#2
Egyptian democracy movement???? That's Tom for you. One part wisdom to 10 parts drek. Last I looked Egypt was a junta. Ask the Copts about the non-sectarian nature.
#3
The Moslem Brotherhood is the strongest single party organized to win the elections in the Fall in Egypt. The military Junta will look after its own economic perks and they are enormous in Egypt. The Junta will still be there no matter who gets elected and they will be hand to lips with Hamas.
Plus, everybody thinks of Egypt as just another country in the "Middle East".....and forget that Egypt is the key to controlling AFRICA. KaDaffy and Tunisia are also African. This whole thing started on African soil, not Middle Eastern soil. The Pyramids are sitting on silt from AFrica, a LOT of Africa.
And there is still more Oil we havent found yet, I think....in Africa. What I am saying is that we better pay attention to Egypt with Africa as a backround as much as we do to it as a Middle Eastern orientation.
Egypt is ESSENTIAL to dominance of the Middle East, and we have to have dominance in Egypt or we cant play in the Middle Eastern games. BUT in the long game Egypt is the key to dominance in the African Continent.
the Moslems are not our friends and they never will be. They have memories that go back for tens of centuries. We will ALWAYS be Infidel dogs to the Moslems. Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. There isnt any "fair" about it.
To summarize: It's bad! It's awful! Somebody needs to do something, and it had better be the right thing!! No, we don't know what, but those are our demands, and anyway we told you so!!!
[Asharq al-Aswat] Divisions have appeared in the ranks of the military leadership in Yemen, and likewise there have been resignations in the Yemeni diplomatic corps, which means that the forbidden has occurred. If the social contract in Yemen is disbanded, God forbid, then what is happening in Libya will be a mere picnic compared to what will happen there.
We gave warnings about Yemen, and the situation in the country, and many others also issued warnings, but Yemen is not the only neglected Arab concern. There are several countries [in critical situations], and it seems that the hour of reckoning has now arrived, and the outstanding issues have today returned once more. Yemen's problem seems to be endemic of the wider political culture in our region today, which I and many others have described as being a [political] deluge. Yemeni President-for-Life Ali Abdullah Saleh, who once said that ruling Yemen was like dancing with snakes, continues to cling to power after more than three decades in power. The President continues to hold all the strings in the Yemeni [political] game, which has become increasingly complex, and any attempts to resolve the situation today will only lead to further collapse, because the strings in the Yemeni [political] game are already frayed and worn due to extensive manipulation.
The Yemeni crisis was not handled wisely, or with caution, namely via the secure transfer of power. Instead, the Yemeni President announced that the bulk of the people were with him, and that he would not be removed from power. As a result of this, Yemen's future will be disastrous, as this [President-for-Life Saleh's ... exemplifying the Arab's propensity to combine brutality with incompetence... position] is nothing more than a repeat of mistakes that we have seen before. We have seen such mistakes in Ben Ali's "I understand you" speech, or when the Egyptian regime argued that when considering a population of more than 80 million, 1 million protestors taking to the streets was not representative [of the will of the people], however in spite of this Mubarak was still removed from power. In Syria, there are demands for freedom and reform, and the government response has been to utilize the army. This is also a repeat of the Egyptian error, where demands began with the slogans "dignity and freedom...social justice", and the regime responded with excessive police violence, and matters ended with the ouster of the regime. Likewise, we also heard Qadaffy tell his people: "Who are you [the protestors]? There are millions with Muammar [Qadaffy]", however here he is today under international bombardment. However Yemen is not Libya, for Yemen will be transformed into a living hell, for the Yemenis and the Arab Gulf, particularly Soddy Arabia [should Saleh continue to make the same mistakes]. Not only are Al Qaeda and the Houthis present in Yemen, but there are also numerous tribes, an armed civilian population, and those in the south calling for secession. This is a deadly cocktail, therefore is it rational for us to allow Yemen to throw itself into the abyss? This would be pure madness.
Some might say, what is the solution? The answer is that the Yemeni president must today bear his national and moral responsibility and take a position that will assure his place in Yemeni history, rather than him being known as the man who destroyed his country. President Saleh does not have the luxury of time to dance with the snakes again. We warned him of the need to call early elections, and some scoffed at this, and we have today witnessed all the newcomers to the scene, or let us say opportunists [call for him to step down], and now even the pigeons in Yemen have begun to shy away from the regime. This is precisely what we have seen with a number of Yemeni ambassadors abroad announcing their resignations, and therefore the scene in Yemen today is on the verge of exploding.
What is important today is that the Yemeni regime recognizes the significance of timing, in order to avoid the errors of the Egyptian regime. The ball is now in Ali Abdullah Saleh's court, and the court of those who can have a positive influence on him.
