Hasan Nasrallah speech: No surrender to the US puppets [Arabic Video]

Posted on December 9, 2006 by Sappho

First here is the speech [video]:

Nas­ralaah 7 Dec 2006

Nas­ral­lah raised the Issue of the war, He said that mem­bers of the gov­ern­ment, whom he did not iden­tify by name, had asked the US envoys to get Israel to destroy Hizbul­lah because “the Lebanese couldn’t” and tried to help Israeli forces deter­mine his where­abouts dur­ing the war [I reported about the secret meet­ing took place with the Israelis].

“Can any­one accept that in a time of war, the prime min­is­ter ordered the Lebanese Army to seize weapons being deliv­ered to us as we were try­ing to defend our coun­try from Israel’s attacks?” Nas­ral­lah asked, call­ing for an inde­pen­dent com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate events dur­ing the conflict.

“Those are the ones respon­si­ble for the war, not the resis­tance,” Nas­ral­lah said.

Nas­ral­lah also blasted Arab and West­ern gov­ern­ments that have expressed sup­port for Siniora’s government.

“You [Siniora’s Cab­i­net] have been count­ing on Amer­i­can back­ing, It will not bring you any ben­e­fit, look what they have done to Iraq”.

Who are the 14 March group?

If you was too young to recall Lebanon civil-war or you just joined Middle-East dis­cus­sions lately then here are the key fig­ures of the group:

Walid Jun­blat: leader of the Druz com­mu­nity, back then when Israel invaded Lebanon he was the only Mili­tia leader who didn’t fired a sin­gle bul­let against the Israeli occupation.

Samir Geagea

Sa’ad Al-Harirri: After spend­ing most of his life in the Parisian night clubs, out of the sud­den he is a politician.

As you see from their back­grounds, no sur­prise that the US backup such cor­rupt lead­ers, they did it all the time.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Hasan Nasrallah speech: No surrender to the US puppets [Arabic Video]

  1. Anon says:
    December 9, 2006 at 15:34

    http://lebanesebloggers.blogspot.com/2006/12/sleeping-on-fear-waking-up-to-hope.html#link

    Nas­ral­lah has del­e­gated him­self as the ruler of the coun­try; he has decided ahead of time who will be the major­ity if Par­lia­men­tary elec­tions take place, he has decided the char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Cab­i­net that he would over­see and also, who would head the Cab­i­net, “A Sunni Prime Min­is­ter who is clean, true, nation­al­is­tic, etc…”

    Seniora asks, “Who has given you the author­ity to say some­one is clean or not clean, his money is clean or not clean? This deci­sion rests with the Cre­ator and not with you. Is you party God?”

    But to go back to Nasrallah’s voyeuris­tic atti­tude about the out­come of the major­ity in the coun­try and who would lead the coun­try, Seniora said that this is not demo­c­ra­tic behav­ior, but an atti­tude that leads us to fear that Nas­ral­lah is plan­ning a coup.

    Seniora was pained that Nas­ral­lah said those in the Oppo­si­tion are those who sup­port the Resis­tance. Seniora said, “What about us? You took us off the list in a sec­ond? We never sup­ported the Resistance?!!”

    Then Seniora dis­cussed the She­baa Farms issue. Nas­ral­lah yes­ter­day said that Seniora and his gov­ern­ment are trai­tors for try­ing to get back Al-Ghajar and the She­baa Farms diplo­mat­i­cally. I never knew, and these are my thoughts, that diplo­macy means brand­ing some­one as a trai­tor. Why can’t we use mul­ti­ple venues to lib­er­ate our coun­try? Why does it have to be through one way, the use of arms?

    Seniora ques­tioned whether some folks want to tru­ely lib­er­ate the She­baa Farms. He said that dur­ing the hiwar ses­sions, the gov­ern­ment saw that it wise to have She­baa to be trans­ferred to the UN’s purview, not under Israeli rule, until the Syr­i­ans decide to pro­vide the UN with doc­u­ments show­ing that the Farms are Lebanese. Despite such a prac­ti­cal approach, Seniora revealed that there was some­one who vis­ited him in the Serail and who wanted the Farms to stay under Israeli rule: it’s the Iran­ian For­eign Minister!

    Then Seniora asked how Nas­ral­lah says that the Oppo­si­tion doesn’t get for­eign sup­port when Hizbul­lah gets for­eign finan­cial sup­port in the mil­lions and unfor­tu­nately not through legal chan­nels, such as through the Lebanese Cen­tral Bank. Seniora said, “Yes many Arab coun­tries have sent us finan­cial sup­port, but by deposit­ing that money in the Cen­tral Bank to ben­e­fit all of Lebanon.” He wel­comed Iran­ian finan­cial con­tri­bu­tions for all Lebanese to ben­e­fit from and through a trans­par­ent mech­a­nism, by deposit­ing the money in the Cen­tral Bank.

    I can’t sum­ma­rize an one-hour long speech, but these are some of the high­lights. I’m sure other blogs and news sites will shed light on other points Seniora made in his speech. But in gen­eral, I am com­forted that at least some­one in this crazi­ness is not accus­ing, hat­ing, insulting.

