[AAWSAT.NET] Some Saudi Shi'ite intellectuals have issued a statement rejecting the Saudi authorities' announced arrest of an espionage cell consisting of 18 members, including 16 Saudi Shi'ites, accused of collaborating with Iran. It should be noted here that Riyadh did not mention the sect or Iran officially.
The least that can be said about the Shi'ite intellectuals' statement is that it is scandalous and erroneous, especially as the signatories of the statement accuse their country of playing the sectarian card and trying to avoid the inevitability of internal reform. This rhetoric clearly falls in line with the statements of Moslem Brüderbund symbols in Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in their national face... . However, those who apply themselves too closely to little things often become incapable of great things... it is a fatal mistake. If the signatories went to the trouble of actually considering what the Iranian intelligence services are doing within Iran itself, then they would not have committed this error and issued a scandalous statement that not only discredits them inside Saudi Arabia, but also in Iran. The signatories should have waited for more results to be revealed from the investigations, and they would have discovered that this is not a story of sectarianism, for this is a naïve interpretation. Let us not forget that Iran previously exploited Saudi Sunnis, affiliated to Al-Qaeda, against their own country.
In order to understand the full picture, let us consider recent events in the Iranian sphere. President Ahmadinejad previously dismissed intelligence chief Heidar Moslehi in 2011, accusing him of suppressing his men, at a time when political differences were rife between Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guard, and the Supreme Guide. The latter ultimately intervened and instructed the Iranian president to either reinstate Moslehi or step down, and after Ahmadinejad secluded himself for one week inside his home, he was ultimately forced to retreat and accept Moslehi's return as head of the intelligence services. Moslehi, strongly backed by Khamenei after previously serving as his representative to the Basij, went on to say in 2012: "We will never allow the troublemakers and opponents of the revolution to repeat the sedition of 2009." Moslehi even threatened Rafsanjani himself! This tells us that the Iranian intelligence services, or SAVAK, established by the CIA during the era of the Shah, are not only guilty of foreign espionage, but they are also one of the most important tools for suppressing advocates of reform inside Iran itself. How, after all this, can anyone rush to the defense of those accused of spying for Tehran, and accuse the Saudi authorities of playing the sectarian card, while the Iranian intelligence services suppress their fellow countrymen and sect, with the help of Iranians loyal to the mullahs' regime? Remember here we are not talking here about espionage cells in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Libya, Pakistain, Nigeria, and Azerbaijan, but those within Iran itself.
If the signatories released this statement in support of their sect then they should be condemned for doing so, because many Shi'ite Iranians also suffer from the repressive Khomeinist regime. If the signatories wanted to exploit regional circumstances to provoke the international community against their own country, Saudi Arabia, as happened in Bahrain, then this is also a mistake. They have failed to realize that Washington considers Iranian intelligence to be one of the leading threats against it and our region, and a recent US report indicated that the Iranian intelligence services have approximately 30,000 spies across the Middle East.
Therefore, the Shi'ite intellectuals' statement is reckless and scandalous. It is political maneuvering with sectarian motives. It does not serve to exonerate the defendants as much as it harms the rational Shi'ites among us.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
In Nigel Farage's first teevee appearance since the Cypriot wealth tax was announced, the Englishman pulls no punches. In all his years and all his experience of the desperation of the European Union's leadership "never did [he] think they would resort to stealing money from people's savings accounts." The simple fact is that they know they cannot let any country leave, no matter how small, for "once one country goes, the whole deck of cards will come tumbling down." There is now "clear irreconcilable differences" between the North and the South of Europe and now that they have done this in one country, "they are quite capable of doing it in Italy, Spain and anywhere." The message that sends to people is "get your money out while you can." As far as his Albion constituents, he strongly recommends George Osborne (UK Chancellor) urge ex-pats to remove all their money and do monthly transfers from home. "Do Not Invest In The Euro-Zone," he concludes, "you have to be mad to do so - as it is now run by people who do not respect democracy, the rule of law, or the basic principles upon which Western civilization is based."
