Salah Sarrar | Tripoli, Libya 23 November 2006 01:38
(Rooters) - Migration is an age-old fact of life that governments must accept if they want to manage the flow of job-seekers moving from Africa to Europe, Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi told an Africa-Europe conference on migration.
"Action against nature is like rowing against the stream, which leads to failure," Gadaffi told African and European interior ministers at the first African Union-European Union conference on migration, the Libyan news agency reported. "The current populations of the world are originally migrants who came from other places," he told the ministers at a meeting at his home in Tripoli on Wednesday evening.
Gadaffi's comments put him squarely on the African side of the debate about how to control the sharp increase in the number of impoverished Africans seeking a better life in Europe. Africa has urged Europe to be more open to legal migrants and argues a crackdown on migrants, without more development aid, will only push the flow to other places.
European governments, some of them under pressure at home to toughen immigration policy, have accused African counterparts of failing to fulfil accords pledging to combat illegal migration. Routinely dismissed by Western commentators, Gadaffi's opinions are listened to closely in Africa thanks to his advocacy of African unity, support of African Union bodies, funding of African development projects and his oil wealth.
Libya's role as a transit point for migrants heading north gives it a strategic importance in efforts to manage migration. The country of 5.5 million says it plays host to two million illegal migrants, which it calls a threat to the social fabric. The conference is intended to send a signal that the two regions can improve security cooperation on land and sea borders and address the poverty that is forcing Africans northwards.
Land belongs to all
The conference is expected to publish a joint communiqué on Thursday calling for increased cooperation on migration.
Illegal migration is a thorny issue in Europe, where politicians have made election capital with pledges to stamp it out, while economists say more immigration is needed to make up for falling birth rates.
Gadaffi said migration had complex roots, nurtured by a powerful mixture of world population growth and war as well as a historical legacy of colonialist intervention and slavery. "Political borders, official papers and identities set for every group of people are new, artificial things not recognised by nature," the news agency reported him as saying. "Land is property of everyone, and God commands all human beings to migrate on earth to seek a living, which is their right."
So I guess that means there are no Muzzy Lands... oh, wait, he said political borders... Hmmm, crafty... well then, he won't mind if me 'n Blackwater move in and take over his Light Sweet Crude sands then. They don't belong to him. Same for the Saudi and Iranian producing zones. Gosh, thanks, Daffy, this could turn out awright. All we gotta do is give a hat-tip to their Muzziness - say wear man-dresses - and pack lotsa firepower.
Abolishing migration would logically imply that people everywhere should return home to the continents their ancestors first migrated from, he said. "Europe itself encouraged Asian and African migration to compensate for the manpower shortage caused by the death of scores of millions of men in both First and Second World Wars, which were sparked by Europe."
"The population of Europe are migrants from Asia, the population of North America are migrants from Europe, the population of South America are migrants from the Iberia peninsula and Africa and other places."
#3
I already commented, on a similar article about the same kaddafy opinion on migrations, that african immigrants were treated like sh*t by libyans, including confining them in ghettoes, forcing their wimmen into prostitution, calling them "slaves" (the same classical arabic word for "blacks", btw), and the occasional pogrom when they "step out of line".
What kaddaffy sez is that the (muslim) south has a RIGHT to colonize the West, and notably Europe, because the West is GUILTY (its wealth comes from having looted the south, colonization is a sin for which it will NEVER be able to attone,...), a view wich by the way fits perfectly with the neo-marxist third-worldism, à la tony negri.
Cf. kaddafy's tumbuctu speech about Europe becoming islamic before 2050, for its own good, of course, embracing the One True Religion and ceasing to be islam's Arch-Nemesis.
And if Europe doesn't want to be colonized, then... it must pay a tribute! Exactly like with piracy, of which what's now libya was a hotbed (remember the USMC song). The rezzou/piracy mentality is alive and well.
#4
It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to stop this. A heavy hand is key here. A modern navy shouldn't have too much trouble turning back ramshackle boats full of illiterate, pie eyed future recipients.
#5
Migrations are only a natural occurance because the nations people are migrating from have such bad government that it makes sense to risk everything and migrate.
#6
I don't understand why Europe needs foreign workers when unemployment is above 10% in most countries. Are foreign workers exempt from the ridiculous regulations like 35 hour work weeks, 6 weeks vacations, lifetime employment, etc.?
From TCS Daily. I hope that the Wahabbis are confronted and they sink, but this may be wishful thinking also.
"The dogs bark, the caravan moves on."
That Middle Eastern proverb could well describe the events surrounding production of the world's most-hyped dud firecracker, the Iraq Study Group Report. After immense agonies in the mainstream media (MSM), those like myself who predicted the report, once released, would largely be ignored by President George W. Bush, are being proven right and neoconservatives who support a continued commitment to the transformation of Iraq have exhibited renewed influence.
Only a couple of lines in the report were worthy of comment. One appears on page 29 of the printed version: "Funding for the Sunni insurgency (sic) comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia." This was the first time anybody connected to the U.S. government acknowledged something known throughout the Muslim world. That is, Sunni terrorism in Iraq is not an insurgency, but an invasion; the "foreign fighters" are mainly Saudi, as revealed when their deaths are covered in Saudi media, replete with photographs of the "martyrs." About friggin time someone anywhere besides Rantburg notice and state that Saudi money is involved in this crap. Maybe a small Master of the Obvious caption needed here. Sure wish that our govt would wake up faster before we are all killed or injured.
But this obscure comment was overlooked by most of the MSM, which is also befuddled by the recent sudden departure of Ambassador Turki al-Faisal from his post in the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington. The MSM and a large part of the American government scratch their heads, barely capable of imagining that the revelation of the Saudi financing of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and the resignation of the kingdom's man in the U.S. would have anything in common. Still working on 2+2...need more time...
Yet they are linked. Liberal reformers in the milieu of Saudi King Abdullah point out that Abdullah has called for an end to sectarian fighting in Iraq and has demanded that Shia Muslims no longer be called unbelievers by the Wahhabi clerics that still function, unfortunately, as the official interpreters of Islam in the Saudi kingdom. Abdullah has promised to spend $450 million on an ultra-modern security fence along the Saudi-Iraqi border. Ambassador Turki, it is said, supports Abdullah in these worthy goals.
But King Abdullah and the overwhelming Saudi majority, who want to live in a normal country, are opposed by the Wahhabi-line faction in the royal family. The pro-Wahhabi clique is led by three individuals: Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz, minister of defense; Prince Bandar, predecessor of Turki as ambassador to Washington; and Sultan's brother, Prince Nayef. Nayef is notorious for having been the first prominent figure in the Muslim world to try to blame the atrocities of September 11, 2001 on Israel. He is deeply feared both inside and outside Saudi Arabia for his extremism.
Saudi sources indicate that King Abdullah is assembling his forces for a decisive confrontation with the reactionaries. Part of the Wahhabi-line strategy is to depict a U.S. leadership in conflict with King Abdullah, to undermine the monarch's credibility. That is why different versions of a meeting between U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah, late last month, circulate in the MSM and the blogosphere.
