Fisk: Who Cares What Obama Says or Thinks

I do not care for Fisk.  He is a loathesome fool who has attached himself to causes based not on reason and logic but on emotional poppycock riddled with guilt and irrational hatred for self.  However, when the far left cares less about Obama ... he is certainly doomed. 





Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says?

President Obama has shown himself to be weak in his dealings with the Middle East, says Robert Fisk, and the Arab world is turning its back with contempt. Its future will be shaped without American influence



Monday, 30 May 2011
The Independent


This month, in the Middle East, has seen the unmaking of the President of the United States. More than that, it has witnessed the lowest prestige of America in the region since Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945.

While Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu played out their farce in Washington – Obama grovelling as usual – the Arabs got on with the serious business of changing their world, demonstrating and fighting and dying for freedoms they have never possessed. Obama waffled on about change in the Middle East – and about America's new role in the region. It was pathetic. "What is this 'role' thing?" an Egyptian friend asked me at the weekend. "Do they still believe we care about what they think?"

And it is true. Obama's failure to support the Arab revolutions until they were all but over lost the US most of its surviving credit in the region. Obama was silent on the overthrow of Ben Ali, only joined in the chorus of contempt for Mubarak two days before his flight, condemned the Syrian regime – which has killed more of its people than any other dynasty in this Arab "spring", save for the frightful Gaddafi – but makes it clear that he would be happy to see Assad survive, waves his puny fist at puny Bahrain's cruelty and remains absolutely, stunningly silent over Saudi Arabia. And he goes on his knees before Israel. Is it any wonder, then, that Arabs are turning their backs on America, not out of fury or anger, nor with threats or violence, but with contempt? It is the Arabs and their fellow Muslims of the Middle East who are themselves now making the decisions.

Turkey is furious with Assad because he twice promised to speak of reform and democratic elections – and then failed to honour his word. The Turkish government has twice flown delegations to Damascus and, according to the Turks, Assad lied to the foreign minister on the second visit, baldly insisting that he would recall his brother Maher's legions from the streets of Syrian cities. He failed to do so. The torturers continue their work.

Watching the hundreds of refugees pouring from Syria across the northern border of Lebanon, the Turkish government is now so fearful of a repeat of the great mass Iraqi Kurdish refugee tide that overwhelmed their border in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf war that it has drawn up its own secret plans to prevent the Kurds of Syria moving in their thousands into the Kurdish areas of south-eastern Turkey. Turkish generals have thus prepared an operation that would send several battalions of Turkish troops into Syria itself to carve out a "safe area" for Syrian refugees inside Assad's caliphate. The Turks are prepared to advance well beyond the Syrian border town of Al Qamishli – perhaps half way to Deir el-Zour (the old desert killing fields of the 1915 Armenian Holocaust, though speak it not) – to provide a "safe haven" for those fleeing the slaughter in Syria's cities.

The Qataris are meanwhile trying to prevent Algeria from resupplying Gaddafi with tanks and armoured vehicles – this was one of the reasons why the Emir of Qatar, the wisest bird in the Arabian Gulf, visited the Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, last week. Qatar is committed to the Libyan rebels in Benghazi; its planes are flying over Libya from Crete and – undisclosed until now – it has Qatari officers advising the rebels inside the city of Misrata in western Libya; but if Algerian armour is indeed being handed over to Gaddafi to replace the material that has been destroyed in air strikes, it would account for the ridiculously slow progress which the Nato campaign is making against Gaddafi.

Of course, it all depends on whether Bouteflika really controls his army – or whether the Algerian "pouvoir", which includes plenty of secretive and corrupt generals, are doing the deals. Algerian equipment is superior to Gaddafi's and thus for every tank he loses, Ghaddafi might be getting an improved model to replace it. Below Tunisia, Algeria and Libya share a 750-mile desert frontier, an easy access route for weapons to pass across the border.

But the Qataris are also attracting Assad's venom. Al Jazeera's concentration on the Syrian uprising – its graphic images of the dead and wounded far more devastating than anything our soft western television news shows would dare broadcast – has Syrian state television nightly spitting at the Emir and at the state of Qatar. The Syrian government has now suspended up to £4 billion of Qatari investment projects, including one belonging to the Qatar Electricity and Water Company.