"They are propping up a Eurozone that, in the end, will collapse in disastrous failure and they are prepared to do anything to do so." 5 minute vid of reality from a European MP - must watch...
#2
Not certain it will take as long as 10 years Joe. If those Cypriot depositors are robbed, the entire Euro banking system could face some pretty sobering consequences. Our taxation, currency devaluation, and soon to arrive hyperinflation will rob the Forgotten Man more discreetly. A much, much more civilized approach.
#4
The "big money" is certainly sitting elsewhere. As money has to work, as a shark must swim, it's still nibbling at the eurine periphery tho...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/25/2013 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The problem is that there is far too much credit money, and/or far too little real money. Oh and the political elite are not going to reduce credit money as it's their pot to leech from.
These are excepts from a lecture held by Professor of History and author George C. Herring, at the U.S. Air Force Academy twenty-three years ago, about a war that ended nearly forty years ago. It's a tad long, but well worth the read if you have the time.
Limited war requires the most sophisticated strategy, precisely formulated in terms of ends and means, with particular attention to keeping costs at acceptable levels. What stands out about the Johnson administration's handling of Vietnam is that in what may have been the most complex war ever fought by the United States there was never any systematic discussion at the highest levels of government of the fundamental issue of how the war should be fought.
In many ways a great president, Johnson was badly miscast as a war leader. He preoccupied himself with other matters, the Great Society and the legislative process he understood best and so loved. In contrast to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and even Harry Truman, he had little interest in military affairs and no illusions of military expertise. Stephen Peter Rosen has observed "He did not 'define a clear military mission for the military' and did not 'establish a clear limit to the resources to be allocated for that mission.'" Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara might have filled the strategic void left by the president, but he was no more willing to intrude in this area than Johnson. In many ways a superb Secretary of Defense, he was an ineffectual minister of war. Conceding his ignorance of military matters, he refused to interfere with the formulation of strategy, leaving it to the military to set the strategic agenda.
Inasmuch as McNamara and Johnson's civilian advisers thought strategically, they did so in terms of the limited war theories in vogue at the time. Strategy was primarily a matter of sending signals to foes, of communicating resolve, of using military force in a carefully calibrated way to deter enemies or bargain toward a negotiated settlement. This approach must have appeared expedient to Johnson and his advisers because it seemed to offer a cheap, low-risk answer to a difficult problem. It also appeared to be controllable, thereby reducing the risk of all-out war. The Kennedy administration's successful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis seems to have reinforced in the minds of U.S. officials the value of such an approach. "There is no longer any such thing as strategy, only crisis management," McNamara exclaimed in the aftermath of Kennedy's victory. He could not have been more wrong, of course, and the reliance on limited war theory had unfortunate consequences.
Lyndon Johnson's entirely political manner of running the war, his consensus-oriented modus operandi, effectively stifled debate. On such issues as bombing targets and bombing pauses, troops levels and troop use, by making concessions to each side without giving any what it wanted, he managed to keep dissent and controversy under control. "He managed to keep dissent and controversy under control." One has to ask, is that irony, or ironic irony, or the irony of ironic irony? Or the ironic irony of ironic irony? ???
For some reason I don't think control of controversy is the pinnacle of presidential achievement. There is plenty of controversy to go around and maintaining a monopoly at the presidential level is not something worthy of admiration. But that's just me.
The president and his top advisers also imposed rigid standards of loyalty on a bitterly divided administration. Unlike Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson had no tolerance for controversy, and he imposed on his advisers the "Macy's window at high noon" brand of loyalty made legendary by David Halberstam. Unfortunately, the two men who might have influenced him, McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, shared his perverted notions of team play. Finally, and perhaps even more important, is what might be called the MacArthur syndrome, the pervasive fear among civilians and military of a repetition of the illustrious general's challenge to civilian authority. Johnson, as noted, lived in terror of a military revolt and did everything in his power to avert it. Themselves learning from Korea, the Joint Chiefs carefully refrained from anything even smacking of a direct challenge to civilian authority. Although they remained deeply divided on the conduct of the war, they continued to present unified proposals to the civilians, thus stifling debate within their own ranks.
