Saudi Arabian Airlines declares on its English-language Web site that the kingdom bans "Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David." Until the Saudi government changes this detestable policy, I say its airline should be barred from flying into Western airports.
Michael Freund focused attention to this regulation in a recent Jerusalem Post article, "Saudis might take Bibles from tourists," in which he pointed out that a section on the SAA Web site, "Customs Regulations," lists the disapproved articles above under the rubric "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam."
Freund followed up by calling the SAA office in New York, where "Gladys" confirmed that this rule really is applied. "Yes, sir, that is what we have heard, that it is a problem to bring these things into Saudi Arabia, so you cannot do it." An unnamed official at the Saudi consulate in New York further confirmed the regulation. "You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom. If you do, they will take it away. If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don't recommend that you do so."
Responding to the Saudi ban on churches and Bibles and Stars of David, some would ban mosques, Korans and crescent moons in the West, but that is clearly untenable and unenforceable, given the freedoms of speech and worship. The Koran, for example, is not a Saudi artifact and cannot be held hostage to Saudi policies. However closely it identifies with Islam, the Saudi government does not own the religion. Further, as Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism points out, signs in Saudi airports warn Muslim travelers that the airport's mutawwa'in (religious police) confiscate Korans, other Islamic literature and Muslim objects of non-Saudi origin.
While discriminating specifically against Shi'ites and Ahmadis, this policy manifests a broader insistence on Wahhabi supremacism. More broadly, the Saudi leadership runs a country that the US government has repeatedly condemned as having "no religious freedom" and being among the most religiously repressive in the world.
SAA, the state-owned national carrier and its portal to the world, offers a pressure point for change. To take advantage of this vulnerability, Western governments should demand that unless the Saudi government at least permits "that stuff" to come in, SAA faces exclusion from the 18 airports it presently services in Europe, North America and Japan.
Were those routes shut down, Riyadh would face a tough choice:
Ignore this action. Allowing Western airlines to service Saudi Arabia without reciprocity would presumably be too great a humiliation for the monarchy to abide.
Cut off the Western airlines in return. Cutting off the Western airlines would unacceptably isolate Saudis from major markets and premier destinations.
Permit non-Wahhabi religious items. That would leave the Saudis with no choice but to accept the import of "Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David." Further, once these materials are allowed, other benefits would likely follow, such as permitting non-Islamic religious buildings and services in Saudi Arabia for the millions of non-Muslims resident there. Muslims who reject the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam would also eventually benefit from this loosening.
Such joint action would also send a long-overdue signal to the despots of Riyadh - that Westerners have thrown off their servile obeisance to their writ.
Who will be first to act? Which national government or municipality will arise from the customary dhimmi posture and ban SAA (slogan: "We aim to please you") from its runways, thereby compelling the kingdom to permit infidel religious items, monotheistic and polytheistic alike, into its territory Where are you Athens, Frankfurt, Geneva, Houston, London, Madrid, Málaga, Manchester, Milan, Munich, New York, Nice, Osaka, Paris, Prague, Rome, Vienna and Washington, DC?
If no government acts, what about a delegation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others boarding an SAA flight with much publicity, openly displaying their religious artifacts, daring the airline to confiscate them? Or which public service law firm in those 11 countries will bring local human rights suits against SAA as an arm of the Saudi government?
This issue provides an opportunity for left and right to unite against radical Islam. Who will take the lead to confront Saudi discrimination, arrogance and repression?
#4
But they can build mosques throughout the West????
Look at this site for more info re our so called allies-
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
Posted by: Paul ||
08/23/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The best response is to nuke Riyadh when all the princes and princesses are there, take over and rule the place by a consortium of Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Brazil and the US, outlaw Wahabbism (but NOT Islam - at least, not yet), and give Kuwait or Oman the concession to operate the Haj. It'll take longer, but eventually the entire MME would change. You'd also break the back of OPEC - an agency that supports more than a few despots.
ANY problem can be solved, if you're willing to do what's necessary. Unfortunately, most of the West wants to shove the problems under the rug, rather than do the hard work of solving them.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/23/2007 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
OP. Better yet return to its rightful owner - the hashemite kingdom of Jordan. You can drink in Jordan. The are educated and pro-western. Plus they don't tolerate the Paleos.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/23/2007 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The west is incapable of a proper boycott. The French or Russians would continue flights into Saudi Arabia (with some nice oil deals to boot) and nothing would change.
Karl Marx took a dim view of India and its heritage.
