EURABIA:
THE EURO-ARAB AXIS
By Bat Ye'or
Fairleigh Dickinson, $23.95, 270 pages
REVIEWED BY JULIA DUIN
In Europe, the cathedrals are empty and the mosques are full. One reason the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI this spring is because the 115 cardinals who gathered in Rome saw Europe's rechristianization as their top priority. They wanted a man who could not only fight the Islamic and secularist tides sweeping the continent, they needed a candidate who understood the profound hostility both cultures have toward a Christian Europe.
Hostility? Yes, says Bat Ye'or, a scholar living in Switzerland, who says the battle of Tours, where Charles Martel and the Franks in 732 turned back the Muslim armies, is being refought. This time, says the author, who has written three previous books on conditions of Christians and Jews living in Islamic countries, Muslims will suceed in Islamicizing Europe, with immense consequences for the United States. Despite diplomatic niceties, Christians and Jews are -- and always will be -- considered as infidels for refusing Islam's truth, writes Ms. Ye'or. As Muslim immigrants pour into Europe, what is emerging, in her view, "is a new Eurabian culture with its own dogma, preachers, axioms and rules."
Listing an array of conferences, speeches and documents from Islamic groups intent on forming Europe into an Islamic state, the author documents several trends to support her thesis:
-- Middle Eastern Muslims in search of jobs and greater political freedom have immigrated to Europe in droves, particularly France, which is now eight percent Muslim.
-- The Muslim influx has brought a rising anti-Semitism. The year 2001 was in Europe a time of record assaults on Jews, she says; the term "Jew" has become the all-purpose insult in parts of France, and the Holocaust is increasingly being denied.
-- The Crusades are being repackaged to become a tale of Islamic victimization at the hands of barbaric Christian Europeans. Histories of the Crusades, she adds, tend to leave out how Muslims swept through Christianized lands from Persia to Spain within the space of about 100 years, engulfing Syria, Lebanon, Sicily, much of Turkey and Palestine, not to mention all of northern Africa.
Nearly 10 centuries later, Europeans are witnessing the unwitting Islamicization of their own continent and today, "at the dawn of the 21st century," writes Ms. Ye'or, "a conflict of civilizations is reemerging on European soil in the context of Islamic immigration." She doesn't cite specific figures but a December 2004 Pew Forum, "Muslims and the Future of Europe," points out the number of Muslims in Europe has tripled in the past 30 years and that Islam is now the continent's fastest-growing religion.
To date, 23 million Muslims comprise five percent of Europe's 425 million residents, but with Muslim immigrants having a birthrate three times their European neighbors, it will double to 10 percent by 2020. The future, says Bat Ye'or, will look like her Jewish childhood in Muslim Egypt, where she experienced how Muslims deal with religious minorities. With the exception of Turkey, majority Muslim countries do not separate mosque and state; therefore life as a Christian, Jew, Hindu or nonbeliever in such lands is a second-class existence at best.
What she finds indefensible are Christian theologians who do not grasp that in Islamic eyes, Christianity is a perversion of the original religion handed down by Allah which is, of course, Islam. She finds the new European constitution, which leaves out mention Christianity as the founding religion of the continent, as one more sign of the emptying of the public square.
In old Europe's place will be "Eurabia," a federation of majority Islamic republics backed by the Euro and arrayed against the United States and Israel. With a rise in anti-Americanism, fanned into flames in the 1960s by France's Charles de Gaulle and a corresponding hatred of Israel in Europe, her scenario is that it wouldn't take much to re-ignite anti-Semitism there. Already, she writes, Paris, with its Islamic ghettos, competes with Vienna as being the most anti-Semitic city in Europe. Europeans have sought out Arab and Palestinian alliances in reaction to the U.S.-Israel axis and because of their dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Joint Euro-Arab cultural centers have sprung up in European cities to teach the Arabic language and Islamic culture.