Amid all these vast and epic events – Yemen itself may yet prove to be the biggest bloodbath of all, while the number of Syria's "martyrs" have now exceeded the victims of Mubarak's death squads five months ago – is it any surprise that the frolics of Messrs Netanyahu and Obama appear so irrelevant? Indeed, Obama's policy towards the Middle East – whatever it is – sometimes appears so muddled that it is scarcely worthy of study. He supports, of course, democracy – then admits that this may conflict with America's interests. In that wonderful democracy called Saudi Arabia, the US is now pushing ahead with a £40 billion arms deal and helping the Saudis to develop a new "elite" force to protect the kingdom's oil and future nuclear sites. Hence Obama's fear of upsetting Saudi Arabia, two of whose three leading brothers are now so incapacitated that they can no longer make sane decisions – unfortunately, one of these two happens to be King Abdullah – and his willingness to allow the Assad family's atrocity-prone regime to survive. Of course, the Israelis would far prefer the "stability" of the Syrian dictatorship to continue; better the dark caliphate you know than the hateful Islamists who might emerge from the ruins. But is this argument really good enough for Obama to support when the people of Syria are dying in the streets for the kind of democracy that the US president says he wants to see in the region?

One of the vainest elements of American foreign policy towards the Middle East is the foundational idea that the Arabs are somehow more stupid than the rest of us, certainly than the Israelis, more out of touch with reality than the West, that they don't understand their own history. Thus they have to be preached at, lectured, and cajoled by La Clinton and her ilk – much as their dictators did and do, father figures guiding their children through life. But Arabs are far more literate than they were a generation ago; millions speak perfect English and can understand all too well the political weakness and irrelevance in the president's words. Listening to Obama's 45-minute speech this month – the "kick off' to four whole days of weasel words and puffery by the man who tried to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, and then did nothing – one might have thought that the American President had initiated the Arab revolts, rather than sat on the sidelines in fear.

There was an interesting linguistic collapse in the president's language over those critical four days. On Thursday 19 May, he referred to the continuation of Israeli "settlements". A day later, Netanyahu was lecturing him on "certain demographic changes that have taken place on the ground". Then when Obama addressed the American Aipac lobby group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on the Sunday, he had cravenly adopted Netanyahu's own preposterous expression. Now he, too, spoke of "new demographic realities on the ground." Who would believe that he was talking about internationally illegal Jewish colonies built on land stolen from Arabs in one of the biggest property heists in the history of "Palestine"? Delay in peace-making will undermine Israeli security, Obama announced – apparently unaware that Netanyahu's project is to go on delaying and delaying and delaying until there is no land left for the "viable" Palestinian state which the United States and the European Union supposedly wish to see.

Then we had the endless waffle about the 1967 borders. Netanyahu called them "defenceless" (though they seemed to have been pretty defendable for the 18 years prior to the Six Day War) and Obama – oblivious to the fact that Israel must be the only country in the world to have an eastern land frontier but doesn't know where it is – then says he was misunderstood when he talked about 1967. It doesn't matter what he says. George W Bush caved in years ago when he gave Ariel Sharon a letter which stated America's acceptance of "already existing major Israeli population centres" beyond the 1967 lines. To those Arabs prepared to listen to Obama's spineless oration, this was a grovel too far. They simply could not understand the reaction of Netanyahu's address to Congress. How could American politicians rise and applaud Netanyahu 55 times – 55 times – with more enthusiasm than one of the rubber parliaments of Assad, Saleh and the rest?

And what on earth did the Great Speechifier mean when he said that "every country has the right to self-defence" but that Palestine would be "demilitarised"? What he meant was that Israel could go on attacking the Palestinians (as in 2009, for example, when Obama was treacherously silent) while the Palestinians would have to take what was coming to them if they did not behave according to the rules – because they would have no weapons to defend themselves. As for Netanyahu, the Palestinians must choose between unity with Hamas or peace with Israel. All of which was very odd. When there was no unity, Netanyahu told us all that he had no Palestinian interlocutor because the Palestinians were disunited. Yet when they unite, they are disqualified from peace talks.

Of course, cynicism grows the longer you live in the Middle East. I recall, for example, travelling to Gaza in the early 1980s when Yasser Arafat was running his PLO statelet in Beirut. Anxious to destroy Arafat's prestige in the occupied territories, the Israeli government decided to give its support to an Islamist group in Gaza called Hamas. In fact, I actually saw with my own eyes the head of the Israeli army's Southern Command negotiating with bearded Hamas officials, giving them permission to build more mosques. It's only fair to say, of course, that we were also busy at the time, encouraging a certain Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. But the Israelis did not give up on Hamas. They later held another meeting with the organisation in the West Bank; the story was on the front page of the Jerusalem Post the next day. But there wasn't a whimper from the Americans.

Then another moment that I can recall over the long years. Hamas and Islamic Jihad members – all Palestinians – were, in the early 1990s, thrown across the Israeli border into southern Lebanon where they spent more than a year camping on a freezing mountainside. I would visit them from time to time and on one occasion mentioned that I would be travelling to Israel next day. Immediately, one of the Hamas men ran to his tent and returned with a notebook. He then proceeded to give me the home telephone numbers of three senior Israeli politicians – two of whom are still prominent today – and, when I reached Jerusalem and called the numbers, they all turned out to be correct. In other words, the Israeli government had been in personal and direct contact with Hamas.