Writing in the New York Tribune dated June 25, 1853 (quoted in Lewis S Feuer edited Marx and Engels Basic Writings, Anchor Books, NY 1959, pp. 474-481) he claimed that the Golden Age of India was all myth and India was always a poor starving country. He further went on to admire and appreciate the British for destroying the Indian village industry and economy so that India could modernise.
But to the Indian communists, the words of Marx are like commandments from God. Their devotion to the dead communism can be seen on the walls of Calcutta, possibly the only city in the world where you can find pictures of Marx, Lenin and Stalin displayed with pride.
Following the footsteps of Marx, the Indian communists have deep hatred of anything Indian and are opponents of any kind of pride in Indian heritage. The communists also hold that India is not one nation but a collection of nationalities.
Another major tenet of Indian Marxists orthodoxy is that for national reconstruction you have to first destroy the existing nation.
The communists have had many ideological splits. Communists in India are splintered into several groupings like the CPI, CPM, CPI (M-L), Maoists and the Peoples War Group. But despite several historical blunders that they keep committing with regularity, they have all remained steadfast to the twin agenda of weakening and destroying the existing Indian nation and obliterate the bourgeois notion of pride in Indias past.
Thus in 1942 the communists not just supported the British but also acted as their stool pigeons. Many underground revolutionaries were betrayed to the British secret police, who went on to hang them. George Orwell has written extensively on this subject and evidence of this is littered in declassified files of British India, now available at India Office Library and Records in London.
Subhas Chandra Bose, who fought for Indian freedom and was no Japanese stooge, was denounced as fascist and vilified by the Marxists. In todays communist-ruled Bengal, the towering contributions of Swami Vivekananda are a distant memory and sought to be pushed out of public memory. Neither is Aurobindo Ghosh remembered. All the three are inconvenient to Marxist ideology.
The communists began their offensive against India right from the time of Independence. The Telangana armed uprising was a direct challenge to the newly independent nation. Unfortunately for the Marxists, under the efficient and ruthless Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Indian police and armed forces crushed the rebellion with ease. The Naxalite uprising in 1970 met a similar fate. .
Most of the time, the communists mask their real agenda under a constant propaganda about their concern for poor. It is another matter that in their disclosure to the election commission most champions of poor Communists happen to be millionaires several times over. (The Statesman, April 22, 2004. Somnath Chatterjis declared assets exceed Rs 5 crore).
The Marxists participate in and use the democratic process but constantly deride Indian democracy vis a vis Chinese one party rule. Marxists wear a mask of nationalism but the mask sometimes slips, as in 1962 during the Chinese attack on India when the Marxists came out openly on the side of the Chinese.
On November 13, 1962 while replying to the discussions in the Rajya Sabha, Lal Bahadur Shastri pointed out that Jyoti Basu equated India with China during the war and called the Chinese aggression as provoked by Indian statements and across an imaginary line called MacMohan line. But the Marxists were not merely satisfied with words. Kalimpong town had become a den of Chinese spies. Every move of the Indian army was monitored and reported to the enemy. Like in 1942, the communists played a major role in helping the Chinese.
The long-time ideological opponents of Indian nationalism painted a frightening scenario when India tested nuclear weapons in 1998. They had greeted with a deafening silence each of the 45 declared nuclear tests carried out by China since 1964. How come that throughout this feverish pursuit by China of the means of nuclear deterrence, the Indian communists never showed the slightest anxiety about a possible outbreak of a nuclear war in Asia? The answer lies in their conviction that China's policy stemmed from genuine nationalism as distinguished from India's alleged pseudo-nationalism.
The Chinese ideologues, until now, did not manipulate their admirers in India. This was dictated by Chinese pessimism about the future of the communist movement in India. More relevantly, the Chinese communists did not fail to notice that the CPM and the CPI did not have 10 per cent of the seats in the Parliament in the 13 General Elections held so far. But after the last elections which left a trifurcated verdict, the Marxists have gained a whip hand at the centre.
While it is difficult to reverse the nuclearisation that has taken place in India, the Marxists have found a way out.
The Common Minimum Programme talks about changing the Indo-Israel relations. The allusion is directly to the defence relationship. It is through this that India had been promised the Falcon airborne system that would give India a decided advantage over China and Pakistan in air battles. China too wanted this system but the contract was cancelled under American pressure. Now by downgrading relations with US, the Marxists wish to cripple Indian defence and help China.