According to credible reports, Cheney urged Abdullah to stiffen action against Saudi-Wahhabi involvement in the Iraqi bloodletting. According to unreliable gadflies, King Abdullah commanded Cheney's presence, to demand that the U.S. immediately attack Iran. But the claim that King Abdullah summoned and berated Cheney does not ring true. King Abdullah is too polite, and Cheney does not take such orders, according to those who know both men.
Many leading clerics and intellectuals among Sunni Muslims indicate that King Abdullah has effectively told the Wahhabis that they will no longer receive official subsidies, and must end their violent jihad around the world. The greatest impact of this development may be seen in Iraq, but Wahhabis everywhere have begun to worry about their future. In a totalitarian system like Wahhabism, the weakest links snap first. And the beginning of the end for them may now be visible in the Muslim Balkans.
That the crisis of Wahhabi credibility would become manifest simultaneously in Washington, Baghdad, and Sarajevo might seem counter-intuitive to many Westerners, especially given that the former Yugoslavia is considered by foreigners to be marginal and insignificant. But for those who know the Islamic world, it makes perfect sense. The Saudis have tried for almost 15 years to use the difficulties of Bosnian and other local Islamic folk to drive the Balkan Muslims away from their traditional, spiritual, and peaceful form of Islam into Wahhabi radicalism. But Wahhabi agitators who went to ex-Yugoslavia to sow discord and reap recruits for terror have begun to show deep anxiety about the loss of their Saudi support, and now act in an ever more provocative and aggressive manner.
For their part, the Balkan Muslims are demonstrating an attitude of disgust and repudiation toward their alleged Saudi patrons, such that the Muslim Balkans may become the first "Wahhabi-free zone" in the global Islamic community, or umma. Months ago, Bosnian chief Islamic cleric Mustafa Ceric issued a document readable here, stating, "the most perilous force destabilizing the umma presently is from the inside." The Bosnians, according to Ceric, are "determined in [their] intention to protect the originality of the centuries-long tradition of the Islamic Community in Bosnia-Hercegovina."
In October 2006, imam Dzemo Redzematovic, leader of the Slavic Muslim minority in newly-independent Montenegro denounced the Wahhabis for "introducing a new approach to Islamic rules [that] is unnecessary and negative because it creates a rift among the believers" and "claims some exclusive right to interpret Islamic rules."
The Wahhabis had lost their chance in Bosnia-Hercegovina but were under close scrutiny in Montenegro. They were also active over the border, in southern Serbia. On November 3, as described here, a group of fanatics disrupted Friday prayers at a mosque in the town of Novipazar, assailing the imam for refusing to follow their "guidance." In the ensuing affray, two local Muslims allegedly replaced "the weapons of criticism" with "the criticism of weapons," and the Wahhabis were met with gunfire. Iraq, it seemed, had come to ex-Yugoslavia.
I was in Sarajevo when this incident occurred, and the outrage of the local Muslims against the Wahhabi interlopers was palpable then and has grown more aggravated since. Bosnian Muslim intellectuals became more militant in their anti-Wahhabi idiom. On November 18, a distinguished professor of Arabic at the University of Sarajevo, Esad Durakovic, wrote, "The snowball called Wahhabism has been rolling down the Bosnian hill, but it is still not certain which side is going to be struck by the avalanche.... Wahhabi efforts are extremely decisive and resolute... the response has to be more appropriate and urgent... Wahhabis are wrong when they think that they can act as a Taliban in Europe (just as they are wrong about everything else)... We have to act immediately." (translation here)
A week later, on November 25, Professor Resid Hafizovic of the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo was even bolder. An outstanding Balkan scholar of Sufism or Islamic spirituality, Hafizovic dramatically warned, "They Are Coming for Our Children." He accused the Wahhabis forthrightly:
"They are among us. By marrying related folk in our villages, towns, and cities, they have already infected our traditional social system. They are already present in our media, state administration and religious institutions: in our mosques, medresas, and academia, everywhere."
Hafizovic identified the Wahhabi trail of blood traced through the past decade "Recognizing it as a continuation of the inferno in Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Palestine, the most powerful civil and religious authorities... should immediately take responsibility for preventing the hell Wahhabis are constructing in this country."
Questioned on Bosnian television about the country's receipt of aid from Saudi Arabia during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, Hafizovic said: "I would be very pleased if a full stop were put once and for all to the talk of the great and fabulous aid that Saudi Arabia has given [us]... Because we have to pay. The Saudis and their envoys keep asking us to pay... the price is such that we have to sell our people, our religion, our 500 years of religious and cultural tradition and legacy. And this is precisely what they want: our minds, our hearts, our souls... Let us put an end to this story once and for all and say: Dear [Saudi] gentlemen, if you keep rubbing our noses in the aid - and you are - we will give it back to you." Hafizovic and other Bosnian Muslim clerics and intellectuals call Wahhabism a virus.
Given these developments, global eradication of the Wahhabi virus may be in sight. We'll see. Saudis need to have some serious intermural whoop-a$$ first.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/19/2006 21:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The pro-Wahhabi clique is led by three individuals: Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz, minister of defense; Prince Bandar, predecessor of Turki as ambassador to Washington; and Sultan's brother, Prince Nayef.
Add these three to the list along with Bakr Bashir, Qaradawi, Mullah Krekar, Mullah Omar, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moqtada Sadr, Osama bin Laden, Abu Hamza, Nasrallah and Islam's other spiritual elite.
Bosnian chief Islamic cleric Mustafa Ceric issued a document readable here, stating, "the most perilous force destabilizing the umma presently is from the inside."
Smart man. Let's all hope he stays alive long enough to get this message out to the world.
In the ensuing affray, two local Muslims allegedly replaced "the weapons of criticism" with "the criticism of weapons," and the Wahhabis were met with gunfire.
By James Lewis
For decades the Saudis have sent out money and missionaries to establish radical West-hating madrassas and mosques all over the world. Many American mosques are controlled by the Saudis, and Saudi-funded Muslim "civil rights" organizations peddle a carefully tailored PR campaign about Muslim victimization to the American sucker media. All this serves the Wahhabi creed, one of the most reactionary movements in Islam. One result of Saudi fundamentalism is Al Qaida, Bin Laden and 9/11.
Next month, during the giant annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the Saudi campaign to radicalize the Muslim world may come back to bite it in its ample rear. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims will travel in from Iran, according to Amir Taheri's Sunday article in the New York Post, and they may stage demonstrations --- or possibly even a coup attempt --- in Saudi Arabia. Ten to twenty percent of the Iranians might be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's agents, making 20 to 40 thousand disciplined radicals amid the chaotic mobs of the Hajj.
It doesn't take much to start stampedes and riots during the Hajj. The happen routinely, and they could be used to undermine the Saudi regime. Mecca, holy seat of Islam, belongs to the Islamic masses, gathered there in uncontrollable numbers. The claim of legitimacy for Saudi ownership of Arabia rests on guardianship of the holy sites. During the Hajj, Saudi Arabia is essential indefensible.