But now the narrative has been twisted out of all recognition. Hamas are the super-terrorists, the "al-Qa'ida" representatives in the unified Palestinian leadership, the men of evil who will ensure that no peace ever takes place between Palestinians and Israeli. If only this were true, the real al-Qa'ida would be more than happy to take responsibility. But it is not true. In the same context, Obama stated that the Palestinians would have to answer questions about Hamas. But why should they? What Obama and Netanyahu think about Hamas is now irrelevant to them. Obama warns the Palestinians not to ask for statehood at the United Nations in September. But why on earth not? If the people of Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen and Libya and Syria – we are all waiting for the next revolution (Jordan? Bahrain again? Morocco?) – can fight for freedom and dignity, why shouldn't the Palestinians? Lectured for decades on the need for non-violent protest, the Palestinians elect to go to the UN with their cry for legitimacy – only to be slapped down by Obama.

Having read all of the "Palestine Papers" which Al-Jazeera revealed, there is no doubt that "Palestine's" official negotiators will go to any lengths to produce some kind of statelet. Mahmoud Abbas, who managed to write a 600-page book on the "peace process" without once mentioning the word "occupation", could even cave in over the UN project, fearful of Obama's warning that it would be an attempt to "isolate" Israel and thus de-legitimise the Israeli state – or "the Jewish state" as the US president now calls it. But Netanyahu is doing more than anyone to delegitimise his own state; indeed, he is looking more and more like the Arab buffoons who have hitherto littered the Middle East. Mubarak saw a "foreign hand" in the Egyptian revolution (Iran, of course). So did the Crown Prince of Bahrain (Iran again). So did Gaddafi (al-Qa'ida, western imperialism, you name it), So did Saleh of Yemen (al-Qa'ida, Mossad and America). So did Assad of Syria (Islamism, probably Mossad, etc). And so does Netanyahu (Iran, naturally enough, Syria, Lebanon, just about anyone you can think of except for Israel itself).

But as this nonsense continues, so the tectonic plates shudder. I doubt very much if the Palestinians will remain silent. If there's an "intifada" in Syria, why not a Third Intifada in "Palestine"? Not a struggle of suicide bombers but of mass, million-strong protests. If the Israelis have to shoot down a mere few hundred demonstrators who tried – and in some cases succeeded – in crossing the Israeli border almost two weeks ago, what will they do if confronted by thousands or a million. Obama says no Palestinian state must be declared at the UN. But why not? Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says? Not even, it seems, the Israelis. The Arab spring will soon become a hot summer and there will be an Arab autumn, too. By then, the Middle East may have changed forever. What America says will matter nothing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fisk

The Middle East on Fire

The drum of democracy and freedom, or something more perilous.  I believe that we as Americans must support freedom, even if it is not beneficial to our interests - because freedom, if achieved, would result in a closer relationship of equals.  The desire for freedom is not enough, rather it is the plight of the masses who rise up and seize the chance, place their mark upon history, and end tyranny by the few.  Who wouldn't support it.  If I was the leader of Jordan or Bahrain, or Yemen ... I would be making large transfers of wealth to safe havens, just in case. 


Yet, isn't it amazing how it all happens so .... happenstance like, as if by accident the people rise up, without planning.  I my have a negative view of mankind, and that is we are led - at least that is what some astute students have suggested - so if we, Americans are led, we should be equally fair to others - that the Jordanians, Yemenis .... may also be led, and hopefully not by forces of hate and death.

Except it seems they are being led by someone or something.

Syria hangs in the balance.  It could topple either direction.  For many in the West, this is great news.  They see this as denouement of the past five months of rebellion and revolution in the Middle East.  Except it isn't.

Egypt is not more democratic.  It is less.

The 'rebels' opposing Khadadfi are not 'more democratic' than the dictator.  They are, as he pointed out, aided by al qaida, and with very little disagreement about this from the rebels.  The majority of suicide bombers did not come from Sauid Arabia or Gaza ... but from the general region of the 'rebels'.    So why are they now rising up and what connection to Tunisia and Egypt.  More than likely coincidence.  It spread and al qaida was happy to help. 

Syria is different - who benefits?  Not Israel, not Turkey, not Iraq - for what follows will be far less stable and reserved. 

How about Bahrain?

Abu Dubai?

Saudi Arabia?

Yemen?

Sudan?

Morocco?