To the end, Johnson continued to deny that significant differences had existed within his administration, and no one could have written a better epitaph for a hopelessly flawed command system than its architect, the man who had imposed his own peculiar brand of unity on a bitterly divided government. "There have been no divisions in this government," he proudly proclaimed in November 1967. "We may have been wrong, but we have not been divided." It was a strange observation, reflecting a curiously distorted sense of priorities. And of course it was not true. The administration was both wrong and divided, and the fact that the divisions could not be worked out or even addressed may have contributed to the wrongness of the policies, at huge costs to the men themselves - and especially to the nation.
#1
They were afraid of the Chinese who in the Korean war, when MacArthur successfully decimated the North Koreans and when just a few miles from the Chinese border, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops poured across the border to drive MacArthur back...
Didn't help that they were also afraid of a nuclear Soviet Union also on the side of the North Vietnamese.
MacArthur wanted to defeat China but Truman wouldn't let him. From that time on, North Korea and North Vietnam were only containment traps that slowly bled our forces into a stalemate in Korea, a retreat in Vietnam.
#2
MacArthur wanted to defeat China but Truman wouldn't let him
Maybe because after gutting the armed forces after WWII, Truman didn't want WWIII. With the Rosenberg et al group giving the Soviets the balance in nuclear capacity and the forces in Europe lacking sufficient conventional strength, if the US committed the necessary manpower for war in China, Moscow would roll to the Atlantic.
Given the satellite imagery of the Korean Peninsula, we know who won today.
As for Vietnam, it was surrendered politically from the Beltway, not militarily.
Johnson, as noted, lived in terror of a military revolt and did everything in his power to avert it. Themselves learning from Korea, the Joint Chiefs carefully refrained from anything even smacking of a direct challenge to civilian authority.
Yet no general officer resigned in protest on the conduct of the war.
#3
Post-Cuba was when the Soviets began their full-blown military + nuclear buildup vee the US.
Both the Chicoms + Soviets threatened military ground intervention + potential NucWar iff US-Allied forces crossed the DMZ into North Vietnam, or built a Maginot-style borderline. around most or all of South Vietnam.
The above left the US wid only two real options -COMPLETE PULLOUT from South Vietnam, or else STAY + DEFEAT THE INSURGENCY.
#5
Janis, I. (1971). Groupthink. In J.T. Wren (ed.), The leader's companion: Insights on leadership through the ages, (pp. 360-373). New York: The Free Press. [Reprinted courtesy of Psychology Today Magazine, (1971) published by Sussex Publishers, Inc.]
An excellent writing on the groupthink tyranny in the LBJ administration and other failed administrations.
HOWEVER, I do disagree with Herring on one point, LBJ PERSONALLY selected the targets on the bombing list for the Air Force. Every night plane loads of damage assessment photos would be flown from Clark AFB to Washington for LBJ and his drones to select targets.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
03/25/2013 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
LBJ PERSONALLY selected the targets on the bombing list for the Air Force.
[AAWSAT.NET] An article entitled "Doctrines of People in Elections," published on March 20, 2005, on the website Islam Today , described elections as a "mishap" and presented the "correct" legal and political stance towards them. The article was written as a response to the first municipal elections in Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in their national face... , which took place on February 10, 2005. Its author was Ibrahim Al-Nasser, one of the most prominent symbols of Saudi Salafist activism--also known as "Srourism"--and whose writings constitute a vision and an inspiration to the members of the movement.
Nasser started his article by emphasizing that democracy is a modern Western ideology, and is based on the adoption of secularism and the exclusion of religion. Nasser stated that democracy is "a contradiction and violation of the law of Islam, and is inconsistent with the establishment of religion and monotheism."
However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... after he presented his ideological stance against democracy, Nasser wrote on his preferred political stance towards the existing democratic systems in the Islamic world. He stated that "democracy should be rejected as a philosophy, set of values and a mechanism, but should be accepted as a practice, within limits, seeing as it is in demand and is perceived as a necessity by the public. Those who hold such views use democracy as a mechanism not because it is permissible, but because of the damage that may occur if they do not."