    Even when some in the audi­ence booed at men­tion­ing some of what Nas­ral­lah said yes­ter­day, Seniora stopped them and said that this is not a civ­i­lized attitude.

    I think about it: Even Shar’a, the Syr­ian Vice Pres­i­dent, said that if they had a say in Lebanese polit­i­cal affairs, they would get every­thing set­tled in the coun­try from the first day of protests. What does that mean? It means that in their regime lan­guage, per­haps he would order tanks to drive over the pro­test­ers. This is the lan­guage of the neigh­bor­ing Arab regimes, but not the lan­guage of our sys­tem in Lebanon.

    Who is besieg­ing who? The Serail is besieged and Seniora still says pos­i­tive things and com­mends the pro­test­ers for demon­strat­ing peace­fully because he believes in the free­dom of speech and thought.

    It is Nas­ral­lah who can­not stand this right, this CONSTITUTIONAL right. I am a Lebanese; the last thing I want to be accused of is that I’m not a Lebanese because I have my OWN mind. I am a FREE Lebanese regard­less of who I talk to, of who I asso­ciate with, of what I think. In Lebanon, it’s not my way or the high­way; it’s never like that and will never be.

    One more thing: On Kalam Innas yes­ter­day, the talk show ended in a ver­bal fight between MP Ibrahim Kanaan of FPM and MP Mos­bah Ahdab of March 14. The most strik­ing insult is when Kanaan accused Ahdab of being a trai­tor “3ameel” (a dis­gust­ing insult)! And also said that he is “cleaner than him” (ana ashraf min­nak!) And this is just because Ahdab was furi­ous how Aoun is using terms such as “saramee” (a deroga­tory term for shoes) and “3uhr” (or pros­ti­tu­tion) to char­ac­ter­ize the March 14 coali­tion. Kanaan even said, “il 3uhr 3indak!” (you’re the one char­ac­ter­ized by prostitution!)

    Any­ways, today in Riad Solh the Fri­day prayers are being held by March 8, led by Sunni cleric Fat’hi Yakan (the same per­son who approached the gov­ern­ment to bro­ker a solu­tion). I ask why? I’m a Mus­lim, but I don’t see the rea­son for hold­ing the Fri­day prayers in this square. Why can’t they hold it in the mosque? Why turn the polit­i­cal podium into a place where sheikhs con­duct their Fri­day ser­mons? Why turn it into a reli­gious podium? Why mix the two together? There is no rea­son to do that?

    I just lis­tened to a part of the ser­mon, “How can we sup­port the inter­na­tional tri­bunal, when one of those who were del­e­gated by Kofi Annan to study the idea of the mixed tri­bunal is a Jew­ish woman who grad­u­ated from the Uni­ver­sity of Tel Aviv with a PhD?”.….

    Alright, time to leave!

    Adden­dum: I remem­bered some­thing: Seniora explained, in a unique expla­na­tion I haven’t heard before, the rea­son why the Con­sti­tu­tion stip­u­lates that a Cab­i­net is dis­solved when 1/3 +1 of the Cab­i­net mem­bers resign. Why not for instance when 20% of the Min­is­ters resign? It’s because the aim is not for one sect to hijack the decision-making process, to make or break a Cab­i­net. The ulti­mate rea­son for such a stip­u­la­tion is so sects can work together to make a dif­fer­ence, if they wish so to dis­solve a Cab­i­net or to uphold it.

    Another point I wanted to make is that by virtue of a Sayyid, Sayyid Nas­ral­lah a reli­gious fig­ure, tak­ing up the role of a political/military com­man­der, we are bound to see today Muftis of all regions take to the podi­ums to make speeches and to be pro­vided with media coverage.

    It’s turn­ing reli­gious more than ever!

  2. LadyBird says:
    December 9, 2006 at 21:40

    That is why Nas­ral­lah asks for new election

  3. Anon says:
    December 9, 2006 at 22:53

    Assad regime to kill Berri if he con­venes par­lia­ment
    http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutbeltway/2006/12/assad_regime_to.html

    ~~~

    Dec. 9 MIDEAST: SAUDI KING, ARAB WORLD ABOUT TO EXPLODE
    http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200612091900–1197-RT1-CRO-0-NF51&page=0&id=agionline-eng.arab

    ~~~

    Decem­ber 8, 2006 Osama bin Laden defended attacks by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

    CAIRO, Egypt — Osama bin Laden defended attacks by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi against civil­ians in Iraq, pur­port­edly say­ing in a taped Web mes­sage Fri­day that the slain mil­i­tant was act­ing under al-Qaeda orders to kill any­one who backs U.S. troops.

    http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa061208_wz_binladen.a6f784b.html

    ~~~
    Sat Dec 9 Al-Zarqawi said Shi­ites most dangerous

    The slain ter­ror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pur­port­edly believed that Iraq’s Shi­ite Mus­lims were more dan­ger­ous than U.S. forces and more evil than dic­ta­tor Sad­dam Hus­sein, accord­ing to a posthu­mous inter­view pub­lished Fri­day on the Inter­net.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi&printer=1