One factor hindering Europeans from understanding their Islamic future, she points out, is ignorance of their own history. For instance, the Iberian peninsula was overrun by Arab armies from 710-716 AD. Toledo, which was conquered during this period, revolted in 713 and its notables rewarded by having their throats slit. Inhabitants of Toledo, Cordova and Merida all revolted during the early ninth century and were met with executions and crucifixions. Seville revolted in 891 and its inhabitants were massacred. In 1066, 3,000 Jews were killed in Granada. Yet today, the author says, this 700-year conquest has been recast as "Andalusia," an idyllic concept among academics of peaceful Muslim-Jewish-Christian coexistence during those centuries.
Bat Ye'or does not claim objectivity but she does say her read of history is accurate, but largely ignored. Thus she wrote the book in English (her earlier works were translated from French) in hope of interesting Americans who experienced September 11. American readers might find her history of Euro-Arab cooperation as a pretty dense read but they may agree that a religious tsunami is approaching Europe and its inhabitants need to be warned. Not only have European leaders allowed the political and cultural subversion of an entire continent, the author believes, but Christian leaders have tolerated religious rivalries among themselves that have benefited Muslims. Secular leaders, eager to shed the last remains of Christendom, have followed along. So that now, "A conflict of civilizations is reemerging on European soil," she warns, but "western politicians choose to circumvent, rather than confront it."
Julia Duin is chief religion writer for The Washington Times.
#1
with immense consequences for the United States...
Dire Waring Alert!!
Nah, only an opportunity to increase the diversity of the immigration into the US with those Brits, Danes, Poles, et al who've been friends and allies. Its time to invest in naval expansion and choose where we'll exert ourselves. Europe has had two chances in the 20th Century. If they are unable or unwilling to defend their own heritage, the responsibility is no longer ours.
#2
What she's saying is perfectly true, but of course it's happening so "slowly" that Europeans can happily avoid seeing the big picture. Bradford looking a bit like Lahore these days? No problem, just move to Norwich. Let's just forget about it, then it might go away...
#3
Europe is declining economically and socially, which in itself is a recipe for increasing violence. Adding Islam to the mix is going to make it much worse.
#4
I really hate to say this but Europes salvation might lay in a revitalized Russia. There may come a time when we wish for the tank armies of the Russia to strike West across the Polish and North German Plain
#5
Unfortunately for Europe, Russia is literally dying as a country : any country that has more abortions than live births for several years running, has a male life expectancy that has dropped to under 60 years old, and that has consistently lost population for over a decade, is not one that can be counted on to ride to your rescue.
#8
Personally I think Europe was in a worse mess in the 30s and Nazism was the result. I don't think the Europeans will meekly surrender, I think they'll lash backwith a fury that will embarass them for generations to come.
The Mosque burnings and a handful of attacks in England following the subway attacks are just the start. Wait until there is an attack against the Germans or French at some point, then they can't pretend its not happening. Then they will lash out.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
#10
As weak and screwed up as the Europeans are, when they panic, and they will, the muslims find out that they have no idea of what they are messing with. Europeans turned war into a scientific machine.
I've long thought that at some point a European country will try mass deportations, the muslims will resist violently, Europe will panic, and then it will be on.
They (Europe) will cry about it later, make memorials and promise never-again-really-we-mean-it-this-time, but Islam will not take over Europe. Europe may burn to the ground in the process, but they've had repeated practice at rebuilding. They'll recover. The Middle East will remain what it has been for the last 1400 years: a cesspool of ignorance and poverty.
Then they'll blame the US for it all.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
08/29/2005 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I'm with RJ and SM - it will be ugly and efficient. Surviving Arabs will wish they'd kept the Wahhabi genie at home
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2005 22:23 Comments ||
Top||
Political analyst Noam Chomsky believes that Israelâs withdrawal from Gaza is actually meant to help it expand its land seizures.
