Robert Fisk seems to think that the Syrians killed Hairiri.

[rooboy]

He's just concluded an interview with Australian television. Fisk was pointing out that Hairiri was having lunch with the Druze leader a few days earlier, and apparently said to him "I wonder whether it will be you or me to go first."

Although he has no evidence of Syrian involvement, Fisk said that pretty well everyone who pisses off the Syrians tends to wind up dead.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I tend to trust Fisk's instincts...

...he might be right about this.

[rooboy]

2. He lives in Beirut and knew Hariri personally...

and seems to have contacts with all the major players there. If he knows any part of the ME better than others, it would be Lebanon.

[formernaderite]

13. Agreed....

Fisk has been around the ME long enough to know the inside dirt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Did he say which Syrians?

Quite a few people have pointed out that parts of the Syrian intelligence services, army etc. act without the knowledge or control of the president. In a way, Syrians are quite likely culprits, because about half of the factions involved are Syrian.

[rooboy]

4. He mentioned that there was a nasty conversation between Hairiri...

and the general who heads the Syrian military intelligence service in Beirut. Might have been through him.

[Padraig18]

5. Some of us have believed this all along.

Sadly, we've been largely shouted down or completely ignored by the extremely prolific :tinfoilhat: contingent here at DU.

[bigtree]

7. The former leader was no threat to Syria

but Hariri was seen as favoring some sort of peace agreement with Israel at the time of his killing. There are plenty of anti-Israeli factions in Lebanon and in Syria. To surmise that Syria would be so short-sighted as to assassinate this man and spark this hastening of their departure from Lebanon is hard to fathom. This notion that the Syrian government or military had need or want to have Hariri eliminated is belied by the fact of his resignation months earlier. What threat are you proposing that he was to the Syrians?

edit:

Two views against the notion of Syrian involvement (There are a myriad which favor the position that Syria was involved, albeit without evidence )

'Keep an open mind'-- Skeptics doubted Damascus was "suicidal" enough to arrange the bombing. Bangladesh's independent New Age noted it was "hard to accept" that President Assad could have "been so unwise," while Germany's business-oriented Handelsblatt labeled Syria's involvement "inconceivable." Several writers warned the world "cannot ignore" the potential culpability of "Iran-backed Hezbollah"; France's right-of-center Le Figaro alleged the attack targeted "Assad and Damascus's moderates." Regardless of guilt, dailies predicted that "Syria will pay the bill," noting "an increasingly clear and sharp rejection of Syria's military presence" by both the Lebanese and the world.

A 'U.S.-Israeli strategy of hegemony'-- Aggressive Arab dailies linked Hariri's murder to Western "plots" to "undermine the peace and security of the region." Jordan's center-left Al-Dustour saw efforts to ignite "chaos...whereby the Arab and Muslim world would become ripe for hegemonic plans." Algeria's influential L'Expression predicted the U.S. will "use the Beirut attacks for its own ends" against its "next target," Syria. Syrian media detailed an "international conspiracy with Israeli connections"; government-owned Tishreen accused a "hostile" Israel of dragging Lebanon "back to a state of turmoil." Saudi Arabia's conservative Al-Madina concluded the attack "serves the interests of our enemy, the Zionist program."

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2005/February/Feb19/Feb19d/feb19d.html

[Padraig18]

9. "...What threat are you proposing that he was to the Syrians?...."

You answer your own question: "...Hariri was seen as favoring some sort of peace agreement with Israel at the time of his killing...."

That's all the threat Syria needs; people who tend to favor any sort of peace agreement with Israel, specifically one that does/may contemplate a crackdown on Hezbollah, tend not to live long if the are within reach of the Syrians...

[bigtree]

14. But, of all of those there who oppose Israel, the Syrian govt. is seen as

the party most likely to forge a peace agreement with Israel. Indeed, in 1999 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad tried to hammer out an agreement. Those negotiations have been stalled during the Bush term, mostly because of Bush's initial indifference to the process there and then by aggravated by his aggression in Iraq.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Say what?

The Syrians are seen as the party most likely to forge a peace agreement with Israel? In what alternate universe in the year 2005 is this considered a credible statement, and who SAYS that that is the case? Let me know, because I'd like an ounce of whatever they're smokin'...

:eyes:

[bigtree]

20. Read the words pal

Of those opposed to Israel there . . .

[The Magistrate]

24. To Be Fair, Sir

As both Egypt and Jordan have concluded such agreements, Syria is the only remaining state that both shares a border with Israel and has any real military capability to oppose it. There really is not much in the way of other states whose conclusion of such a treaty would be of much importance....

[Illinois_Dem]

27. To be even more fair

The statement that Syria is the 'most likely' party to conclude a peace treaty with Israel at some future time may be literally true, considering that the sole remaining nations who have made war on Israel are Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The actual prospect that any of the 3 will make peace with Isael in the foreseeable future are slim to none, I would wager.

