22:35
30
In your face :
"Michel Aoun's agenda since Day One was to become president. That's all he cares about. He doesn't care who he allies with, as long as he gets the most seats in Parliament for boycotting purposes. First he says he's not a candidate, but he won't discuss another candidate; he proposed a "limited constitutional amendment" then on TV he denies proposing one because it'd be a coup against Ta'ef thus he is incapable of proposing amendment even though the current system is futile, but he's a reformist. He spews out a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense just to avoid saying the simple phrase "I want to be handed over the presidency." " written by Nickjames
24 September 2014, 22:55
55
Flamer, first of all I've never said that Aoun was "anti-Sunni." Second, the point about Saddam was that you guys go calling Geagea a murderer, while Aoun was taking arms from a mass murderer.
This part is irrelevant, but since you brought it up I'll add to it: even though Saddam received weapons from America, in 1990 he was their enemy because he invaded Kuwait. Because Syria helped the US in the Gulf War, the US protected their interests in Lebanon i.e to kick out Aoun.
So America armed Iraq, Iraq then armed Aoun, then Iraq invaded Kuwait and cut off funding to Aoun, Syria joined the US coalition against Iraq, then the US let Syria remove Aoun. They let Syria remove Aoun because they made Israel stand down, otherwise Syrian jets would have been shot down by the IAF.
24 September 2014, 23:45
55
Mutiny wasn't even the main thing. It was embezzlement. It's well-known he took $15 million from the treasury, he even admitted it. He claimed it was for defending his country, when in reality he was preparing for exile
25 September 2014, 05:42
31
I am waiting for the moment to hear something more serious , then this useless conversation, demagogue. The truth is, the only reason why Lebanon should oppose the strike, is because of the consequences that it might bring with it. Example is the Turkey, the key ally of US and the company, but because of the same consequences and internal politics at least on paper decided to keep distance from the strike. Second, if you all have noticed, the same countries that have been building the capability of IS , decided to have the lunch full of IS flavour.
Which brings the second answer, there is agenda behind strike and whole IS state. Neo-conservative agenda of the west has IS to play the important role in re-structure of the east. Middle East unfortunately is fighting with its own "mirror".
25 September 2014, 15:54
21
FT- Yes he was exiled but being exiled is a decision you make on your own INSTEAD of standing your ground and fighting. Unless the french arrested him and took him at gunpoint to France and put him under house arrest there for the length of his stay, he OPTED for exile over CONTINUING to fight. Exiled is nothing more than an excuse and a poor one, since none of his soldiers that were still on the battlefield fighting for their country got the same privilege of being exiled to France and living in a mansion. They got to be slaughtered and or taken to Syrian jails, never to be heard from again. Oh and let's not forget to be stabbed in the back by the same "exiled" BUM!
25 September 2014, 17:21
11
Safra? Geagea was not even involved in any way whatsoever that was a purely bashir gemayel and fouad abiu nader planed and executed operation. Some of the people involved in the slaughter are now high ranking members of Aoun's iner circle within the FPM, PR and MA are the initials of just two of them I think you can guess who they are.