Take the above, and in a majority of them, what is the consistent word/label/group/cause/issue?  And that will provide some insight into the larger issue of who is behind the unrest.  Sometimes you start something you can't control and it meanders off course a bit.  You accepted that into the operational plan before you began.  Syria is an ally of several possible countries who are also possible instigators.  So why undermine a state that is already a friend and supports your cause? 

Simple.  Easy Peasy - I want all 100 cookies.  I ask for 80, they offer me 75.  I want 100.  I remember long ago when they were rude to me once when I was no one and they were someone and I harbor that animus, I feed it, even if it predated my grandparents ... so many reasons and any one of them enough.






Protests Pop Up Across Middle East


By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press
Feb 15, 2011


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Thousands of protesters took over a main square in Bahrain's capital Tuesday — carting in tents and raising banners — in a bold attempt to copy Egypt's uprising and force high-level changes in one of Washington's key allies in the Gulf.

The move by demonstrators capped two days of clashes across the tiny island kingdom that left at least two people dead, parliament in limbo by an opposition boycott and the king making a rare address on national television to offer condolences for the bloodshed.

Security forces — apparently under orders to hold back — watched from the sidelines as protesters chanted slogans mocking the nation's ruling sheiks and called for sweeping political reforms and an end to monarchy's grip on key decisions and government posts.

The unrest in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, adds another layer to Washington's worries in the region. In Yemen, police and government supporters battled nearly 3,000 marchers calling for the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in a fifth straight day of violence.

Yemen is seen as a critical partner in the U.S. fight against a network inspired by al-Qaida. The Pentagon plans to boost its training of Yemen's counterterrorism forces to expand the push against the al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula faction, which has been linked to attacks including the attempted airliner bombing in December 2009 and the failed mail bomb plot involving cargo planes last summer.

Saleh has been holding talks with Yemen's powerful tribes, which can either tip the balance against him or give him enough strength to possibly ride out the crisis.

The political mutinies in the Arab world show the wide reach of the calls for change spurred by the toppling of old-guard regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.

In Jordan, hundreds of Bedouin tribesmen blocked roads to demand the government return lands they once owned. Saudi activists are seeking to form a political party in a rare challenge to the near-absolute power of the pro-Western monarchy.

Yemen's grinding poverty and tribal complexities also stand in contrast to the relative wealth and Western-style malls and coffee shops in Bahrain's capital of Manama.

But many in Bahrain still boiled down their discontent to a cry for economic justice as well — saying the Sunni rulers control the privileges and opportunities and the Shiite majority struggles with what's left over and are effectively blackballed from important state jobs.

"I demand what every Bahraini should have: a job and a house," said student Iftikhar Ali, 27, who joined the crowds in the seaside Pearl Square. "I believe in change."

[In no way is he asking too much - a house and a job ... and Ali is ... from where?]


Protesters quickly renamed it "Nation's Square" and erected banners such as "Peaceful" that were prominent in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Many waved Bahraini flags and chanted: "No Sunnis, no Shiites. We are all Bahrainis."  [I could chant peace, love, and free love - doesn't mean I believe in any or all of those - I can chant, especially if it gets me what I want.]

Others set up tents and distributed tea and kabobs for those planning to spend the night under one of the city's landmarks: a nearly 300-foot (90-meter) monument cradling a giant white pearl-shaped ball that symbolizes the country's heritage as a pearl diving center.

Someone used stones to spell out the message in Arabic: "The real criminals are the royal family."

There is no direct call to bring down the king, whose family has ruled Bahrain for more than two centuries. But he is suddenly under unprecedented pressure to make serious changes in how the country is run.

The key demands — listed on a poster erected in the square — included the release of all political prisoners, more jobs and housing, an elected Cabinet and the replacement of the longtime prime minister, Sheik Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa.

Even the security forces they have battled represent something more than just state-backed muscle.

Bahrain's leaders have for years granted citizenship to Sunnis from across the region to expand their base of loyalists and try to gain demographic ground against Shiites, about 70 percent of the population of some 500,000. Many of the Sunnis — Jordanians, Syrians and others — receive police jobs or other security-related posts.

In a clear sign of concern over the widening crisis, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa went on nationwide TV to offer condolences for the deaths, pledge an investigation into the killings and promising to push ahead with promised reforms, which include loosening state controls on the media and Internet.

"We extend our condolences to the parents of the dear sons who died yesterday and today. We pray that they are inspired by the Almighty's patience, solace and tranquility," said the king, who had previously called for an emergency Arab summit to discuss the growing unrest.

Bahrain is one of the most politically volatile nations in the Middle East's wealthiest corner despite having one of the few elected parliaments and some of the most robust civil society groups.

The nation's Shiites have long complained of discrimination. A crackdown on perceived dissent last year touched off weeks of riots and clashes in Shiite villages, and an ongoing trial in Bahrain accuses 25 Shiites of plotting against the leadership. The detainees allege they have been tortured behind bars.