We don't really know why Ambarassador Sultan Al-Turki shockingly resigned in Washington last week and rushed back to Riyadh. But he was head of Saudi intelligence for years, and he may know something about Iran's plans during the Hajj. Iranian Shiites have a history of staging riots and demonstrations during the pilgrimage, going back to the Khomeini years.
Many Saudi Sunnis hate Persian Shias, and vice versa. Both claim exclusive rights to Mohammed's heritage. That doesn't mean they won't cooperate against the West or Israel. It does mean that the Sunni missionary campaign to convert world-wide Islam has a giant obstacle in its way: Iran's expansionist ambitions, just fifty miles from the long and hard-to-defend Persian Gulf shore of Saudi Arabia.
Iran has 70 million people, three times more than Saudi. Without the US Navy in the Gulf --- there are now four carrier groups --- Saudi Arabia could be overrun in a week. Since Shiites believe they are the true descendants of Mohammed, it also follows that the holy cities of Mecca and Medina must belong to them. They would be happy to pick up Saudi Arabia's oil provinces as icing on the cake. Those provinces are already populated by fellow-Shiites. So Iran's capacity for making mischief during the Hajj is immense.
The Saudi's hate-Israel, hate-the-West campaign has developed a backlash. Saudi stoking of fundamentalist fires inadvertently has empowered Iranian radicals in the Muslim world just as much as Sunni Wahhabis. If Iran's little fanatical ruler Ahmadinejad can control Mecca and Medina, or even just keep the Saudis scared and intimidated, his vaunted new Caliphate comes a step closer.
Soon, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. The Saudis helped pay for the Pakistani nuke program, and Pakistan is in constant danger of being overthrown by Sunni fundamentalists like the Taliban. Pakistan's President Musharraf has survived three assassination attempts so far. The next one might succeed. In a few years we may have two, three or more radical Muslim regimes with nuclear weapons. It will change the world forever. But they may end up fighting each other as much as the infidel.
It ocurred to me recently that 9/11/01 and other events of the past 5.5 years has put a pretty good size dent in certain Saudi wallets. From stepping up Operation Restore The Caliphate in the Sudan and NWFP, to tsunami/earthquake relief, to carrying more of the Paleo burden since the dhimmis statrted to notice what their 'aid' was actually paying for, to trying to restrain their own whacked-out al-Ghamdis and Enezis back home, to paying prolly close to the full freight for the Sunni 'resistance' in Iraq, there must be one or two wells threatening to run dry or at least be given some guarantees on a return. Surely there must be one or two clans starting to ask where all their sons have gone and will they ever come home and give us some grandkiddies.
#3
Next month, during the giant annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the Saudi campaign to radicalize the Muslim world may come back to bite it in its ample rear. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims will travel in from Iran, according to Amir Taheri's Sunday article in the New York Post, and they may stage demonstrations --- or possibly even a coup attempt --- in Saudi Arabia. Ten to twenty percent of the Iranians might be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's agents, making 20 to 40 thousand disciplined radicals amid the chaotic mobs of the Hajj.
Let me know when they start splodin'. We're talkin' some mega-trample action.
#5
I hear ya, but chaos is always dangerous. It can spread, such as with the assination of Archduke Ferdinand, or cover up other events.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/19/2006 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
.com-
If Iran's little fanatical ruler Ahmadinejad can control Mecca and Medina, or even just keep the Saudis scared and intimidated, his vaunted new Caliphate comes a step closer.
....My understanding - and mind you it came through a Wahabbis filter - was that whoever controls Mecca and Medina really does control Islam, and to me that doesn't seem far off, given the Wahabbi influence on modern Islam.
The idea of the Iranians trying a takeover through the Hajj has been a fear for some years now, and may very well have been tried back in 1979. Were one of the two cities to fall out of Saudi control even briefly, that could be enough to push Those Wacky Sauds all the way off the throne.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/19/2006 7:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mike K - Not sure... If they're intact, then I guess that's true. But the logistics say they won't be lost, IMHO. Let's play some what-if, lol.
Yup, loss of Mecca and/or Medina would be a huge loss of face, prestige, and ?control? since the King Thingy is called the Custodian of The Two Holy Moskkks - and to my knowledge that is his pre-eminent title. But a fall? Not sure...
Captured by someone, e.g. Shia woofs, would generate a mini-war, not a fall, IMHO. And without a massive collaboration within the Kingdom, would lose in a siege. The distance from Iran to Mecca, for example, is long, over open inhospitable terrain, and a supply line would also be indefensible without that IK support. The Shia are numerous in places, but not "strong". Unless Nayef "surrounds" everything, lol.
Destroyed by someone would be interesting. By whom prolly determines the reaction - and I'll bet you'd agree nothing is so conspiracy-driven and Byzantine as the Arab mind, lol. So guessing the response is almost pointless.
Denial of use - say by a dirty bomb or bio agent... Again, by whom I guess. Same as above.
So I don't see that as the trigger that causes their fall... simple unrest due to the inescapable demographics will prolly be the cause. When the chain of wasta falls apart because the greed and the demands can't both be met, then the cork is in the bottle and the heat will do the rest, methinks.
Woolgathering... If the House of Saud fell - then what? I only have some fuzzy notions, lol. There are some tribes who'd love to take over I'm sure, but I'm not sure who would prove the strong horse among the non-Royals if the Sauds vacated. Perhaps someone from the military, since that's the next most prestigious thingy in their hierarchy and, oh yeah, they gots the arms and transport. I'm sure your guesses would be equal or better.
Control of Aramco and the 40km strip would be the key, of course. Religion's got its funkiness for the zoomers, but the oil makes it all go... and that is vulnerable to just about anyone who wants to take a shot at it.
Not windy at all! Matter of fact, wish you and I could sit down over a brandy some time and trade Saudi stories. Re: your thoughts about who might take over - let me suggest the Bedouin, led by SANG officers. These guys are religiously strong without being too off the wall, they are almost all linked by family and strong friendship ties, and most importantly, the SANG has the guns and the knowledge to pull off a coup. The only problem there is that they'd ned help from the other services, and IIRC the senior commanders are all al-Sauds of one stripe or another. On the other hand, they could be quietly sat down and told, "When the day comes, just say 'Allah akbar' with us and nobody gets hurt"...and they might just go along with it.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/19/2006 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Two things. A Muslim country setting of a "dirty bomb" or something like it in Mecca would turn the entire Islamic world against that nation. Safe to say it would never happen.
Sauds running out of money? Don't think so, not even close. But then agian I'm not their banker.
But this whole idea of the Hajj being used as a sort of take over might not be to far off. Interesting chance happening. The areas around the Kaaba have historically been settings for rival mass blood baths.
#11
It would be poetic justice if the Bedu were to take over, lol.
I used to see 'em twice a year as they did their migration thing. One day there'd be nothing on a vacant lot, the next morning they're be this big-assed tent and a couple old craggy-looking fellas sitting out front sipping tea and smoking up a storm. There a few days, maybe a week, then gone.