As we all know, true is actually false, up is actually down, and red is actually a pale shade of chartreuse in the Wonderful World of Chomsky...
In a brief interview on Wednesday with the Mehr News Agency, Chomsky said: âThe motives do not seem obscure. Gaza has been turned into a disaster area under the Israeli military occupation of 38 years. A few thousand Israeli settlers take a substantial part of the scarce land and resources, and have to be protected by a large part of the Israeli army. Sane Israeli hawks understand that it makes no sense to continue with these arrangements.
Took 'em 38 years to reach that opinion, too. And they say Jews are smart. Good thing they're not as smart as Chomsky, or MIT would be in Gush Katif...
The settlers who were subsidized to establish themselves there are now being subsidized to settle elsewhere, leaving the population of Gaza to rot in a virtual prison.
Seething. Rotting. Plotting Dire Revengeâ¢...
The few scattered West Bank outposts that are being abandoned are also simply an annoyance for Israel. The âdisengagement planâ is in reality an expansion plan, as was made plain at once. The presentation of the plan was coupled with an announcement of tens of millions of dollars for West Bank settlements and infrastructure development, a further expansion of the programs designed to ensure that valuable land and resources will be incorporated within Israel, while Palestinians will be left in scarcely viable cantons.
Where they'll be seething. Rotting. You know the rest...
Lemme guess ... plotting?
The shameful âseparation wallâ is one particularly ugly feature of these programs. The actions are gross violations of international law and elementary human rights, but can continue as long as they are supported by the reigning superpower. American citizens are the only ones who can put an end to these continuing and very severe crimes.â
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"political analyst" wuuhhh. Politcal analist maybe. What somebody should do is put up a Noam scorecard. What he says and then reality.
Can't somebody just stick him in a museum already??? Right next to Pol Pot.
#2
He doesn't even have a degree in politics or political science. He is however a totally unreformed communist that hates Israel just a tiny bit less than he does the USA.
He is a bitter old man who should worry about an expanding projectile from some radical that hasn't turned his back on his religion or genes as Noam Chomsky has.
#3
Noam is living proof that the The Big Lie is always in vogue, and especially among the educated, albeit not so intelligent or skilled, segments of the population. I consider him the Grand Kluckin Dragon of the Cult of Lemmings. Ever notice how the average chomskeeite has a little bit of higher education (or pretensions to), a complete lack of common sense, an inherently nasty disposition, a fatal inability to think for themselves, and a need to have the world explained to them in simple themes of conspiracy and dark forces moving the world from behind the scenes.
#5
If the US/Israel were as bad as Noam's been saying for four decades and running he would have had an "accident" or been kidnapped long ago. His existance is a contradiction to his comments.
The only speech by any statesman that can bear reprinting from that low, dishonest decade came from Tony Blair when he spoke in Chicago in 1999.
That line is from a poem written by W.H. Auden upon the outbreak of the Second World War.The poem begins and ends well:
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
The last stanza is an uncanny description of Rantburg:
Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
The use of that phrase in the article is not by accident in my opinion. Hitchens takes his political cues from those pre-war literary types that opposed fascism when fascism was cool. He has been consciously emulating their fight in my opinion for the last 4 years. The use of that phrase is his hat-tip to them.
First in fraud, last in peace and utterly divorced from reality, the U.N. was hard at work this week. Applying its infallible pro-terrorism instinct and in its never-ending quest to be taken seriously, the U.N. again took a firm stand in favor of terrorism and against the measures democracies may take to defend themselves from it while reaching a state of near-panic over U.S. objections to its "reform" agenda. Neatly packaged by General Assembly president Jean Ping of Gabon, the agenda is old globaloney in a new package. When our newly arrived Ambassador John Bolton posed strong objections to about 400 passages of this nonsense, the U.N.'s media enablers began to harrumph at the fact that there were only a few weeks left until the September 14 summit that is supposed to adopt this mess. Never mind that these objections had been made many times before Bolton got there. Kofi and Ko. should take their complaints about the lateness of Bolton's input to Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.