Bahrain is also an economic weakling compared with the staggering energy riches of Gulf neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which can afford far more generous social benefits. Bahrain's oil reserves are small and its role as the region's international financial hub have been greatly eclipsed by Dubai.

In Geneva, a statement by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called on Bahrain to "curb the excesses" of security forces.

"Too many peaceful protesters have recently been killed across the Middle East and North Africa," Pillay said.

The deaths also brought sharp denunciations from the largest Shiite political bloc, Al Wefaq, which suspended its participation in parliament, and could threaten the nation's gradual pro-democracy reforms that have given Shiites a greater political voice. The group has 18 seats in the 40-member chamber.

The second day of turmoil began after police tried to disperse up to 10,000 mourners gathering at a hospital parking lot to begin a funeral procession for Ali Abdulhadi Mushaima, 21, who died in Monday's marches.

Officials at Bahrain's Salmaniya Medical Complex said a 31-year-old man, Fadhel Salman Matrook, became the second fatality when he died of injuries from birdshot fired during the melee in the hospital's parking lot. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to journalists.

A statement from Bahrain's interior minister, Lt. Gen. Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, expressed "sincere condolences and deep sympathy" to Mushaima's family. He expanded on the king's pledge: stressing that the deaths will be investigated and charges would be filed if authorities determined excessive force was used against the protesters.

But that's unlikely to appease the protesters. In the past week, Bahrain's rulers have tried to defuse calls for reform by promising nearly $2,700 for each family and pledging to loosen state controls on the media.


















iran

Iran's Meddling

Realized and recognized as contributing in large part to the problems of destabilization in the Middle East, Iran casts the long shadow.  It does so with little regard for internal divisions within Iran, for the ultimate outcome is to leave Iran as a regional power and the Arab states neutered.   Ali wins finally.

It is as old as the Bible - hate and animosity, feelings of betrayal and jealousy.  Now, finally, the shi'a stand on the edge of regional power with a severely weakened Arab state, in a defensive position. 

The Arab dictators have known this for the last two months, some have whispered it, several intelligence journals have written about the concerns and suggested it possible, but mainstream media has not picked up on this because they are too busy with Obama flip-flopping, Charlie Sheen, Japan, and now nuclear meltdown.  Ideas such as this are far too complicated for most journalists and not easily conveyed in a thirty second blurb to a world population unable to concentrate beyond 10 seconds.  Plus, admitting this places most European press at a severe disadvantage - they have long claimed the US reigned supreme in the area of wreaking havoc and destabilizing regimes.  If they admit now that Iran has and is doing so, they undermine the emotional charge attached to charges of American intrigue.  In effect, they undermine many charges they have leveled over the years.

Much easier to pretend it is all Israel.   Syria knows it is Iran, although they do not speak of it directly because of the fear of Hezbollah.  The Arab states are now at a weakened stage allowing Iran to become a regional control partner - one they will show deference and respect to, as they do to the US.



Gulf states denounce Iran's meddling




Apr 4, 2011
Agence France Presse



Gulf Arab monarchies including Saudi Arabia denounced Iran's "flagrant interference" in regional affairs and said Tehran was destabilising their countries, at a ministerial meeting overnight Saturday.

GCC foreign ministers said in a statement they were "deeply worried about continuing Iranian meddling" in their region.

In addition to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait, the GCC groups Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

At their meeting they accused Tehran of plotting against GCC countries' national security and fanning sedition and religious disputes among their citizens.

Tehran was also "violating the sovereignty" of members of the regional grouping.

The GCC meeting came after the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee said Thursday that "Saudi Arabia should know it's better not to play with fire in the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf".

But the conservative Sunni monarchy on Sunday slammed what it described as an "irresponsible" statement containing "void allegations and blatant offense against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".

The Iranian statement "fuels sectarianism," the Saudi Consultative Council had said according to state news agency SPA.

Saudi Arabia led a joint Gulf force that entered Bahrain last month, enabling authorities to quell a month-long, Shiite-led protest demanding democratic reforms in the kingdom.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Iran

Sacking you Cabinet: Egypt, and Jordan ...

I am unsure why these men believe sacking their cabinet will fix anything.  The only 'sacking' they should be contemptaing is their own.

With the US sitting on its collective hands, with a Secretary of State who is shown out of her league, calling all the US Ambassadors together for a meeting (presumably on last month's news about Wikileaks), and a President who is wholly incapable of handling the issues of the day - Egypt is still in meltdown stage.