[bigtree]

28. I was actually referring to parties within Syria and Lebanon

There are so many sects and factions, each with their own grudges and concerns. There are those who, in the past (and possibly the present) have received direct support from Israel, and there are those who, like Amal and Hezbollah, who have aggressively resisted Israel's presence in the south. I recall that Syria once supported some faction of the Maronites long ago, then shifted alliances . . .

What I think exists now was well described by another poster; that without Syria as a buffer against Israel, more determined opponents of Israel, like the Amal or Hezbollah will be the only armed group standing in the way of Israeli incursions deeper into Lebanon (they already occupy disputed land in the south that the U.N. says belongs to Syria and Hezbollah says is part of Lebanon). Syria may well be the only opponent of Israel within the area comprising Lebanon and Syria proper who are capable of maintaining some peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbors. Any of these other groups would be militarily dominated by the Israeli forces and would likely resort to some unconventional reprisal in response to some Israeli aggression.

As I pointed out, Assad and Barak were in the process of hammering out such an agreement in 1999, before Bush came in and mucked it up with his initial indifference, then his overt leaning toward Israel when Powell was eventually dispatched, and then aggravated further with his invasion of Iraq. Still, I believe that Syria does not seek more conflict with Israel, or with the U.S. for that matter. They have lorded over Lebanon with a heavy hand to be sure, but if there is a better alternative to the power-sharing that the U.N. and Syria's opponents in Lebanon and elsewhere are so anxious to dissolve, I haven't seen it.

[auburngrad82]

6. Funny, I've had a sneaking suspicion that the US was behind it

It fits the modus operandi of the CIA, and is similar to the CIA's bombing of a Lebanese mosque during Reagan's administration that killed a couple hundred people. Plus, why were the Lebanese looking for a couple "Australian" men after the bombing? And why would the Syrians want to cause problems in a country that they have a military presence in? That would make Lebanon as bad for them as Iraq is for Bush. Doesn't make sense.

[bigtree]

8. You know, some referenced quotes would help.

'No evidence' seems to be the mantra of those who would accuse Syria. I like Fisk and I trust his judgement, but the logic that Syria has a history of eliminating opponents is no better than accusing any of the other factions who also have violent histories of reprisals in Lebanon.

[oblivious]

10. Right, you could fill in the blank in Fisk's statement with anyone there.

"Although he has no evidence of Syrian involvement, Fisk said that pretty well everyone who pisses off the ___________ tends to wind up dead."

[rooboy]

16. Referenced quotes??

What am I, a stenographer?

[bigtree]

21. I thought it would be helpful

I admit that I trust Fisk, and his proximity to events certainly enhances his perspective.

[theboss]

11. Saying "Syria" did it doesn't necessarily mean it was "Syrian" policy

It could have been the puppet government of Lebanon. It could have been Syrian intelligence. Could be a rogue general. It could be Hezbollah. All could be called "Syria."

[realFedUp]

12. actually why not question whether the US had any role

seems a pretty convenient time for
the said event to have occurred.
Not that I'm cynical or anything.

[rooboy]

15. Whatever cynicism you have of the US...

it would pale in comparison to Fisk's distrust of the Bush regime. Which is why I felt it appropriate to post his comments.

[eissa]

19. Absolutely

The bush administration started pointing the finger at Syria within seconds of the assassination. They then started making mind-boggling hypocritical comments about the "foreign occupation" of Lebanon (which has 15,000 troops in the country, compared to 150,000 we have in Iraq.) I still don't understand what Syria could have gained from killing off a popular moderate when there are those who are far more verbal in their opposition to Syria than Hariri ever was. The timing was just too convenient for this administration. Sorry, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this administration lies about everything; I wouldn't put anything past them.

[rooboy]

17. FULL TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW HERE

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1319861.htm

[bigtree]

22. This quote from the interview would have given Fisk's comments balance

"Though I'd have to say that Rafik Hariri did have enemies in the business world as well."

[rooboy]

23. That transcript wasn't available until the next day. n/t

[The Magistrate]

25. Mr. Fisk Is A Pretty Sound Observer, Sir

He certainly seems to be correct in this instance.

[bigtree]

26. Hmm . . . I trust his judgment

but he did hedge his statement with the bit about other opponents of Hariri. I still think it is too convenient to blame the Syrian govt., the upper ranks at least, as this would be a colossal blunder considering the pressure that was on Syria already from the Bush administration. It would be a sloppy reprisal to kill a man who was not, as Fisk says, speaking out publicly and had already resigned. I would think that Gemeyal would have been a more opportune target as he is a vocal opponent who has closer ties to Israel. Hariri was mostly doing the bidding of Syria in the beginning of his term. So, I will hold to my initial judgment of this until there is some credible evidence from some credible source, something that Fisk admits he doesn't have at this point.

Gotta love Fisk though. Fascinating fellow.