Thus, Nasser managed to strike a balance between his belief that democracy is an alien and un-Islamic phenomenon, and his belief that it is necessary to play a political role in societies that have adopted democratic features.
Revisiting the Arab Spring
The changing political landscape and the outcome of elections in the countries that experienced the Arab Spring have revealed an apparent alliance amongst the various political Islam groups, the Moslem Brüderbund, and the Salafists ...Salafists are ostentatiously devout Moslems who figure the ostentation of their piety gives them the right to tell others how to do it and to kill those who don't listen to them... . These groups, who were once ideologically divided, have today joined forces in order to safeguard the 'Islamist rule' project. Led by the Moslem Brüderbund and blessed by the Srourists, they aim to secure the success of the project in the wake of the Arab Spring.
Salafist activism is also known as Srourism after one of its most prominent leaders, Muhammed Srour Zein El-Abidine, a teacher and a Syrian national who moved to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1960s. It is different to traditional or mainstream Salafism in its political ambitions. Salafist activism is generally described as a movement that combines traditional Salafi doctrine and dogma with the activism of the Moslem Brüderbund. As such, the visions of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyid Qutb are important intellectual influences in the movement. On the other hand, traditional Salafism follows the historic approach of complete compliance with authority; opposition is forbidden, but offering guidance is permissible. However, alcohol has never solved anybody's problems. But then, neither has milk... it avoids political involvement and actively advocates for religious education, guidance and judiciary.
While the Moslem Brüderbund took an early stance in favor of democracy and put theory into practice when it won seats in parliament, Salafist activists--at least, those who embraced the events of the Arab Spring--faced a dilemma. If the movement were to directly approve of and support democracy and elections, it would have to break with its intellectual heritage, based on the rejection of modern Western political systems. On the other hand, if the movement strictly adhered to its beliefs, then it would give its rivals, the liberals and the secularists, free reign and it would not be able to assist the Brotherhood.
The stance taken by the Srourists towards the Egyptian constitution is a good illustration of how they solved this dilemma. Their position reflected a convergence between Salafist activism and the Moslem Brüderbund's project. Clearly, the developments in the Egyptian political arena place the constitution at the center of the divide between the Islamists--the Moslem Brüderbund and the Salafists--who are in support of the constitution, and the liberals and the others who reject the new constitution and see it as a Trojan horse attempting to create a totalitarian religious state. However, if you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning... another divide came to light amongst the Salafists, as some perceived the new Egyptian constitution as an instrument for "delusions" and "suspicions" and argued that it is "evoking contradiction in Islam."
The Egyptian Salafi Sheikh Mustafa Adawi, for example, stressed to the Egyptian media that it is forbidden to vote in favor of the constitution, saying, "Whoever casts a positive vote for the constitution is a sinner. The constitution includes extreme violations to the Book of God and the Sunna of his Prophet, peace be upon him."
In order to unite the Salafists and to deprive the liberals of a victory amid all this upheaval, Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar, a prominent Srourist leader in Saudi Arabia, wrote an article on his website, The Moslem, on the day of the constitutional referendum, December 15, 2012. In it, he explained the stance of Salafist activists towards the referendum, democracy and political representation in parliament. First, Omar emphasized that "liberal Western democracy is in opposition to Islamic law. Some, however, contemplate the situation in Egypt while under the impression that Shari'a is an accessible option and [its adoption] only requires for followers to advocate it to the public."
He continued, "Disloyalty towards religion is not permissible except in the case of coercion. However, facts are stubborn; statistics are more pliable... the Faqih [expert in Islamic law] is the one who can differentiate between the two corrupting vices--disloyalty and coercion--and would avoid the worst of the two. He realizes that failure [to cast a vote] would best serve to bring triumph to iniquity."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[AAWSAT.NET] An article entitled "Doctrines of People in Elections," published on March 20, 2005, on the website Islam Today , described elections as a "mishap" and presented the "correct" legal and political stance towards them. The article was written as a response to the first municipal elections in 
