I'm sure most all of us are aware of the assassination yesterday of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. Whilst driving through central Beirut, Mr Hariri's convoy of (armoured) cars was hit by a bomb estimated to have contained over 350kg (770 pounds) of explosives. The Bomb caused extensive damage to the surrounding area and killed Mr Hariri and several body guards and wounded two former ministers as they were returning from a the Lebanese Parliment.

Fingers were pointing to Syria even before the debris had stopped burning, with the argument that Syria killed Mr Hariri because he was calling upon Syria to remove the 14,000 or so troops Syria still has in Lebanon.

The United States has threatened 'whom ever is responsible' with UN action and together with the UN security council, called upon Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon.

France has called for an independent international investigation into the attack. Apparently Rafik Hariri and Jacques Chirac were old friends, and last September, France and the USA attempted to engineer a UN resolution to force Syria to leave Lebanon, and all but failed to do so despite the resolution passing.

Syria has denied responsibility for the attack. A Syrian spokesman on the BBC World TV news channel made the thinly veiled accusation that Israel was responsible. Their motivation he 'pondered' was to provocate further US aggression against Syria.

Whether or not Israel, the USA or some one other than Syria was responsible remains to be seen, but the Syrian spokesman was certainly right about how the bombing was going to be perceived and what actions it would trigger from the west against Syria.

So possible questions for debate are:

who murdered Rafik Hariri, and why?

Does the sheer size of the blast indicate an agenda beyond the slaying of Rafik Hariri? (in other words, would this event have had the same impact if Rafik Hariri had been killed by a sniper?)

If Syria was responsible, then what did they hope to gain?

Who benefits from this attack? what is the likely outcome?



Further reading can be found at these sites:

Killing of Hariri stuns Lebanon: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/news/beirut.html
Finger pointing begins as nations ask who? http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/news/react.html
Bomb strains Syrian/ Lebanese ties: http://csmonitor.com/2005/0215/p06s01-wome.html
The tycoon who rebuilt a nation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1485128,00.html
Islamist group claims Hariri killed for 'Saudi ties': http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ebanon_blast_dc
Lebanese army on alert: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4266587.stm
Syria under pressure/ aftermath of the bombing :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4265329.stm
France calls for probe on bomibg: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/104bf70a-7e85-11d...000e2511c8.html

editted to reformulate a question

who murdered Rafik Hariri, and why? The Baathist party in Syria is doing everything they can to remain in Lebanon. They are willing to cause another civil war to remain there.

Does the sheer size of the blast indicate an agenda beyond the slaying of Rafik Hariri? (in other words, would this event have had the same impact if Rafik Hariri had been killed by a sniper?)I believe that it was meant as a message that the Lebanese could not possibly miss. Oppose the Syrian government and they will return to the 'Arafat' Days of bombings throughout Beirut.

If Syria was responsible, then what did they hope to gain? To keep control of Lebanon. They figure that if they can convince a large enough segment of Europe of the instability of Lebanon the UN will back they stay there like the Arab League has done.

Who benefits from this attack? what is the likely outcome?Syrian and Iran. Syria is trying to convince the world that they are all that keeps Lebanon from going into another civil war. Iran benefits from keeping the world from looking at them and their nuclear program. The Iranian government figures that if they can tie up the US in Lebanon again the pressure will come off Syria. That would delay the fall of the Syrian government, and keep the US involved away from Iran and any possible US and/or UN sanctions.

loreng59

Are you saying this because you believe it on the basis of Syrian stupidity, or do you base it on something less subjective?

It seems to me that of all the states and powers involved in the middle east, Syria is the loser in this. I'm not sure what it is you think Syria could hope to gain from causing such wide spread destruction in the very heart of Beirut. No one in Europe is ever going to back Syria on the back ground of a terrorist attack. Especially given the relationship between Chirac and Hariri!

I find it telling that on the background of withdrawing the US ambassador from Syria as a result of the bombing, Scott McClellan (White house spokesman) has said:

If Scott McClellan can't say who was responsible, then why is the US already punishing Syria by withdrawing its ambassador, especially given Paul Wolfowitz's comments earlier this month that Washington had no policy to destabilise Syria?

Given that Syria was always going to be blamed for this attack, and it was always going to be used (as it already is) as a cause for calling on Syria to leave Lebanon, then I'm not inclined to point the finger at this early stage. I see plenty of others who benefit far more from this than Syria could ever hope to.

editted to add link

Actually I base this on the facts. Syria is already blaming Israel yet again. They have done so after each and every bombing in Lebanon when their opponents have died, and it's worked in Europe and the Arab League. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the European Union Solana apparently believes the claim. Also I do not believe it is stupidity so much as arrogance. And yes I believe that the EU is going to back Syria to the hilt, just as they have terrorist organizations attacking Israel from Lebanon for years now.