I'm not sure my stories would measure up, lol. Both tours I was in Dhahran / al Khobar. This last tour I kept my head down and worked like a dog, saving every dime except for springing for a compound with a satellite connection, heh.
You were in Jeddah, right? You should hook up with GK - he was in Riyadh, IIRC. Now that had to suck, lol.
#12
The Soddis defeated the Hashemites of Jordan to take the twin cities in 1919.
The Soddis provide heavy security for the Hajj and they have busted heads in the past. I'm not at all sure the Iranians could do more than create a finite amount of trouble.
This article does make the point I have been making for a number of years now. Given the choice of attacking the United States, Israel or Soddi, which would the Iranians see as more doable? The vast majority of the populace around the oil fields is Shi'a, and without those, the Soddis are nothing. A puppet Shi'a state containing the Soddi oil fields would hold a certain attractiveness to the Iranians, I suspect.
I agree that the actions of SANG would be the decive element in any political events in Soddi. They are the only real fighters and their loyalty is tribal, not religious. I would also suggest that any House of Saud reliance upon the Saudi armed forces would be misplaced. The term "fold like a wet noodle" comes to mind.
#13
Ahh the Festival of Seething soon to commence . Stones at the ready , and cardboard cutouts of GWB and TB at the ready . Uncontrollable crowds , check , Radical elements , check , Stones to hand , check , Innocent virgins to abuse , check , any excuse , check ...
#16
whoever controls Mecca and Medina really does control Islam
Then it stands to reason that the West should consider taking the shrines hostage. Far better than nuking them would be to have Islam's crown jewels and the haj effectively held ransom against further terror attacks. I know this is blue-sky thinking but even if the Islamic world struggled to regain control of them, these two locations would represent the most bestest sheet of flypaper ever seen.
With all due respect, do you REALLY believe a dirty bomb going off in either/both of the "two most holiest cities in islam" would get blamed on muslims even though true? I can think of two other countries that would be blamed long before any muslim group or country would be blamed.
Hint: One country is large the other is very small.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/19/2006 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
OOOO, OOOO! I know Teacher Mark:
What is the Great Satan and Little Satan for $100?
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2006 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#19
If I was India or China I would do it as the other two countries would get blamed and one could get some advantage out of the mess.
You were in Jeddah, right? You should hook up with GK - he was in Riyadh, IIRC. Now that had to suck, lol.
Actually, although I worked at Prince Sultan AB at al-Kharj about 90 minutes away from Riyadh, we stayed at the capital at a place caled Eskan Village - one of the huge 'condo cities' they built for the Bedou to live in, but never did. The place (Khobar Towers was one too) would have made a world class old folks' retirement village anywhere in the US. Did have a GREAT chow hall tho after the Army got thrown out. (Plus one marvelous Saturday night when the French Air Force guys took the place over and cooked for everybody.:) )
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/19/2006 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Mike K - I went into the Khobar Towers many times during my first tour (91-92). I used to help out with their 'puters and software issues. I also helped "steal" them a full set of the high quality Aramco maps. The shit the Saudi Govt provided them didn't show any of the myriad oil maint roads, for example. Heh, Aramco always had the best shit. I got to know a bunch of them - all USAF, of course, except for a few Army MPs.
That was a few years before the attack.
Did the Bedu shit in the swimming pool at Eskan Village? That was one of the first stories I heard when I first visited - the boggle factor was off the chart. I "explained" that the Bedu wouldn't sleep there cuz it would mean one man's feet would be above another man's head - unless they all agreed on what floor they were gonna use, lol. Western logic. Bedu logic: they blew the place off pretty quickly, pitching their tents on the lawns... except the swimming pool looked perfect for a gigantic latrine to them and, apparently, they availed themselves of it until it stunk, I guess, and moved on.
And Yep - they were really nice inside. IIUC, all of the things were the same throughout the country - and there were like 10 or 12 (?) of these complexes built. Typical Saudi thing - a total waste through Duh stupidity.
#24
"For decades the Saudis have sent out money and missionaries to establish radical West-hating madrassas and mosques all over the world. Many American mosques are controlled by the Saudis, and Saudi-funded Muslim "civil rights" organizations peddle a carefully tailored PR campaign about Muslim victimization to the American sucker media. All this serves the Wahhabi creed.."
Sow to the wind, reap the whirlwind. Act in a way that produces "islamophobia", then complain about it & have dialogue with dhimmis to overcome it, as
below:
On December 4, 2006, the national leadership of American Muslims met with key senior U.S. government officials to discuss the state of Islamophobia in America and US Muslim relations. The conference was organized by the Bridging the Divide Initiative of Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. It was co-sponsored by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists.
As the conference chair of the program, the most extraordinary challenge that I faced was to bring together two parties that did not see eye to eye on this issue. While American Muslim leaders and participants were arguing that Islamophobia was not only a reality but rapidly increasing phenomenon in America, the governments position was that while there have been increased incidences of anti-Muslim episodes in the U.S., the word Islamophobia deepens the divide between the US and the Muslim world. Other representatives of the government also suggested that the fear that Muslims were referring to was not the fear of Islam but the fear of Muslim terrorism as manifest on September 11, 2001.
[...]
Islamophobia strikes deep - into your life it will creep. It gets you on a plane or a train.
Never sure when "Mo" come, and blow you away...
Why?
Having to leave home in the dark at 6 a.m. sit in traffic for 2 hours, pay £60 to fill up the car, work for 9 hours, sit in traffic for 2 hours, get home in the dark.
Getting your wages at the end of the month and giving more than a third of it back. Trying to get on in life, pay more back.
Having to move 40 miles away from where you were born just to afford a house.
Watching your mates in London send their kids to school where the first language is not English!
Watching people telling you that you can't fly your own country's flag, celebrate Christmas or even put a nativitiy scene in a shop window for fear of offending someone else.
Not letting your daughter out to play for fear of some pervert taking her from you.
Watching my own mother still work at 70 years old because she cannot afford to stop working.
Being held up at knife and gunpoint in my own place of work for £50 petty cash.
Realising that by the time I retire I would be 75 and then the Government would probably give me £50 a week for the 55 years or so of tax and national insurance I had paid.
Realising that where I grew up in South East London, there are no Londoners left under 40 years old.
Having to pay over £40 to watch my beloved team play footy.
Watching the Government suck the life out of the country and hand it over to European politically correct freeloaders.
You know what I could go on for hours but can't be bothered.
I left England 18 months ago and whilst settling in a new country is not easy all I have to worry about is getting on and supporting my family instead of half the population. Do it, do it now - you won't regret it.
#5
Nope , not any better really , although rural southern Ireland is about attractive as it gets , but you need to be self suffient in the first place :)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/19/2006 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#2 MacNails - coming here?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/19/2006 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
U.S cities have systematically driven away their taxbase in a very similar fashion in the last 25 years. Cincinnati is a good example, drive through the city proper and see whats left. No more German and Irish communities, the only stores left are tiendas and liquor stores. And if you arent holding a 40-ouncer you will get looks like you are from another planet. And the city can't figure out why they don't have any money, or what to do about it.