In all their plans of spreading communism in India, the Marxists believe that the strong Indian armed forces are the biggest obstacle. Their hatred of the armed forces is seen through many petty acts that the West Bengal government regularly inflicts on the armed forces personnel. Presently the Indian army seems to be getting an upper hand over the Pakistani sponsored terrorists thanks to the infantry equipment and training co-ordination with Israelis. The Marxists hope that severing this link will automatically weaken the armed forces, their biggest adversary.
The Cold War has been over for over a decade now. During that period, Indian and Soviet interests coincided and the two had a quasi-alliance for over 25 years. The Indo-Soviet Friendship treaty of 1971 stood the test of time.
In the new millennium India faces an unstable Pakistan to the west and a rising China that lays claims to the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh to the north and east. And while Chinese naval expansion proceeds at a hectic pace, Beijing does not miss any opportunity to check/thwart India at all international forums.
The US is concerned over the rise of China and its internal stability. It is interested in ensuring the rise of India to balance China in Asia. The US is also affected by Islamist terrorism and is fearful of Talibanisation of Pakistan.
These basic and fundamental national interests of US and India converge and are likely to remain for most of 21st century. The US-India strategic partnership was hamstrung by the domestic American legislation that denied technology to India due to her non-adherence to NPT. The present nuclear deal is an effort to overcome that hurdle and forge a strategic partnership between the two. Technical experts, scientists and bureaucrats have worked for over two years to hammer out a successful treaty.
The Indo-US nuclear deal is opposed by Pakistan, China and al Qaeda. It is indeed surprising that some Indian political parties with frozen mindsets, opportunism or ideological anti-national orientation are also opposing this deal. A canard is being spread that an economically powerful and nuclear weapons armed India is thus likely to be subservient to the US. India has withstood its ground in worse times. It appears that these political forces are more concerned about the interest of China rather than their own country.
It is time the Indian citizens raised their voice and nullified the evil designs of parties who had sided with the enemy when our jawans were dying on the Himalayan border in 1962.
Col. (retd) Anil A Athale is a Fellow at the Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research. A former Joint Director (History Division) and infantryman, he has been running an NGO, Peace and Disarmament, based in Pune for the past 10 years. As a military historian he specialises in insurgency and peace process.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/23/2007 14:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
August 23, 2007: Al Qaeda doesn't issue many press releases about its casualties, and for good reason. The Iraqi government recently announced that it had killed over half the civilian leadership of al Qaeda, and in the last few months, three senior al Qaeda military commanders have been killed. As a result of all this, al Qaeda tries to keep the identities of its senior military guys secret, as Iraqi and American intelligence is quick to track down any al Qaeda big shot that is identified.
But the most compelling bit of new on al Qaedas demise in Iraq is the changing composition of the hostiles there. At the beginning of the year, about 70 percent of terror attacks were by al Qaeda, and their Sunni Arab allies. Now, only about fifty percent of, a lower number of, those attacks are al Qaeda. The rest are Iranian supported Shia Arab groups, who are also trying to establish a religious dictatorship in Iraq (one run by Shias, not by Sunnis, as al Qaeda wants.) Al Qaeda is taking a major beating because so many Sunni Arab tribes have turned on it. Three years ago, al Qaeda formed a coalition with the Sunni Arab tribes, promising that al Qaeda terrorists would put Sunni Arabs back in charge of the country. Few Sunni Arabs still believe that, and consider al Qaeda a murderous nuisance.
Iran has backed Shia Arab militias even before the 2003 invasion. Iranian involvement goes back to the 1980s war with Iraq (and even earlier). One of the reasons for that war (which began with an Iraqi invasion of Iran), was Shia clerics taking over the government in Iran, and announcing their intention to take over the world. While the rest of the world was not too concerned, Saddam Hussein was. That's because most (well, 60 percent back then) of Iraqis are Shia Moslems, just like over 90 percent of Iranians. Iran wanted to influence Iraqi Shias, and convince them (through persuasion or intimidation) to support Iran. Once Saddam was out of the way, Iran went forward with its plan. Islamic radicals in the Iranian government are willing to start another civil war in Iraq to get their way. And that's what's happening now, as U.S. troops go after Iranian supported Iraqi Shias who have been attacking American troops.
Iran is not Al Qaeda. We need to isolate the ruling elite and radical clerics by reaching out to the Iranian people directly.
By Marc Gopin and Gregory Meeks
Washington - There have been persistent rumors in Washington that President Bush does not want to leave office without "doing something" about Iran. Even more alarming, there have been rumors that Mr. Bush has solicited a green light from Russian President Vladimir Putin for Israel to "do something" about Iran.
Russia once again plays all sides at once.