Like Saddam, the Syrians have consistently miscalculated the American reaction. Their support for the Baathists in Iraq continues, and the US has attempted to end it without resorting to war. It looks like those efforts have not worked. That is one of the reasons for America to withdraw their ambassador.

The Syrians believe that they are destined to rule the Middle East just as Egypt believes the same. Both have made this claim publicly several times, with attitudes such as that they misread the rest of the world as indifferent to their actions. Let's face it, they have gotten away with attacking, and invading their neighbors for more than 50 years now without so much as a slap on their wrist, why stop now? The Syrian government is now claiming that Harari supported their occupation of Lebanon.

Moif

However, IMO there are two assumptions here:

1) That Bashar al-Assad would act rationally and in the best interests of Syria. He won't - he'll act in the best interests of himself. His interests are remaining in charge of Syria...and it is possible that he believes having a firm hold over Lebanon is more important than international opinion.

2) That the international community will do anything. Suppose Bashar al-Assad is gambling on the international community doing nothing but complain vociferously. After all, he is a dictator, so probably used to external criticism. As yet, Syria hasn't made it onto the axis of evil (or at least it is of less concern than Iran and North Korea)- so presumably he feels that America is going to be far more concerned with Iran and North Korea before doing anything to oust him.

So I think there is more than enough evidence to support the hypothesis that Syria is responsible without making things more complicated by bringing in outside parties, whose only interest in assassinating Rafiq Hariri would be to implicate Syria

loreng59

While it may be a fact that Syria blames Israel, that still doesn't mean that Syria is responsible.

At this stage there is no evidence to support such an early conclusion.


Which claim? I haven't seen Solana make any judgement in this matter.

And, whilst I understand your pro israeli bias from previous debates, and accept your opinions as valid opinions, I don't see how you've reached your conclusion in this thread based on any evidence available. Do you have anything to back up these claims? because it seems to me that your just making accusations based on your own preconceptions.


How is the EU backing Syria or terrorism? Upon what do you base this accusation?



Ptarmigan

You say there is more than enough evidence, but you only propose two hypothetical justifications, neither of which constitute evidence of anything

First. Bashar al-Assad may be a dictator, but that doesn't make him stupid. Also, your assuming that Assad maintains total control over all Syria, and yet everything I've read on that country indicates this is not the case and there are a number of powerful factions within Syria that are well capable of acting on their own justifications, regardless of Damascus.

Second. The 'international community' is irrelevant in this context. The danger to Syria is from the USA and the militant hawks of the neo con government currently in power there.

Third. Syria has been an object of US attentions for the past many years with neo con thinkers such as David Wurmser (middle east advisor to Dick Cheney) and Douglas Feith (US Undersecretary of Defense) advocating regime change by the direct funding of terrorist groups within Syria either from the USA or Israel. Both Wurmser & Feith are known to have open ties with Israel's settler movements.

On the back ground of an existing UNSC resolution (1559) calling for Syria to with draw its troops from Lebanon and with Syria's evil reputation, its not hard to see how easy it would be to 'set Syria up' by detonating a huge bomb in the middle of Beirut where its going to get a lot of media attention in order to kill a man that very few people in the rest of the world have any awareness of.

If Syria had wanted to kill Hariri and send a warning to the Lebanese, then they could have done so quite effectively by other, less conspicuous means.

The fact that this bomb was so huge indicates there is more to Mr Hariri's murder than just wanting to get rid of him.

I find it very suspicious that regardless of whether or not Syria actually did the deed, Syria is already being held responsible. Bashar al-Assad, or his advisors would have understood that.

However, I'm not saying Bashar al-Assad is innocent. I'm not pointing the finger at any one, yet. I'm mostly just surprised that such an event can take place in the current global political climate, and every one just accepts that Syria did it despite the fact that given what just took place in Iraq, Syria faces serious consequences as a result of this murder.

editted for spelling

I will answer in reverse order EU backing terrorism in one word - Hezbollah. Syria's and Iran's puppet terrorist organization de jure in Southern Lebanon.

Two not preconceptions, perceptions actually. I have been to Lebanon and know that next to nothing happens that one the Syrian government does not know about and two approve. Syria has been very active lately in removing opposition to their occupation and Harari is just one of a number of murders that occur among those that oppose Syrian occupation.