There is one ray of sunshine is Egypts news - they talk of a million or two million people fitting into that square in Cairo.  The square is 490,000 sq ft.  Assume each person takes up 2 sq ft (very tightly packed) and you get a maximum of 300,000 people who could fit into the square.  Then subtract out the empty spaces (along the edges and in the middles of the square) and that many people are moving, not stationary.  Maybe 200,000.  THAT is not a sizeable percent of Cairo to worry about.  If that many were washed away in, say a large sea, Cairo would not notice. 

Aside from that one bit of sunshine - the protests have apparently spread into Jordan.  The King has sacked his cabinet.  Ooooh, like that will fix anything.

And some reports have the protests / riots spreading into Syria.

And Hillary was calling for democratic transitions in Egypt and Obama called on the government of Egypt to allow any and all opposition to protest peacefully.

Once again - in the ideal state, having a president or Prime Minister elected by the people - ideal.  In this case, Islamists are in orgasmic delight over their prospects - unstable Jordanian and Syrian states, ready for their brand of democracy to step in.  The Islamists already have a due date on El Barredi, he has only long enough to live until he has outlived his usefulness (which is any day - they can always blame it on Mubarak).


The Middle East is nearly ablaze and Obama is ...........



















obama

Obama's Middle East Plan: Syria - a failure.

No friends, and your Middle East policy in shambles.  How is this plan working for you.



Haaretz.com
15:36
24.05.10


Syria: Obama has failed in peace efforts and lost influence in Mideast


Assad's comments come as Obama set to meet with Lebanon PM to raise concerns about alleged Syria-Hezbollah Scud transfer.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said Monday that the United States has lost its influence in the Middle East due to its failure to contribute to regional peace, in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

U.S. President Barack Obama "raised hopes" in the region, said Assad, but has failed to accomplish any significant peace maneuvers.

Assad's comments came just before Obama was to meet with Lebanon Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri to raise Washington's concerns about Syria arming Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon

The Syrian leader met on Sunday with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Damascus earlier Sunday and urged the West to "break its silence" in the face of Israeli "aggression" in the Middle East.

During their talks, Assad denounced "the ongoing Israeli threats to ignite wars and undermine the stability in the region."

"The region has changed and the West's policy in the area is no longer acceptable, keeping silent over Israeli violations is no longer acceptable," Assad told Kouchner, according to Syria's official news agency SANA.

"If the West wants security and stability to be established in the Middle East, [it] must start to play an effective role to contain Israel and put an end to its extremist policies," Assad said.

The Syrian president also told Kouchner that the Western countries pushing for harsh United Nations sanctions against Iran should understand that Tehran's contentious nuclear program was aimed at civilian and not military pursuits, according to SANA.

"The countries involved need to change their attitude to Iran's civil nuclear program, because this agreement is an important opportunity to reach a diplomatic solution and prevent a tragic dispute in the region and the world at large," said Assad.

Also Sunday, Syria defied Western pressure over its support for the militant group Hezbollah and said it would not act as a policeman for Israel to prevent weapons from reaching the Lebanese Shi'ite movement.

"Did Israel ever stop arming itself, did it stop instigating violence or making military maneuvers," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said after meeting his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle. "Why are arms forbidden to Arabs and allowed to Israel?"

Citing Israeli occupation of Arab land and the technical state of war between Syria and Israel, Moualem said the Damascus government "will not be a policeman for Israel".

"Israel is beating the drum of war. In the absence of real peace every thing is possible," he added.

Syria, a country Washington says is critical for Middle East peace, has shown no signs of withdrawing backing for Hezbollah, which is also supported by Iran, although the issue has clouded rapprochement between Damascus and Washington.

The row intensified when President Shimon Peres last month accused Syria, which borders Lebanon, of sending long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

Syria said it only gives Hezbollah political backing and that Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.

"A Scud missile is as big as this room. How could it be hidden and smuggled with Israeli planes and satellites all over the region?" Moallem asked, adding that cumbersome Scuds were not suited to Hezbollah's guerrilla tactics.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
middle east

Obama: The Savior of the Middle East

Perhaps Khalaf would like to wash Obamessiah's feet while he is kissing his ass.

Almost universally, anything Obama does, is questionable - either its purpose, the end result, or the impact upon the nation and people. Almost everything. It is getting bloody difficult to do anything that doesn't begin and end with him, but the frustration level is very high. I believe he is doing more damage than had Bush nuked Baghdad, and the damage he is creating and causing now will impact us for at least another decade, and what he does in three years will be impacting us for the next fifteen years - at a cost of tens of thousands of lives.