#9
A cursory look thru the comments shows most Brits expatriating to Oz or New Zealand, a few to Spain and France, though they won't really escape the taxes/immigration issues anywhere in the EU. The US is an obvious choice but a difficult one, since US immigration policies are schizophrenic at best and ICE is in shambles... right now.
#11
Blair has put multi culturism ahead of British identify.
Like America the Cities are being turned into ghettos where the White middle class flee the country/heads for the rural countryside(whats left of it?!!!) E.g 1 in 3 Londoners are born abroad!!!!!!
I am moving house to a Town 65 miles outside London.The London i grew up in has changed to the Welfare state of Europe/Africa/Asia etc
#1
what is seen most clearly here is the reluctance of western sources to report the terrible reality of Muslim on Muslim violence throughout the Arab-Muslim world.
Iraqi casualties from the radical Islamist insurgency and sectarian Sunni-Shia violence exceed those from American-led military operations.
Until the MSM corrects these glaring deficiencies, all of its Iraq reporting must be held as suspect.
By Jacob Laksin
Nothing demonstrates more clearly the defects of Jimmy Carters latest brief against Israel, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, than the ex-presidents reluctance to defend the book on its merits. Rather than take up that unenviable task, Carter has sought to shift the focus away from the criticism -- especially as it concerns the books serial distortions and outright falsehoods -- and onto the critics.
In particular, Carter claims that critics are compromised by their support for Israel, their ties to pro-Israel lobbying organizations, and -- a more pernicious charge -- their Jewish background. In interviews about his book, Carter has seldom missed an opportunity to invoke what he calls the powerful influence of AIPAC, with the subtext that it is the lobbying group, and not his slanderous charges about Israel, that is mainly responsible for mobilizing popular outrage over Palestine. In a related line of defense, Carter has singled out representatives of Jewish organizations in the media as the prime culprits behind his poor reviews and university campuses with high Jewish enrollment as the main obstacle to forthright debate about his book on American universities. (Ironically, when challenged last week by Alan Dershowitz to a debate about his book at Brandeis University, which has a large Jewish student body, Carter rejected the invitation.)
Bluster aside, Carters chief complaint seems to be that anyone who identifies with Israel, whether in the form of individual support or in a more organized capacity, is incapable of grappling honestly with the issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Carter is poorly placed to make this claim. If such connections alone are sufficient to discredit his critics, then by his own logic Carter is undeserving of a hearing. After all, the Carter Center, the combination research and activist project he founded at Emory University in 1982, has for years prospered from the largesse of assorted Arab financiers.
Especially lucrative have been Carters ties to Saudi Arabia. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and on more than one occasion contributed million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, the king presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was not the only Saudi royal to commit funds to Carters cause. As of 2005, the kings high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center.
Meanwhile the Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdoms leading loan organization, turns up repeatedly on the centers list of supporters. Carter has also found moneyed allies in the Bin Laden family, and in 2000 he secured a promise from ten of Osama bin Laden's brothers for a $1 million contribution to his center. To be sure, there is no evidence that the Bin Ladens maintain any contact with their terrorist relation. But applying Carters own standard, his extensive contacts with the Saudi elite must make his views on the Middle East suspect.
High praise for Carters work -- and not inconsiderable financial support -- also comes from the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter even traveled to the country to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE potentate and former president-for-life. Having claimed his $500,000 purse, Carter enthused that the award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan. Carter also hailed the UAE as an almost completely open and free society -- a surreal depiction of a rigidly authoritarian country where the government handpicks a select group of citizens to vote and strictly controls the editorial content of the newspapers and where Islamic Sharia courts judge sodomy punishable by death. (To appreciate the depth of Carters cynicism, one need only compare his gushing encomia to the emirates with his likening of Israel, the most modern and democratic country in the entire Middle East, with the racist apartheid of South Africa.)
On top of these official honors, Carter was offered a forum at the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, the countrys official think-tank. And the major international backer of thierry meyssan's conspiracy theory on the "no plane hit the pentagon, it was a truck bomb/a missile, an inside job by the neocons".
For his part, Carter declared his intention to forge a partnership with the center; in a 2002 letter, Carter praised its efforts to promote peace, health, and human rights around the world. Inconveniently for Carter, the center has since become famous for a different reason: It has repeatedly played host to anti-Semitic speakers who have denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism, and alleged an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists to dominate the world. (Harvard University, in contrast to Carters enthusiasm for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, rejected a $2.5 million from the ruler in 2004 due to his ties to the Zayed Center.)
Nor does this exhaust the list of Carters backers in the Arab world. Still other supporters include Sultan Qaboos bin Said, who sits atop Omans absolute monarchy. An occasional host to Carter, the sultan has also made generous contributions to his center. Prior to inviting Carter for a personal visit in 1998, the sultan pledged $1 million to the Carter Center, promising additional support in the future. Similarly, Moroccos Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah, the second in line to the kingdoms throne, has in the past partnered with Carter on the centers initiatives.
On its face, there is nothing objectionable about these contacts. What has raised critics eyebrows is Carters immense chutzpah: In securing the financial support of assorted Arab leaders, Carter has gradually come to parrot their anti-Israel political agenda -- even as he styles himself as a dispassionate mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This was nowhere more evident than in Carters credulous support for the late Yasir Arafat. Although Carter had championed Araft as a committed peacemaker since his presidency, in the face of ample evidence to the contrary, his apologies for the terrorist chieftain became particularly shameless in the 1990s. When Arafat and his PLO backed Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait, thereby loosing the support and -- more important for the corrupt Arafat -- the funding of neighboring Sunni Arab powers, Carter embarked on a Middle East publicity tour to revive Arafats diminishing fortunes. As recorded by Carter biographer Douglas Brinkley, together [Carter and Arafat] strategized on how to recover the PLOs standing in the United States. In desperation, Carter turned up in Saudi Arabia on what Brinkley called essentially a fund-raising mission for the PLO, pleading with King Fahd to restore Arafat to the Saudi dole.
Now that Arafats Fatah has been replaced with Hamas, Carter has again proven himself a reliable ally of Palestinian extremism. Scarcely had the terrorist group ascended to power last January than Carter launched a media blitz urging the United States to circumvent its own laws against financing terrorism in order to fund Hamas. As the New York Times put with exquisite finesse, Carter called on Western nations to "redirect their relief aid to United Nations organizations and nongovernmental organizations to skirt legal restrictions -- that is, to launder money to a terrorist group. When American policymakers declined to heed his advice, and Israel proved unwilling to bankroll the enemy seeking its destruction, Carter promptly denounced the both countries for their common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas.
With its relentless disparagement of Israel and its reckless abuse of the historical record, Carters latest book may fairly be seen as the logical culmination of his many years of anti-Israel incitement. There was of course no shortage of clues about Carters sympathies in his earlier books. In his 2004 memoir Sharing Good Times, for instance, Carter recalled the trips he has taken over the years to Arab dictatorships in Syria and Saudi Arabia and noted with evident satisfaction that he was always greeted with smiles and friendship.