Mr. Bolton's objections to the Ping package forcefully restated objections to reforms that have nothing to do with solving the U.N.'s obvious problems, and are nothing more than old U.N. frolics and detours we've already rejected enthusiastically, such as imposition of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto "global warming" treaty. New ideas also having nothing to with reforms are included, such as Kofi's idea that every developed nation donate 0.7% of its GNP to U.N. administration of Third World "relief" and "development." For us, this would amount to about $67 billion per year, which fortuitously equals the total funds that passed through the U.N.'s seven-year oil-for-food-for-bribes-for-weapons scam. This huge tax on America would not, of course, be accompanied by any U.N. financial accounting reforms. The only element so far lacking is to get Benon Sevan back to run the new fund.
Mr. Bolton's objections to the phony reforms have the U.N. rabble, and their media enablers, in a froth. Their very real fear is that if the "reforms" aren't adopted, Americans will continue to demand serious solutions to what's obviously wrong with the U.N. But if the Ping Package can be passed, the world will acclaim the Secretary General as The Great Reformer Who Saved the U.N. and the despots and dictators, rogues and terrorists will get back to monkey business as usual at Turtle Bay. Which will mean trying to turn a deaf ear to what that bad old loose cannon John Bolton may complain about. There is nothing in the Ping package that means anything: nothing to define terrorism, far less fight it; no financial accounting reforms to prevent another Oil for Food-style embezzlement; nothing of value except a proposal to reform the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which both China and Russia have already said they won't allow to pass. Bolton can't make these reforms fail because they already have. It would be far better for Ping's package to sink, and for the U.N. members to be cornered into facing some of their real problems, such as Manfred Nowak and its human rights sham.
Mr. Nowak is the U.N. Human Rights Commission's "special rapporteur on torture." As such, he naturally believes he is entitled to tell the British government what it can and cannot do. According to the August 25 Guardian, Nowak "...threatened to cite the British government for violation of human rights over its planned deportations of alleged terrorist sympathizers." The U.N. Commission on Human Rights released Nowak's statement, saying that the Brits' decision to obtain written assurances from receiving countries that the deportees wouldn't be mistreated didn't provide the deported thugs more protection than they already have under treaties signed by the receiving nations such as Libya, Syria, Jordan, and Algeria that are already obligated to not torture people. (Methinks Nowak let that one slip. Sounds like a tacit admission that those nations are both signatories of the U.N. treaties against torture and some of the world's worst abusers of human rights. But I digress.)
If you look at some of the crew the Brits are trying to expel, the only conclusion you can reach is that the U.N. now thinks terrorists and their faux-religious enablers are some new oppressed minority deserving of special protection by the nations they seek to destroy. A day before Nowak began the latest pro-terrorist U.N. op, the Daily Telegraph published brief profiles of some of them: Sheiks Yusuf al-Quaradawi and Omar Bakri Mohammed, and Messrs. Mohammed al-Massari and Abu Qatada.
Qatar-based al-Qaradawi is notable for his defense of using children as suicide bombers, and preaching peace in terms such as, "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America." He will also be remembered unfondly for having said that the lives and property of non-Muslims are not protected under Islamic law.
Bakri Mohammed, the so-called "Tottenham Ayatollah," is just as interested in peaceful assimilation of Muslims in Western democracies as is al-Qaradawi. A Syrian who moved to Britain after being thrown out of Saudi Arabia, Bakri Mohammed, said, "I believe September 11 was a direct response to the evil American policy in the Muslim world," and "Why (sic) I condemn Osama bin Laden for? I condemn Tony Blair. I condemn George Bush. I would never condemn Osama bin Laden or any Muslims." He also blamed the British government for the July 7 London bombings.