This is not mere speculation, but a genuine fear for tomorrow.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
The whole ME is a smelling dung heap. the ways its fought over is like its a Tahitian Paradise. My God, ghetto is as ghettos does. Stinks religious fanatics!
Posted by: bad bagpipe ||
03/23/2011 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
[Yemen Post] Who will be able to rule Yemen if President-for-Life Saleh ... exemplifying the Arab's propensity to combine brutality with incompetence... steps down? This is the rumor of fear pro Saleh followers are spreading among the people, therefore, warning that no one else would be able to rule the country after Saleh, and that chaos will follow his departure.
My reply is simple. Anyone can rule and fail like Saleh.
With more than three decades in power, Saleh would be leaving with not one successful institution within the government circle. Governmental education has been a failure. The judiciary system is corrupt, and governmental hospitals are the least trusted. Electricity is not available in 60% of the country. Public services are the worst in the region and social security has no meaning.
So, what is there to worry about if Saleh leaves power. It's not like Yemen is the most prosperous nation in the region! Saleh's regime has caused a 50% unemployment rate in Yemen and six wars in seven years in the north.
Only the ruling family and the corrupt circle around them have gained.
For those who say I am exaggerating, I ask them to name me one governmental institution that has been successful?
Time has come for President Saleh to say farewell to the seat he has sat on for 33 years. He is also accused of being behind the murders of over a hundred protesters killed over the last month.
Saleh has for long compared Yemenis to snakes, which is degrading, when he compared ruling Yemen like dancing on heads if snakes.
He claimed numerous times in the past six years that he wants to resign but people will not allow him to do so. Well, now his options are limited and will be forced to step down or risk the unsaid.
I sat with a senior government official and he was trying to convince me that Yemenis would risk their lives for Saleh. My question is: why would they risk their lives for a president who kills his own people for personal benefits. Isn't he the one there to serve the people and not the opposite?
It's time that rule returns to the hand of the people.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's time that rule returns to the hand of the people. But what if the people ARE snakes?
#3
The people have never ruled themselves, which suggests an awful lot of blistered hands when they take hold of self-rule.
Good point, but, well, simply swapping out Saleh for some new and improved aftermarket replacement dictator won't improve things any. It's kind of like welfare--the only way to teach people to rely on themselves is to make them actually have to rely on themselves. They're never going to govern themselves unless they get to govern themselves.
...But what if the people ARE snakes?
It all comes down to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
You either agree with that or you don't. If you agree with it, then it's just as true in Yemen as it is in Ypsilanti and Youngstown--meaning that Yemenis have the same unalienable rights as you do, and the same entitlement to govern themselves as you do--which includes the freedom to make bad choices and screw it up. (See also, e.g., Chicago, City of, municipal government.) Thing is, if you agree with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, that's the only morally defensible position you can take.
If you don't agree with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, I'd be curious how you determine who gets to be in charge, and how your solution differs (if at all) from the law of the jungle.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/23/2011 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike, I agree with everything you said HOWEVER (yes the infamous one)if you agree with that 2nd paragraph how you determine who gets to be in charge, and how your solution differs (if at all) from the law of the jungle. and the people ARE snakes then the result of implementing said paragraph does, in fact, mean that the law of the jungle will win out.
That's the way life is in many places in the Arab / Muzzie world and why I believe that we have no business in Libya.
#5
Alan, I understand the concern, and I don't deny that Middle Eastern political culture could use some major improvement. (So could the political culture in my old hometown of Youngstown, but that's a whole 'nother debate.) On the other hand, it won't get any better if they never get the opportunity to make it better. It used to be said that the Irish were unfit for self-rule; that democracy was incompatible with Asian values; that Latin Americans needed a strongman form of government because they were culturally incapable of living in a democracy.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/23/2011 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike, I didn't put that clearly. I have no doubt that on a personal level people in the mideast are capable of democratic self-rule. HOWEVER, yeah that famous one again, your analogies were to ethnicities and not material to what I meant.
My issue is that the cultural millieu won't permit enlightened self rule. We have heard many times from the leading lights of Islam that democracy is antithetical to Islam. As long as Islam holds sway the democratic enlightenment will be quashed. Until that enlightenment takes hold the rule of the jungle (tribal, familial or sect) will hold.
Attaturk tried to forcibly break that model but we now see Turkey devolving into yet another Islamic hell hole. Not there yet but that's the way to bet.
#7
Alan has a point about Allan. And that is why I have become convinced that this will need to appear to future historians like a repeat of the thirty years war for Muslims before it is over. After that the dominant culture may be ready to change enough to accommodate the individual desire for personal freedom and political accountability.