Readers may be forgiven for finding nothing shocking in this admission. Carter may still harbor illusions of grandeur, seeing himself as an instrument of peace in the Middle East. But an altogether different element explains his enduring popularity in Arab capitals: Not for all the millions they have sunk into the Carter Center over the years could Arab elites have hoped to purchase such a prominent and willing propaganda tool.
#1
It's waay past time that the traitorous machinations of this peanut are made known to the general public. Bought and paid for by the venomous Muzzies from the Magic Kingdom. And, for them, he was a cheap buy. This SOB has been one of the most destructive characters in the last century here in the US. He should be stripped of citizenship immediately.
You did it again on this one. Just put the fucking URL (the "http://www..." thingy) of the Source Page into the Source Box, nothing else. No one else screws this up, just you.
Let the giggles begin.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006Oscar-winning wife beating actor Sean Penn called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney in an impassioned speech Monday night in New York.
The occasion was Penn's winning the first annual Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award from the Creative Coalition, a non-partisan advocacy and lobbying group founded by New York actors such as Reeve, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon more than a decade ago. Ah Susan, miss saggy ones
Penn is no stranger to controversy, politics or their intersection. But last night's speech was a little different even for him amping him up to the next level in the war between liberals and conservatives over the war in Iraq. Penn spoke in measured tones but was actually quite inflammatory. The combination worked. He does have a pretty high IQ. To bad about the brain damage.
He also threw a verbal grenade into the crowd when he said: "So look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a [oral sex act], yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a [human] stain on the flag we wave." Sean now tell us again about your Iraq trip and praise for Saddam.
As for Penn a non-partisan advocacy and lobbying group founded by New York actors such as Reeve, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon more than a decade ago. Aint that just a nice, neet and tidy lie. Non-Partisan my ass.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/19/2006 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
'President Pelosi' - has a nice alliterative ring to it, doesn't it?
#4
Hey, after "All the King's Men" and "The Interperter", the career's going to shit, so I might as well say anything that pops into my pretty little head...
#5
Thre should be a law forbidding actors, athletes and the likes to talk politics publically.
I am amazed that peolple whose IQ is lower than room temperature, who usually didn't graduate from high school, cut off from real world and who usally have lives replete with scandals (alcohol, drugs, career-enhancing sex, half a dozen divorces on average, the occasional rape like for Polanski) feel they are so superior to other citizens (including the enginerrs, scientists, successful businessmen) that they (the celebrities) may lecture them about who the cizienzens should vote.
And that instead of being told to shutup the words uttered by that low quality individual get mass exposure.
#10
"I had absolutely no plans to watch Comic Relief 2006 on HBO..."
I didnt either. All Im sayin is if you find yourself as in my unfortunate situation as a member of a captive audience you might want to ask your doctor if Jim Beam is right for you.
#13
Penn, wearing slicked-back hair, suit and tie, came to the stage at Duvet, a party space on West 21st St., with serious intentions. Unfortunately, his cell phone rang a couple of times during his pointed remarks, and finally he had to answer it.
Dood, like, when receiving, like, a major award, or even, like, a minor one like this in the backroom of some restaurant or celebrity boozeatorium, like turn off your cellphone, dood, like, y'know. Like, wow, man, that is, like, so uncool...
#15
"So look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a [oral sex act], yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a [human] stain on the flag we wave."
I think it ill-advised to use a stain analogy in the same sentence as a comment about Bill's peccadilloes.
#19
Please start the impeachment hearing next week. After a couple of days the public will find that they have no basis for impeachment and they will look stupid (as usual).
#1
Islam has become the left's pet religion. Given the word from Mecca on women (chattel) and gays (should die soon) this may seem counterintuitive.
But the left sees Islam as a Third World religion - a religion of the impoverished and oppressed (like the Saudi royal family?), a non-Western religion, a religion targeted by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a religion whose adherents in the United States suffer vile discrimination and massive civil-rights abuses (like Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, the Sudan, Indonesia, Kosovo, fill-in-the-blank-istan?). It also (correctly) perceives Islam as a religion opposed to America and Western civilization - which, for the left, trumps every other consideration.
Liberals are in for a big surprise. With each passing day it becomes even more deserved. It will probably require their own slaughter at Muslim hands to make them realize that Islam wants no friends and seeks no allies.
#2
The ADL wants to sanction Dennis Prager (ejecting him from the holocaust counsel) for a comment he shouldn't have made (the comment was wacko). Just because CAIR also wants to sanction Prager it doesn't make it wrong.
Frankly, Mr. Prager should never have been on the holocaust counsel. He is not a scholar of that part of history (he does have a good familiarity with American Jewish history and with classical music). He also does not have the temperment that he should to serve on this board. Mr Prager tends to spout off on subjects of which he is ill informed. For example he has issued a 'fatwa' of sorts against encouraging mothers to breast feed past the 1 month age.
#3
EQUALISM + FAIRNESS > puting flowers on the weapons of Amer soldiers while NOT doing or demanding the same from Amer's enemies. The USA has to take care of the World while the world does not have to do anything for itself or help the USA. "USSA, NOT USSR", AMERICA IS THE ONLY ONE CAN MAKE SOCIALISM WORK, ergo the USSA =America is the ONE, AND ONLY ONE, WHOM HAS TO SURRENDER + PAY EVERYONE'S REGIONAL, TRANS-REGIONAL, GLOBAL, and maybe LUNAR? = SPACE TAXES.
"GOD IS FAKE" > HHHHMMMMM, HHHHHHMMMM, Amer + World must survive POTUS Hillary, POTUS Chelsea [ you know, the BUSH DYNASTY], SINO-RUSSIAN-led anti-US GLOBAL NUKE? WAR bwtn Years 2014-2020, CHINA being a MEGA-POWER [besides USA? = USA in decline] circa 2019-2020, and while building a Moonbase by 2024-5 and while avoiding COMET APOPHIS [2029], etal. Earth + Space events Years 2012 - 2030. SO MANY INVASIONS, NOT ENUFF GOOD LETTUCE AT TACO BELL [theme from Dragnet = Star Wars follows].
Kofi is not worthy of being scraped from the soles of Churchill's shoes like the turd he is. Even "turd" is too kind for a rotter like Kofi. The Russians have a unique idiom that translates to, "one that is scraped off the sheets with a spoon."
#7
THE VIEW? FOX's MY WORD Segment wid Neil Smith > The View > how Lefties speak. The Left is bent of "retructuring Society, plus America's place/role in the World + History according to their views".
There are only three options in Iraq.
The ructions on the periphery of the Saudi lobby in Washingtonover whether Saudi Arabia would or should become the protector of its Sunni brethren in Iraqobscures the extent to which what might or could happen has actually been happening already. The Sunni insurgents currently enjoy quite a lot of informal and unofficial support from Saudi circles (and are known by the nickname "the Wahabbis" by many Shiites). Saudi Arabia has long thought of Iraq as its buffer against Iran and for this reason opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and would not allow its soil to be used for the operation. Saudi princes and officials have long been worried by the state of opinion among the Shiite underclass in Saudi Arabia itself, because this underclassits religion barely recognized by the ultra-orthodox Wahabbi authoritieshappens to live and work in and around the oil fields. Since 2003, there have been increasing signs of discontent from them, including demands for more religious and political freedom.