Saudi Mohammed al-Masri is someone the Brits have been trying to get rid of since 1996, and have been blocked by their own courts. He openly supports fundraising for terrorist groups and has said of Osama bin Laden, "He's a fighter and fighting according to his beliefs... Anyone who fights according to his beliefs is a hero."
Palestinian Abu Qatada is reportedly bin Laden's "right hand man in Europe," and remains in Britain claiming political asylum, having obtained entry with a forged passport. He was arrested in 2001 under the British Anti-Terrorism Act, but was set free by the Brit courts. Formerly one of the preachers at the infamous Finsbury Park mosque, he is believed to have been an advisor to shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zaccarias Moussaoui, who is the only person charged in U.S. courts for the 9-11 attacks. In one statement he said, "The time for victory is near. All over the world, Muslims are sacrificing more and contributing more to the struggle. May Allah accept us all to be slaughtered." Qatada is under a life sentence in Jordan for terrorist attacks there in 1998 and for a Millennium bomb plot.
These four are among the terrorists and terrorist-supporters the British want to expel, and the U.N. wants to force them to keep. The U.N. denies the obvious truths British Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said in response to Manfred Nowak: "The human rights of those people who were blown up on the tube in London on July 7 are, to be frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts." Or the people who encourage, excuse and proclaim the heroism of terrorism, such as al-Qaradawi, Bakri Mohammed, al-Massari, and Qadata.
Terrorists and those who aid and abet them, including those who instruct and exhort others to join their cause, are not an oppressed minority. It is the ultimate irony for them to demand protection under the constitutions and systems of law they seek to replace with their own tyranny by mass murder. Those who can be deported must be, regardless of how they may be treated at their next port of call. That's their problem, not ours or Britain's. Maybe we're being too harsh. Maybe we, and the Brits, should have a change of heart and send these guys somewhere else. How about France?
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/29/2005 00:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is what you get when people from 3rd world shitholes, corrupt socialists, leftist tranzi's and terrorist enablers are given the keys to an organization that by all rights ought to be relevant. It's to far gone for reform.
If it weren't for the lying, cheating, coverups, criminal behavior, complicity in slaughter and graft you wouldn't even know the UN existed.
The UN can never be bashed hard enough and often enough for me.
Tehran Times Opinion Column, Aug. 29, By Hassan Hanizadeh The new Iraqi constitution continues to be the main issue discussed by various Iraqi groups, with each calling for some changes in the articles of the document that will become the supreme law of the land. For nearly a week, the draft constitution has been ready for the Iraqi National Assembly to begin the process of preliminary approval before the people make the final decision on it in a referendum. However, certain elements, both inside and outside of Iraq, are trying to make amendments to the draft constitution.
That's been the holdup all along, at least since the wahhabis gave up trying to smother it in its crib...
The changes sought are mainly based on the Wahhabi and Salafi schools of thought, which are influenced by the customs of the Arabs of jahiliya (the time of ignorance before the advent of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula), which recognized no rights for other people.
That'd be the Shiite description of the state of things religious. I'd tend to agree with them, with the proviso that there's a somewhat diluted version of that outlook throughout all Islam.
This way of thinking, which has become even more conspicuous since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, is totally opposed to every aspect of Western civilization. Such a dangerous attitude is based on the Wahhabi and Salafi interpretation of Islam, whose followers used to behead people before the eyes of others. The Salafi way of thought, which originated in its main center, the Arabian Peninsula, is in fact against all new religious ideas and modern technology and is also opposed to any kind of harmony with followers of other religions and dialogue among civilizations. Such a misconception about religious beliefs has presented an inappropriate image of the noble Islam of Prophet Mohammad (S) to the world and is one of the main reasons for the current confrontation between the East and the West.
You got it, bub. If jihad's your primary religious duty, the rest of the world becomes your target.
This way of thought, which was limited to the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan until very recently, has now emerged in Iraq. All the suicide-bombing missions in that country are ordered by the circle of leaders of this misguided sect. The thinking of most of the Arab Salafis is similar to the philosophy of the Iraqi Baath Party, according to which the Arabs are the worldâs master race.