#2
It's clear the rebels screwed up big time by revolting before they checked Bambi's social calendar. It's almost like they thought that Bambi would see their lives as more important than the Final Four.
"How about Tuesday?"
"No way. 18 holes at Pebble Beach."
"OK. Wednesday?"
"No. He's taking the family on a *cough* state visit *cough* to Rio."
"Right. Like that 'state visit' you took to Madam Fatima's. Thursday?"
"You kidding? Sweet Sixteen starts."
"Shoot, it's easier to negotiate with Daffy."
Posted by: Matt ||
03/23/2011 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, when the US Military is engaging Libya along with allies, it would be nice if the Commander in Chief didn't run off to another vacation...
[Dawn] NEARLY a hundred people have been killed in Bloody Karachi over the last two weeks. You've got an entire nation of people who're defined by who they hate and how much. That's known as "cause." Karachi is a synonym for "effect."
Is it this city`s fate to suffer in silence? Silence punctuated by the occasional kaboom or bangety-bang. That sounds about right.
Is there no solution to the violence that has torn Bloody Karachi apart and which has now reached a level of chaos that is becoming increasingly difficult to decipher? I'd suggest agnosticism. Any country with a Ministry of Religious Affairs has the potential to become Pakistain.
Earlier, it was relatively easy to identify foes and the perpetrators of specific incidents of murder. The [cause] large, anonymous city leads to [effect] anonymous crime. Who knows who dunnit when you don't know your neighbors?
The finger of blame, not an easy thing to raise publicly in Bloody Karachi, could then be pointed in private with considerable surety at one political group or the other. You can't do it in public or they'll kill you.
Now the situation is much murkier as `assassinations` are being carried out by a wide spectrum of operators, including hardened criminals of little or no ideological or political bent. Because they can. If there was a significant possibility of them being caught and executed they wouldn't do it. They might even get jobs, though that'd be going to an extreme.
Ethnicity and sectarianism -- call it plain hatred for the other -- come into it of course, as do the yearnings of some to check a demographic shift that could undermine their position at the polls. Respect accrues to the guy with the heaviest artillery. As long as he's got it, he's gonna use it, since there's no consequence to doing so.
Then there is the lust for power, a `this is our area` syndrome, that otherwise unempowered citizens find so heady that they can kill real or perceived opponents to achieve their objectives. Dogs are territorial, too. They'll chase other dogs out of their yards.
And let`s not forget the land mafia. Bloody Karachi, despite its myriad problems, is still prime real estate and the fight over grabbing a piece of the pie is also claiming lives. The last week or so has seen a spike in liquidations that are not readily understood, for they could be attributed to a combination of all these factors. Importing a bunch of Pashtuns along with their artillery and their macho ways didn't make things work a lot better.
How long will it be repeated, in print and on television, that Bloody Karachi burns again? Probably past the date when Pakistain becomes a secular state. The violence is a cultural thing that's fanned into white heat by the religion.
Somehow sporadic carnage has become an accepted fact of life in the city. People keep score, without much inner reflection, of how many are killed on any given day, almost just as casually as they ask passers-by about the latest from the cricket World Cup. Such desensitisation does not bode well for the future. True, most people have no choice but to get on with it, to get to their workplaces every day and earn a livelihood come what may. But the psychological scars of this relentless exposure to, and tacit acceptance of, violence will only become more engraved over time. It's part of the culture, part of the local variant of the religion.
It is time for all groups that claim ownership of Bloody Karachi to come together and end this madness. It's not gonna end with everybody singing Kumbaya. More likely in either a mass shootout or with a solution imposed by grownups from outside.
What has become `normal` is unacceptable and the blame game that dominates life in Bloody Karachi cannot provide any solutions. The rest of the world laughs at Pakistain. They can't admit it to themselves, in fact they hold themselves up as a model for the rest of the failed-state set.
Genuine grievances need to be aired around a table, not through guns or -- in a new twist to an already deadly situation -- hand grenades. Our elected representatives must restore the rule of law. It won't happen when the law's for sale. Even if it wasn't for sale, the way it's built doesn't work. There's no State vs. Mahmoud. Criminal law's still based on a tort model, blood money can still be paid, and vendetta's still a way of life. Come back and talk to us when you've grown up.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Is there no solution to the violence
There is, but I could be sinktrapped for detailing it.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/23/2011 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I was thinking in terms of surgically inserted (silicon) chip that monitors the level of nor-adrenaline in the body---and induces an epileptic fit whenever said level passes a prescribed threshold.
It is such a comfort to know in a world of change, some things can still be relied upon. Like the irritating behavior of France. President Nicolas Sarkozy is reported to have refused to approve NATO military plans for operations in Libya until leaders were assembled in Paris -- and then launched French aircraft sans coordination with allies.