In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced.
#2
Quixotic though the third solution may seem, it is the only alternative to the most gruesome mayhemmore gruesome than anything we have seen so far. It is to the credit of the United States that it has at least continued to hold up this outcome as a possibilitya possibility that would not be thinkable if the field were left to the rival influences of Tehran and Riyadh.
Of course, none of this prevents the Iraqi people from be the most ungrafeful bunch of moron bastards ever born. Perish the thought.
#3
Actually, 77% of Iraqis are thankful to be free of Saddam. And the Iraqi economy is booming. The biggest enemy of freedom in Iraq is not the cadre of black-hooded skulking murderers but rather the American press.
#4
How many of those 77% believe killing "occupiers" (that would be us) is justified? Last figure I saw was 60%.
So, they're thankful to be rid of Saddam but want to kill the people that got rid of him? Not that contradictory thought doesn't happen in the Muslim world, but I remain very skeptical about their gratitude.
#5
I actually agree with doc on this one. Remember, you must keep it in perspective. The Kurds are probably close to 90%+ pro-American. I'd be willing to bet the "average" Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi too is "pro-American," or at least "anti-Saddam" (for the Shi'a). Finally, you add in that MOST of the bad guys are foreigners (not Iraqi at all) drawn to the flypaper by the U.S. Yes, there's a small group of Sunni & Shi'a acting up, but you've gotta keep it in perspective. It's pretty much contained in Baghdad and the Anbar Province, with a few minor skirmishes in outlying areas. The MSM is to blame for all the "war-wearyness" we're feeling as a nation.
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2006 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The MSM is plenty blameworthy, but what do you do with the high percentage of Iraqis wanting to see US occupiers killed? How does that fit? Are there other reports that a majority of Iraqis think killing the occupying forces is wrong? I'm not talking about Kurds-I'm talking about the rest of Iraq.
#7
I'd also question those polls about wanting to see occupiers killed. I've seen polls that conflate anti-Iraq war positions together with those that think Bush didn't go far enough. I wouldn't doubt that some polls in Iraq link up those that want to kill Syrians/Iranians in Iraq with those that want the US out as the conflation of numbers sells the plot-line the reporter is trying to sell.
#8
"In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced."
Read and reread this paragraph. Now you can start to understand the reason we went into this mess knowing full well what might transpire. This area has been a powder keg for half a century (or a thousand years). The Sauds called the shots for Bush I. The Bush family, the longtime collaborators of the Suads, know a lot of backround trickeries that most of us will never be privy to. Bush I even had Bandar go to Texas to inform and coach Bush II as to all that was involved and try to persuade him to consider this in any future actions he may undertake. This was in the fall of 2000. I think the Bushes were just stunned that the Sauds would promote this attack on American soil. They knew who was actually behind it. That's why GW looked liked someone hit him with 220 volts that day in the classroom in Florida. What to do ? Attack Sauds directly ? (They should have, but they have too many interwoven transactions there that would be affected) The world economy would stop. All their banking friends would have killed them. Next option, go into Iraq, get that oil to market, and start to destabilize the Sauds. Once alternate oil is flowing, economy can continue to roll, and ,who knows maybe the Persians can be brought in to overthrow the Sauds. These Sauds must go. Everyone in the West knows it, but everyone is on the take to some degree or another. Only when we establish another form of energy, like nuclear, can we really go after them. They are probably currently funding Sunnis in Iraq to continually destroy the oil infrastructure to prevent this competition coming online.
#10
Certainly by no means comprehensive-I would like to find more conservative sources-but:
www.fair.org (June 2004)
Overall, 55 percent of Shi'ites and 57 percent of Sunnis said attacks against coalition forces were at least sometimes justified, while the proportion of Baghdadis who believe this has risen to 67 percent, up from 36 percent the last time Gallup asked them this question a year ago.
www.defenselink.mil (Aug. 2005 poll)
The percentages slip when it comes to disapproval of violence against Iraqis working with the coalition and attacks against coalition personnel. A total of 81 percent of those polled are against attacks against Iraqis working with the coalition, with 12 percent saying there is justification for the attacks and 7 percent with no opinion. Half of those polled said there was no excuse for attacks against coalition personnel, while 40 percent said there is a justification and 10 percent saying they don't know.
www.parapundit.com (June 2006 poll)
The British Sunday Telegraph has gotten a hold of a secret poll of Iraqis done by the British Ministry of Defence which shows that Iraqis strongly oppose the presence of US and British forces in Iraq and 45% support attacks against US and British troops...
The Iraqi surveys, part of the ongoing World Values Surveys, are a collaborative project between the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and Eastern Michigan University. When [Iraqis were] asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave "to control Iraqi oil" as their first choice.
www.jihadwatch.org (Sept 26, 2006)
About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that
country...The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found: Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
It would be nice to know whether this info is being carefully considered as we prepare for the big announcement on Iraq Policy 2007.
#11
Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
Just like Israel's presence in the Palestinian Terrortories provoked more violence ... oh, wait.
We really need to consider standing down our troops in place for a 30 day period so these asshole ingrates can get a whiff of their own bloody grapeshot.
#12
Jeebus, Jules. I see those #s, but I've gotta wonder several issues with them...
(1) WHERE did they ask these questions? In downtown Baghdad, which has seen a lot more violence lately? Of course you'd get those results there. Anywhere else outside the Sunni triangle...my guess would be the reverse.
(2) HOW did they ask the questions? This is key in how polls are done. They can all be slanted to "favor" what the pollster wants to say.
Listen, I'm not saying they want us there forever, or that even the "average" Iraqi is o.k. with attacking troops. I'm more worried about Iraqis who WOULD attack our troops. Seems to be a VERY small minority. In fact, most of those attacking our guys seem to be foreigners (jihadis to the flypaper), and the violence has decreased against our boys, but has upped into sectarian violence (Shi'a vs. Sunni) in the race for the brass ring (power). I'm just saying...GET SOME PERSPECTIVE. What is it, like 16 of the 18 provinces are pretty much peaceful (no worse than any major urban area here in the US). You have Baghdad and Anbar province left. My last $.02....I quit believing in polls after 9/11/01. My absolutely bupkis if'n you're doing the right thing. We HAVE to see this one to the end, PERIOD (Cambodia redeux if not).
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2006 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Whoops. "Means absolutely bupkis..."
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2006 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#14
BA-And I'm not saying we should get out. I am suggesting that Americans, and certainly policy makers, thinking about the critical moment in this war had better consider some ugly possibilities as they form their opinions and plans. From my point of view, an awfully reckless conclusion may have been made. Let's make sure we get a good measure of this critical basic factor in planning for a happy ending.
#15
"In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced."
-IIRC the UN resolution/mandate was for the specific removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait proper. Regime change was not on the table or part of the "commander's intent" if you will. That's not to say politically, the Sauds didn't push for that, but there was more to it than GWH Bush being a lap dog. He followed the mandate to the tee.