I believe we've commented on that a time or two here. I can also see why the Medes and the Persians would get huffy at the idea.
Although the Iraqi Baath Party is basically a secular party opposed to every kind of religious thought, especially in relation to politics, the ousted Iraqi dictator began using Salafi and Wahhabi agents to strengthen the pillars of his government after his political isolation intensified in 1992. Saddam Hussein used these agents to organize suicide attack against the interests of the West and also against Iraqi Shia leaders and gave them some bases in Iraq from which to carry out their missions.
That'd be Ansar al-Islam. In pursuing its own short-sighted ends, the Iranian regime joined right in, allowing them safe havens on their side of the border.
After Saddamâs downfall, the Wahhabis and Salafis devised a common strategy to realize their ominous objectives. Their first objective is to confront the foreign forces in Iraq with violence and terror and to try to tarnish the image of Islam by carrying out suicide attacks. Their second objective is to prevent the Iraqi Shias from attaining their rights through the plan to draft a new constitution meant to create a parliamentary system and a civil society.
The latter is regarded as the more grievous sin in Teheran, of course...
Toward this end, the Iraqi Salafist criminals recently made an unholy alliance with the remnants of the Iraqi Baath Party and are taking advantage of the current democratic atmosphere in Iraq to fight against the efforts to establish a religious democracy.
That's because like clings to like. A little adjustment of the terminology here and there and the various flavors of brownshirts get along fine, at least until their immediate objectives have been met.
This struggle is manifested in the opposition to the referendum on the constitution and free elections. For example, the Salafists and Baathists and their sympathizers have held several rallies in Iraq to express their opposition to the constitution over the past few days. Unfortunately, these groups are supported by some neighboring Arab countries which do not want the Iraqi nation to attain their legal rights through democracy and the new constitution.
That'd be Syria, Iran's lapdog, for one reason, and Soddy Arabia for the other...
If the Iraqi government and National Assembly do not take serious measures to control the Salafist and Baathist agents, they will try to trigger a civil war by raising the already high level of violence, with the support of certain Arab countries.
I notice we're naming no names here...
Although the majority of Iraqis are determined to create a civil society and have sacrificed the lives of a great number of their loved ones to realize this ideal, the continuation of the current process and allowing the Salafist and Baathist agents unlimited freedom will lead to an impasse in Iraq. Now is the correct time for the Iraqi government to announce a temporary state of emergency and to establish a rapid reaction force made up of pious young Iraqis to detain and punish the leaders of these agents. Otherwise, these power-thirsty groups will not allow democracy to take root in Iraq.
I think that's the objective they'd like in Iran, where such an approach would work, or has worked to date. Probably what it would end up doing as official policy in Iraq â as opposed to unofficial policy, which is what the current state of affairs reflects â would be to ignite a full-scale civil war.
My personal opinion on Iraq has swung around to a two (or possibly three) country approach, with a Kurdish state in the north and a Shiite state in the south. The Sunni middle could be absorbed into Syria, Jordan, and the two new states, where they would present a small enough chunk for each that they couldn't make too much trouble. The new states could simply shoot anybody with a beard and the wahhabi problem would go away, to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of Amnesia International.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ah, Kurdistan. What - no port on the Med? I think a slice off the top of Syria, a chunk of NW Iran for that matter, and a healthy slice off the bottom of Turkey sound quite nice and should be added to the new Kurdistan. Rather overdue, don't you agree? And I must say that all of these entities have thoroughly earned such detailed attention to their borders... in spades. Anything worth doing, is worth doing well, I always say. The timing seems about right, as well.
#4
Wow! - much clearer. It would leave the Kurds over in the east a little exposed though - unless Iran was to lose some land just south of the Caspian sea.