But there is still no agreement to whom command will be passed. British Prime Minister Cameron insists it must be NATO; Sarkozy insists not. The French defense spokesman now suggests all participating military forces should have the honor of serving under French national command. Turkish Defense Minister expressed mystification, saying "It does not seem quite possible for us to understand France's being so much at the forefront in this action." Italian Foreign Minister Frattini threatens Italy will not allow use of its bases unless it becomes a NATO operation. The French and German ambassadors walked out yesterday after criticism by the NATO Secretary General of France for unilateralism and Germany for not participating.
Posted by: Oscar Spineck3066 ||
03/23/2011 14:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the dissolution of NATO is one of Zero's agenda items to get in good with his dictator and commie friends it looks like he's making a good start.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Well then Hassan, you said in your fiery speech last Saturday that those who criticised the Shia Bahraini opposition, and their protests in Manama's Pearl Square, were applying double standards with regard to their views of the Arab revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. According to you, there is no difference between the Qadaffy family and the al-Khalifa family. Let us now return to this comparison in order to examine the situation in Syria, which has become the latest country to tremble because of the Arab domino effect, as demonstrations sparked and the Syrian security forces killed a number of citizens in violent festivities. Why didn't we hear any support from Hassan Nasrallah, a man who shows such contempt for double standards, for the first indications of a popular revolution in Syria? The Syrian demonstrations had the same elements to inspire the Arab masses in the manner of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, and were completely void of the sectarian elements. Furthermore, what is the noble Hassan Nasrallah's view of the despotism and tyranny of the Iranian government, not only against the oppressed Sunni minority, who are deprived of the most basic religious and political rights, but also against the reformists, the majority of whom were disciples of the Khomeini revolution who have now dispensed of their robes?
The eternal problem for Hezbullies in Leb, and its supporters in some Gulf States, is that they want immunity for their actions, statements, positions and manoeuvres. They do not want to be questioned about what they are doing. In Leb, the argument of the never-ending conflict with the Zionist enemy made it incumbent upon the Arab masses to support Hezbullies in its battles against Israel. However, The infamous However... when Hezbullies aimed its guns inwards towards Leb itself, and towards Sunni districts in West Beirut in particular, and when its fighters devastated those areas, it was then incumbent for strong criticism to be directed towards the party, even from those who openly supported its war with Israel. Hezbullies then raised the sectarian card against such critics.
The same thing is happening today in Bahrain, particularly with the Bahraini Shia opposition. Several calm and rational voices have emerged and tried to make the Shia opposition in Bahrain understand that their revolution -- by virtue of the facts and numbers -- is completely different to the Arab revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, and even Libya and Yemen, because the revolutions and demonstrations in those countries were not tinged with sectarianism, and this is agreed upon by neutral observers. Yet although these voices were simply trying to spare the region the ordeals of sectarian conflict, they have been accused of sectarianism by some, for example by Hassan Nasrallah in his latest speech. However the facts on the ground confirm that the Bahraini Shia opposition are primarily responsible for inciting sectarian tensions in the region, through their close communication with Iran. They initially proposed somewhat unrealistic demands, and then moved the goalposts altogether by changing their slogan from "the people want reform", which was a rational claim, to "the people want the regime to fall". This is in reference to a regime that, despite its flaws, has granted the Shia in Bahrain what the Sunnis in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya combined have not achieved. The opposition in Bahrain occupy around half the seats in parliament, hold senior government positions, and practice their religious rites freely. Yet we must either support their demands to bring down the government, or be ready to face the accusation of sectarianism.
Therefore Hassan Nasrallah was not wise when he said there was no difference between the Qadaffy family and the al-Khalifa family, as there is a massive difference between the two. Now he must answer us regarding the difference between the families of Qadaffy, al-Assad, and Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
A simple plan...when you see any of these references, run!:
CAIR
Social or Restorative Justice
Stimulus
Liberation theology
Truth Commission
ACLU
Reparations
Soros
MSMBC
NPR
Posted by: Jack Salami ||
03/23/2011 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
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.
[Dawn] NEARLY a hundred people have been killed in 
[Asharq al-Aswat] Well then Hassan, you said in your fiery speech last Saturday that those who criticised the Shia Bahraini opposition, and their protests in Manama's Pearl Square, were applying double standards with regard to their views of the Arab revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. According to you, there is no difference between the Qadaffy family and the al-Khalifa family. Let us now return to this comparison in order to examine the situation in Syria, which has become the latest country to tremble because of the Arab domino effect, as demonstrations sparked and the Syrian security forces killed a number of citizens in violent 
