The Opinionated Diner

You need to ask, who benefits... A Little bit of perspective on the Lebanon / Syria / Israel / USA conundrum at The Agonist:

"Palestine is occupied. Iraq is occupied. Afghanistan, the Middle East, Gulf and the Caspian are seething with US military personnel, pilots, submarines, Apache gun-ships, fighter jets and spy drones. Iran and Syria are being threatened. And yet, it is absolutely imperative that Syria quits Lebanon tout suite, or so goes the White House line. Naturally, the vast majority of the Lebanese want a complete Syrian withdrawal in the same way that Palestinians want to reclaim their land and Iraqis (except those in government suffering from severely twisted arms) want the invaders out. What human being on earth wants foreigners dictating their 'do's and don'ts' or telling them how their country should be run? But there is a fundamental difference between the Syrian 'occupation' and the others previously mentioned. The Syrians were invited into Lebanon in 1976 when the country's civil war was at its bloodiest to bring stability. Over time, this it helped to achieve." more here

The question is, and always should be: who benefits from the assassination of Rafik Hariri? It surely is not Syria...... The neo-con games continue. btw this comes courtesy of Myk Reilly and speaks volumes :)