Retardicans are also to blame. Conservatives are to blame. Democrats are to blame. Liberals are the cause of the problems, but no one is free of responsibility. It is very sad when someone like Khalaf writes the rubbish he does and the Economist prints it. One of the most prestigious magazines in the world, prints a glowing report of the Obamification of the Middle East, but for a small fact - the number of Muslims who want to destroy Western Civilization hasn't changed by one, yet the US is weaker as a result of Obama's ignorant ramblings.

Obama cracks the code to reach Islam

By Roula Khalaf
Published: June 4 2009 18:37 Last updated: June 4 2009 20:05


No wonder extremist leaders were nervous ahead of Barack Obama’s landmark address in Cairo, frantically firing off warnings to Muslims not to fall for his words.

For years the likes of Osama bin Laden have claimed to speak on behalf of oppressed Muslim communities as they perverted the message of Islam and exploited the conflicts in the Middle East to stoke fear and violence.

But Mr Obama took them on, not with threats to “smoke them out” or warnings that “you are with us or against us”, but with eloquence, authority, a deep grasp of Muslim history and an understanding of Muslim grievances.

Opening with a broad smile and the Muslim greeting of “Assalum Alaykum” (peace be upon you), Mr Obama drew on his family ties to Islam (mentioning his middle name Hussein) and his respect for Islamic civilisation to present himself as a credible interlocutor eager to end the “cycle of suspicion and discord”.

Rarely, if ever, has an American leader drawn so much applause from an audience in the Muslim world, or dared to quote the Koran so often (the only glitch in Mr Obama’s speech, and it was minor, was to refer to the Muslim headscarf, which he defended, as a hajib, rather than a hijab).

The audience, selected by the US to include friends and foes of America, gave Mr Obama a standing ovation.

Throughout the speech his message was the US was neither weak nor looking to appease its enemies but would act with fairness and on the basis of mutual respect.

Yes, the US has made mistakes, he said, acknowledging it had played a role in the 1953 coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically elected government. But he insisted that “we must not be prisoners” of the past.


If there was a magic list of words his audience wanted to hear, he delivered it. He spoke of the pain of colonialism, the suffering of Palestinians under occupation (their situation was “intolerable”), and the need for Israel to stop expanding settlements.

He underlined the US’s resolve to withdraw from Iraq and, eventually Afghanistan, without leaving “military bases”, countering deeply held suspicions in the region. And he highlighted a continued commitment to “democracy” and the rule of law, even as he warned that no country should impose its model of governance on another.

But he stated bluntly the US bond with Israel was “unbreakable” and called on Palestinians and Arab governments to contribute to the search for peace and choose “progress” over the “self-defeating” policies of the past.

With the change of tone from the Bush years, and the gracious delivery – the word “terrorism” did not even feature – Mr Obama has started turning the page on eight years in which the “war on terror” was perceived by Muslims as an attack on Islam.

Even before the speech, there were signs that thanks to his personal appeal, the US’s battered image in the Arab world was starting to improve. There were also hints that in Iran, for example, Mr Obama was perceived by the regime as more threatening than George W. Bush because of his ability to present a more moderate face of America.

[This is brilliant - Bush was terrible for world peace and Iran because he was threatening everyone, while Obama is perceived as worse because he is more moderate.]


But the speech also poses risks for Mr Obama. While he addressed masterfully the conflicting pressures the US faces in the region, he will find translating them into coherent policies far more challenging, if not impossible.

Mr Obama called for a joint effort to create a world where extremists no longer threatened Americans, US troops returned home, Israelis and Palestinians lived in secure states of their own, and nuclear energy was used only for peaceful purposes. It is an ambitious vision that would transform the Middle East, but it raises expectations far beyond the US’s ability to deliver.



*********************************************

For people like Khalaf and Obama, facts do not matter. Khalaf suggests Obama understands Arab culture - I would argue just the opposite, and given the fact Khalaf claims Obama does understand it, I would argue Khalaf doesn't understand it well either, or he is purposely conveying something which is not true.

The fact is that Muslims kill other Muslims with far greater frequency than Westerners kill Muslims or even greater frequency than Muslims kill Westerners.

Small detail. Not important.

Obama did say that although he did "believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein" he also believed that "events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible."

I am not sure whether I should throw up first or after, or maybe I should just bang my head on the wall until my skull is mush, maybe stick my head into a wood chipper, or jump into a pit of hungry lions.

Obama's statement shows a naivete that defies understanding. It shows he is not only naive, but ignorant, and that combination will be deadly for Americans.

The United States spent several years negotiating with Saddam in 1991. The UN negotiated. The world condemned, the world demanded Saddam conform to international norms ... and he ignored them. In 2001, Bush demanded Saddam open his nuclear program up for inspection - Saddam said yes, then no, then he taunted and openly violated international law. Bush spent over two years using diplomacy on Saddam and it didn't work.