#1
Taco Bell has been threatening a major takeover operation in the Hebron area for some time. This could be it. IDF (and Charmin) better move quick to secure their batteries before the Fire Sauce arrives on site.
Photo: President Mahmoud Abbas is seen staring down the Hamas organization at a meeting between the two organizations yesterday. Credit: Adnan Hajj, Reuters.
(JTA) -- For Palestinians, the choices now seem stark: radical reform or civil war. Just off the top of my head, I'm guessing they'll go for civil war.
After months of prevaricating while the Palestinian Authority nose-dived into poverty and violence, P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas finally confronted his Hamas rivals by calling new elections in hopes of changing the government. He's only been dithering since last June or July. Decisiveness isn't his strong point.
"We should not continue in a vicious circle while life breaks down," Abbas said in a long-awaited speech Saturday. "We'll go back to the people and let the people decide." I have the feeling the People are gonna go for Hamas. Fatah is pretty much a rotting corpse. It was dying before Yasser became stable - keep in mind that nobody used to listen to him, either.
Though Abbas was, in principle, invoking an executive privilege, Hamas accused him of seeking to topple its 9-month-old administration with the West's blessing. "This is a real coup against the democratically elected government," said Mushir Masri, a lawmaker with the Islamic terrorist group. That sentence makes my head spin around 360 degrees. 270 of the degrees are caused by the phrase "a lawmaker with the Islamic terrorist group." Only six or eight of the degrees are caused by the fact that Mushir al-Masri's a "Paleostinian."
On the other hand, he's an eloquent supporter of the 'one man one vote one time, now go fer yer guns' school of political thought...
Hamas was elected last January and took office in March, prompting a cut-off of Western aid. Quite apart from the lack of aid, they haven't done much in the way of governing, either. Politix is the art of compromise. Hamas is into gun sex.
Abbas didn't set a date for new elections, and it's not clear how exactly the process would proceed, as P.A. law is vague on electoral procedures. They never did get a lot of practice at it, did they?
Hamas claimed Abbas was free to resign as president, but had no authority to call new parliamentary elections. I'm not sure why you'd have a head of state if not to convene and dismiss parliament. I think even Louis XIV did that a time or two.
Fighting quickly flared after Abbas' announcement. ... as it flares over most things in that part of the world.
In the Gaza Strip, shots were fired at the convoys of the P.A. prime minister and foreign minister, both of them Hamas leaders, and gunmen killed an Abbas bodyguard in a separate incident. That was prob'ly an accident. They tend to blow off thousands of rounds and the casualties they produce are mostly by accident.
U.S.-trained security forces loyal to Abbas fanned out around government buildings. We trained a Fatah security force? Whatever for?
In the streets of the West Bank, there were fist fights violent scuffles between Hamas loyalists and supporters of Abbas' Fatah faction. In Jerusalem and Western capitals, the whirlwind developments drew mixed reactions. A combination of head-scratching, popcorn making, and Milk Duds purchasing for the most part, I believe. Maybe somebody still cares, but the numbers dwindle daily.
While no one was upset to see Hamas under pressure, neither was the prospect of intra-Palestinian bloodshed welcomed. Why not? As long as they're not killing civilized people, let them have a good time.
Even if new elections -- anticipated in mid-2007 -- are held peacefully, there is no guarantee that Hamas won't be re-elected. That'll be the stake through the Fatah heart. The world will be able to move on from that point, rather than pretending.
That surely would sound Fatah's death knell and confirm that the Palestinians are irrevocably taking a radical road. Aye, sonny. Back in my day, by Gar, Fatah was considered radical. But that was long, long ago, in days of yore, before there was bowling.
The Israeli government, which long has called on Abbas to honor his international commitments by cracking down on Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, fell silent Sunday. Fatah can't "crack down" on Hamas and other bad boy groups. The terrs would beat the crap out of them.
Political sources said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had ordered his Cabinet colleagues to keep mum on the P.A. crisis. "Never interrupt while your enemy is self-dstructing." I forget who said that. It might even have been me.
That decision won rare praise from Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab lawmaker and confidant of top Fatah officials. Any overt Israeli action to help Abbas "would only weaken Fatah," Tibi told Army Radio in an interview. I hesitate to point this out, but there's nothing that won't weaken Fatah at this point.
While he voiced worry at the violence in the West Bank and Gaza, Tibi predicted that Abbas would try to leverage the threat of new elections into talks that would prod Hamas toward compromise. They're going for a "government of national unity." That means they're going to take two groups with widely diverging opinions on how to do things and put them on the same committees. The house could catch fire and they wouldn't be able to decide what to do.
But Hamas has proven resilient, weathering a Western aid blockade on the Palestinian Authority and refusing to accommodate international demands that the Palestinian government recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism and honor past P.A. commitments. Even when regimes change, governments are bound by the commitments of preceding regimes.
The United States was less reticent than Israel about the Palestinian Authority crisis. "While the elections are an internal matter, we hope this helps bring the violence to an end and the formation of a Palestinian Authority committed to 'the Quartet' principles," White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said. Not being a member of the United States government, I can be a little more honest: I hope they fight it out, to the last name and the last bullet.
The "Quartet" is a diplomatic grouping made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that's guiding the "road map" peace plan. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was due to arrive later Sunday for a troubleshooting visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, spoke in Abbas' defense. "This is the moment for the international community to come behind him, to help build his authority and his capability, to deliver improvements in the living standards of the Palestinian people, but also in the progress that we all want to see on resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue," Blair said. "Hamas at the present time is not prepared to be constructive," he added. "I think he [Abbas] is serious about elections."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
P.A. law is vague on electoral procedures.
One man, one bullet.
The Israeli government, which long has called on Abbas to honor his international commitments by cracking down on Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, fell silent Sunday.
It's hard to talk, especially when you're laughing hysterically.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
#2
That sentence makes my head spin around 360 degrees. 270 of the degrees are caused by the phrase "a lawmaker with the Islamic terrorist group." Only six or eight of the degrees are caused by the fact that Mushir al-Masri's a "Paleostinian."
#4
A combination of head-scratching, popcorn making, and Milk Duds purchasing for the most part, I believe. Maybe somebody still cares, but the numbers dwindle daily.
In more important matters....dang it Fred, you forgot the Goobers, JuJu bees and Junior Mints. Or, do those come after the collapse of Fatah. My mind's boggling so much with this article, I couldn't remember.
The house could catch fire and they wouldn't be able to decide what to do.
Methinks they could....Hamas would go back in to rescue all the boomer's vests (and blame the Joos for the fire), whereas Fatah would denounce Hamas in English/encourage them in Arabic (and blame the Joos for the fire). But, I digress on this hair-splitting thingy. Carry on Paleos, carry on!
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2006 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#1
In short, what Radical Iran does not control, it shall obstruct via 'the Third". It will be both alleged PARTNER to the USA-West, and dedicated ENEMY to same [GOD-BASED LEFTIES-DEMOCRATS?].
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.
By Jacob Laksin
Duuuude, where's my country? 