You are correct that I have no proof at this time, but it does not take a degree in physics to figure out that having eliminated all of the small fry opposition that they most likely had a hand in removing those higher up the food chain. The Syrian government has controlled all facets of life in Lebanon for decades and have absolutely zero intension of changing that now. Try talking to people that live under a multi-generation dictatorship and you will learn that there is literally nothing the regime won't do to get what they want.

I can easily agree with, and accept that as valid observation regarding how Syria intervenes with Lebanon.

I'm just cautious as to placing the blame without evidence.

Can you understand why I might feel that way given the situation between Syria and the other regional powers? (even if you disagree with me)

I think Syria is not stupid and I think they at least in part or entirely had a role in this assassination.

Our family friends here in the US are Lebanese. The first thing I did upon hearing this story was call my father to ask if he has spoken with our friends. Yes he had... first he was glad he chose not to relocate there for a yr because his job asked him to (him and his son just returned from Lebanon 1 mo ago) then he told my father that you can't do anything in Lebanon without Syria knowing about it.

He said he was going to call all his family today and get the insider scoop on what it is the people of Lebanon think or feel about this and I promise to share once I have heard.

The first odd thing is that I heard that the group who claimed responsibility said it was in retaliation to KSA. Huh? Why KSA? But then our family's friend works for a KSA co. and their big project right now is cell phones in Lebanon..so I know the KSA is investing a lot of money into Lebanon currently.

Then I was left wondering if Syria did this what or who emboldened them? And who else can I think of but Iran. And my suspicions have been further cemented by the newest stories on the situation...
Iran to aid Syria against threats

Getting Syria out of Lebanon was already something in pursuit..UN resolution 1559 comes to mind..if anything this just a tactic to further dirty the Syrian faces...but why? Why would any of the opponents of Syrian occupation risk international discredit with this? That makes no sense either.

I think this was a tactic to allow Syria and Iran to take an aggressive stance..together..in face of what they wish the world to perceive as threats in hopes that their actions will be seen as much needed protective measures. Syria knew she was losing Lebanon and so Iran and Syria needed to come up with a means to slink out of Lebanon and still keep an aggressive stance in the region and still keep a united front. So no Syria is not stupid but she is most certainly not innocent.

bucket - I agree with you that this may have been done for internal reasons more than worry about International reaction. Having a scapegoat to blame is more important to them than to worry about outside reaction which usually amounts to mere lipservice.

Without any outside threats the government would have no excuse to continue. They require a threat and if there is none the government will invent one just to hold on to power.

Who murdered Rafik Hariri, and why?

IMO, Syria.

According to my current sources, I don't see why anyone else had a specific desire to wipe him out. Hariri was a leading figure since the civil war, which came to an end with his help. If I recall correctly, his building company helped rebuild Beyruth too. The downside of his efforts was the extraordinary debt he left to the country... but at least, the people were happier.

Does the sheer size of the blast indicate an agenda beyond the slaying of Rafik Hariri? (in other words, would this event have had the same impact if Rafik Hariri had been killed by a sniper?)

I'd rather believe the explosion was preferred to a sniper, because it could seem that "terrorists" did it. In truth, what a strange terrorist group to claim the death of Hariri while speaking of "Grand Syria"!!!

If Syria was responsible, then what did they hope to gain?

The death of a powerful, popular, opponent. You could say that Hariri was a Lebanese patriot, opposed to the dominion of Syria over his country.

Who benefits from this attack? what is the likely outcome?

Again, Syria. I believe the outcome is the termination of the presence of Syria at last by enforcing the UN resolution... and sooner than the Syrians thought! For once in a long time, France and the US deliver exactly the same message about this issue!

Thomas Friedman has an interesting column in today's NY Times. Comparing this asasination to the massacre in hama in 1982. He also wrote the original column about Hama Rulesarchived here. He certainly provides motive, an essential part of proving any criminal case.

Makes a pretty good case that the Syrians don't respect the world community because we've shown that we won't ever stop them in Lebanon.

Friedman brings up an interesting point that I wanted to elaborate on..."The message was that the Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation was getting united - inspired both by the example of Iraq and by the growing excesses of the Syrian occupation. Mr. Hariri, his friend said, was planning to use the coming Lebanese parliamentary elections, and a hoped-for victory by the opposition front, to send a real message to the Syrians: It's time for you to go… "

One of Mr. Hariri's political allies in all this was Walid Jumblatt.

Mr. Walid Jumblatt was also a very outspoken opponent to Syria and was PUBLICLY threatened by Syria just days prior to Hariri's assassination....
His attack comes a day after the head of the Baath party in Lebanon, Labor Minister Assem Qanso, warned the Democratic Gathering leader: "You are not out of reach of our militants." source
Is anyone in Lebanon out of reach from Syria's militants?...obviously not.