Barack Hussein Obama has flaunted his Muslim roots, he isn't hiding them as he did during the campaign - now he is flaunting them, believing he does, that he has a special mission from Allah, to bring Christian and Muslim together - his childhood is the reason he can do it, and he believes he was sent to do just that. A man with a mission from God. A little different than Bush who prayed for guidance from God, Barack Hussein believes God has directed him to become the unifier.

Obama

Students and Teachers - Anti-US, Anti-Western, Anti- Everything.

I had dinner with someone tonight who told me about a class they were taking with a professor who was, as they described him - great, fantastic, brilliant, and wonderful - I was waiting for the person to bring out his crown. He teaches an anti-American class, Marxist in his interpretation of historical events and actions [my analysis based upon what he requires in reading and what I have culled from this person and several others who were his unwitting victims].

Summary of his teaching/argument:

Poor Osama, we declared war on him and he was defending himself because he had no other way to respond, and it was all our fault, and we trained him so we got all that blowback and its all our fault and we deserve to be punished for all the bad things we do/did to them.


[Amazing - you take 1/10 bit of truth and concoct 9/10 lie and people accept it because it is wrapped up in this mind-numbingly stupid argument - he is telling you what the media will not because they are all part of the conspiracy. And he learned what he learned from? Where? The Palestinian TV]


When I made a derogatory comment about the instructors usefulness to humanity and what should be done to him [a boot and his ass] - I was told I was 'closed minded'.

I have absolutely no time for such asinine comments or for anyone who believes such nonsense. Truly. If you ever want to push every wrong button - proceed down that road, because it is a sure fire way to get erased. I do not care who that instructor is, he is a waste of human life, a piece of rubbish of utterly no use to anyone, who, if he realized how wrong he was and that what he has been teaching is more dangerous than bin laden's propaganda he would do himself in - after recognizing what utter humiliation he has inflicted upon himself, his family, his country, and civilization. I wish I could introduce him to bin Laden, to watch as his head was cut off his body and carried about like a trophy. All the while he would have protested how he was really supporting bin Laden and respected him.

As for the person who I had dinner with - well, the dustbin awaits.

I cannot tolerate ignorance that exceeds that of a two year old. No matter who they are, we cannot waste time on people and things that consume energy.

There are moments I wish bin Laden prevailed, just so he could cull the population, and I know that among the first would be all those who spew forth the rubbish as presented above from the person in the class or their instructor.

Someone might say - what makes me so sure I am right, maybe they are, and maybe I am closed minded. I have spent over eight years evaluating every possible answer to that issue. I have looked at it from every side, and then found nuances that required evaluating. I have spent more time dealing with that single question than this person has spent on their entire education, and quite likely more time than the instructor has on any given subject. I started the analysis with my believing the Evil One and his cohorts were Robin Hood against the evil Sheriff. I started where the idiotic instructor now stands. I began with that premise and believed it from 1995 until 2001, longer than the instructor has taught any of his courses on the subject. Six years of believing, and not just believing but being able to argue every defense of the Evil One, and fully supporting him. Until 2001. Blowing up a military base or ship or ... was, for me, acceptable as long as it did not turn on civilian lives being lost.

I have considered that instructors arguments, long before he even knew he was making them, and I reject them.

Those who teach those lies are more dangerous than bin laden, for he has told us he wants to destroy us while they pretend to be one of us. He wants to change us - they claim to want to educate us. Bin Laden is honest in his purpose and goals, the purveyors of the lies are not.

In that way, I suppose, I still prefer bin laden - I know what he is, and what he wants. Instructors who teach Marxist theory, and take pieces of truth and wrap it in crap and sell it to students as the gospel of anti-Western thought ... they are a more serious threat.







idiots

Culture and Conflict in the Middle East

A professor at McGill University in Canada - Philip Salzman has written an interesting book - Culture and Conflict in the Middle East. I admit, it is now nearly a year old, but it takes me some time to read books. Life gets in the way of things we enjoy.

The book is interesting for its approach to the issues in the Middle East - Salzman argues they are tribal in nature, and when we reflect upon this, it makes some sense. When governments fall or are corrupt, individuals rely upon tribal structure to provide order and stability.

Implications - they marry each other off to cousins and others - why? to benefit from expanded family growth - fertility. More kids. Expand the tribe. Give great thanks for a son, who will produce many children and expand the tribe further. The larger the tribe, the more power the tribe holds, the greater the strength, the greater the insult when an insult occurs - resulting in violent actions against other tribes (whereby the tribe with the most males will be in a better position to win).

It would behove the tribe to impose restrictions upon the females and then to watch over the females to catch a female from an opposing clan or tribe and force her family to commit an honor killing (thereby depriving the tribe of reproductive benefits).




book