Turkey would lose a fair amount of territory, but as you say, they showed their true colours in 2002-2003 and don't deserve too much sympathy.
It's a devilish plan ;)
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/29/2005 6:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Heh. Many possibilities will present themselves over the next 1-2 yrs, methinks. On behalf of the oh so patient Kurds, I hope this time is their time.
#6
I'll defer to you two, more expert opinions on this area of the world. However, after hearing how well the Kurds are making along, their economies humming along, fairly low violence, etc.
Posted by: BA ||
08/29/2005 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I've always liked Kurdistan, but I have a hard time not seeing the Shia swallowed up in Iran.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/29/2005 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Yes. and that is the biggest danger of a breakup of Iraq.
When the Brits drew those boundaries, they were playing tribal politics as well as internal politics within their administrative officialdom. Still, there was then and still is value in that buffer between the Sauds and the Persians.
#10
The Kurds have proved loyal, lets not create a new enemy by siding with the turncoat Turks or Iran or Syria on any border issues with the Kurds.
Slicing up the region for a Kurdish state seems like it is a little unrealistic right now. I don't think they will get anything outside of Iraq in any official moves.
What's the deal with us siding with the Turks against the PKK? I know they are a radical group, but shouldn't we keep them sidelined at least. I'd hate to see us have to destroy good fighters.
I guess the PUK is still there after we clean up some PKK though. We're probabl;y just using this as an excuse to cull some bad apples and set an example for the Kurds ie... We like you, but if you step, we'll put you in your place. Enjoy what we are allowing you to have and don't ask for too much at one time.
The danger, voiced above, of the Shi'a running into the arms of the Mad Mullahs strike me as rather glib. I'd like to see some evidence, other than the Qom-trained clerics and the Jafaari-type pols...
Observations...
There is an ancient antipathy / enmity between the Arabs and Persians.
These particular Arabs were in a war for almost a decade with the Persians - and that was only one generation, ago.
The Pols who are Iran-friendly were connected folks, or in exile somewhere, and didn't have to serve.
Same for the clerics - they didn't serve.
Arab loyalties begin at home... family, clan, tribe, imam, flavor of Islam.
It was estimated to have killed over 20% of a generation of men - mainly Shi'a, of course, cuz Saddam used the Shi'a as fodder. So every family lost people or knew families who did.
And it is well within living memory. Painfully fresh to that generation - the middle-aged Iraqi.
Even the Sunni Iraqis I knew in Saudi hated the Persians.
Okay from this point...
For a cleric to say that the Persians are our buddies, we should ally with them... A cleric's call to overlook all of this is as likely to be ignored as almost anything a cleric could say to a Muzzy of the same flavor.
Jafaari and Shitstani may make nummy-nummy sounds with Qom. but that doesn't mean anyone will follow them into an arrangement that would have them make nice with the Persions, much less accept some perceived subordinate role to them.
#12
One other observation, while I'm in Arab-think mode: The Mad Mullahs never did dick to help the Shi'a during Saddam's reign, other than shelter the imams. When the war came, they killed them in droves.
You may reasonably ask, "What could they have done?"
My response: I told I was in Arab-think mode. Don't be stupid.
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.
In a brief interview on Wednesday with the Mehr News Agency, Chomsky said: âThe motives do not seem obscure. Gaza has been turned into a disaster area under the Israeli military occupation of 38 years. A few thousand Israeli settlers take a substantial part of the scarce land and resources, and have to be protected by a large part of the Israeli army. Sane Israeli hawks understand that it makes no sense to continue with these arrangements. 
The new Iraqi constitution continues to be the main issue discussed by various Iraqi groups, with each calling for some changes in the articles of the document that will become the supreme law of the land. For nearly a week, the draft constitution has been ready for the Iraqi National Assembly to begin the process of preliminary approval before the people make the final decision on it in a referendum. However, certain elements, both inside and outside of Iraq, are trying to make amendments to the draft constitution. 
