By Ana
General Michel Aoun slammed March 14 saying they don’t have a right to be decision makers. He also said that he represents the majority of the Christians and being shut out of the debate for the presidency is isolating the voice of the majority of the Christians. He also criticized the U.S.’s recent statement rejecting a president that is affiliated to a terrorist organization or foreign power.
1. March 14 is the majority and therefore is the decision maker by constitutional default;
2. The FPM and their leader need to re-check the Metn results: the only substantial Christian bloc that voted for Camille Khoury was Tashnag, and certainly not the Maronites (although I fully respect and advocate the view that the Maronites are not all the Christians); and
3. How can you, Aoun, support a president that has the carte blanche from Hezbollah (like yourself) when they are clearly a terrorist organization, one that you acknowledged back in 2002?
4. Lastly, Aoun equates the Shi’as with Hezbollah. How wrong he is. The Shi’as are more than just the political Shi’as of March 8.
The problem with demagogues is that they can never be consistent. It makes the fact that they have no logic too obvious.
For French readers, I highly recommend you read Carlos Edde: Le Fascisme. The article was published in L’Orient Le Jour last week. Fascism in a new light. Note to readers: Read between the lines, it’s a lot more fun.
Streets of Beirut 
Ana, aren’t you falling in the same political demagogy by labeling Hezbollah as terrorists?
What kind of dialogue do you expect when you call them as such.
That is not demagogy (which is solely used to define a person who is able to stir the populace through lacy rhetoric).
Labeling an organization that holds a population hostage to pursue personal interests, pro-actively causes chaos in a country and pushes forward an economic crisis, and finally, is able to create fear from the mere fact that they are armed with sophisticated weaponry are not “demagogy”-driven reasons for labeling them as terrorists. They are real.
To answer your question: I would like to see dialogue that firmly practices what is being preached (i.e. if someone acts on behalf of national interests, explicitly clarify whether these are national Lebanese interests or Iranian agendas). Unfortunately, those with guns are not the best models for civilized discussion.