So this Lebanese columnist in the dying (and legally challenged) sectarian, right-wing, racist (against Syrian people and Palestinian people) An-Nahar (which now relies on sleaze on its website to stay afloat) wrote an article about something. His name is Sarkis Na`um and he started his career by writing whatever `Abdul-Halim Khaddam told him. That was his cashes. In the last decade, he now cites every week "experts" (always unnamed) but he describes them thus: "serious" "very serious" "real expert" and some are "former official" in one of the four agencies of governments in the US. Basically, National Inquirer journalism. So he wrote an article this week, citing--as usual--"an expert from Asia". The whole article was the musings of this expert who at one point talked about Qasim Sulaymani visiting EAST BEIRUT--mind you--to meet Michel Awn--and citing "Saudi sources". Western Zionists today are circulating the story and citing "a prominent Lebanese newspaper". Gulf media then cited the Western media citing the Lebanese newspaper citing Sarkis Na`um, citing the Asian expert, citing unnamed Saudi sources. You see why I now say the difference between Gulf regimes media and Western media is tiny?