One of the central problems with the Bush administration is that it thinks military first and sometimes military only with disastrous results for America. Though military action is an option, the consequences of the United States or Israel attacking Iran would be catastrophic.
If it's catastrophic then it's not an option, is it? And if it's an option, one could perhaps consider situations where the use of military force would not be catastrophic.
Fortunately, the American people do not want this to happen. Only 10 percent approve of a military confrontation with Iran, according to a CBS/New York Times poll in March, and most worry about America's troubled relationship with the Muslim world. A large majority are concerned that the Iraq war is destroying America's international reputation. They do not want to make matters worse.
Fewer than 10 percent of Americans have a clear understanding of what Iran is doing to destabilize Iraq, promote terrrorism, undermine Lebanon, sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah, prop up Syria, and in general make an all-round nuisance of itself. Educate the American people and then re-ask the question.
Even fewer know or care about the Iranian chicanery in Central and South America.
Iran is not Al Qaeda. It is a complex society that combines clerical rule, populism, and a series of power groups. The most dangerous are the Revolutionary Guard, composed of a powerful and wealthy military elite, whose influence can only continue if the world isolates Iran.
This is the usual argument from the Cold War: if only we 'opened up' to the Communists we could end the isolation of their countries. This usually meant our making concession after concession without extracting anything of use from the Russkies. I think this style of foreign policy was called, 'realism'.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also depends on the populist appeal of confrontation with the West bolstered recently by the Bush administration's labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Achilles' heel is that Mr. Ahmadinejad's popular appeal only works when the West is unpopular, and nothing could be more unpopular to Iranians than a US-inspired attack. An external attack often shifts public opinion to the hard right.
Often but not always. Context is everything. Much of the Iranian people profess admiration for us despite -- or because of -- what's happened so far. A military intervention that (for example) knocked the Mad Mullahs out of the way and let the Iranian people choose a government might not harm popular opinion of us at all.
The Revolutionary Guard's new terrorist label, which fetters more than frees US diplomacy efforts, should not offer a convenient excuse for further disengagement.
How exactly does it fetter us? Instead it provides us with a valuable diplomatic and suasive tool: it's called, 'clarity'. When Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an 'evil empire', it didn't bind him in the least, rather it allowed him to make clear and succient what the nature of the problem was. The Soviets were indeed an evil empire. The Revolutionary Guards are indeed a terrorist organization. Make that clear and you've gone a fair ways to understanding both the nature of the problem and the solution that is required.
Rather, the perfect way to isolate the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian president, and the radical clerics, is to invite the Iranian people into an ever more hopeful relationship with the West.
Which we've been doing, though the authors have failed to notice because we haven't been blowing our trumpets about it. We've been quietly undermining the Mad Mullahs by helping the Iranian people get to western culture. They love it and they want more of it. We don't need to proselytize; we can let our culture speak for us.
The time for doing this is perfect. President Ahmadinejad has failed to deliver on his campaign promises of better consumer prices. Iranians are also distressed by unprecedented oil rationing.
The authors missed how the Bush administration has been working quietly behind the scenes to help this along, tightening financial screws and making business more difficult for the Mullahs. It's not perfect but there has indeed been a strategy in place.
Some in Washington might say that this is attributable to US-led sanctions, though it is worth noting that America's allies are resisting and perhaps with good reason.
Because they want the money.
Unilateral sanctions have not proved to be an effective way to change a country's behavior.
That didn't stop the Left from advocating sanctions against South Africa back in the day, and doesn't stop the Looney Left from advocating sanctions against Israel today. I'd like to see the authors take a stand against those, just for intellectual consistency.
First, according to a recent study by David Lektzian of Texas Tech University and Christopher Sprecher of Texas A&M University, sanctions actually make it far more likely that two states will meet on the battlefield. Out of 200 cases studied, military conflicts were six times more likely to occur when sanctions were in place.
Just like South Africa.
Second, as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the weight of sanctions would burden the Iranian regime less than it would the Iranian people.
George Bush had a solution for that. He agreed that the sanctions weren't containing Saddam and were only hurting the decent Iraqi people. You may wish to note how he responded.
In a recent poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a nonprofit research group that develops strategies to counter terrorism,
... and a group comprised of the usual sorts of 'realists' who were too happy to accomodate the Soviets because we didn't want to anger them ...
70 percent of Iranians thought that normal relations with the West should be a high priority, but only 29 percent thought nuclear energy should be, and an astonishing 61 percent disapproved of Ahmadinejad's government.
Those numbers should tell us something: we need to apply more pressure on the Mad Mullahs, not less. They're in a weak position and could easily collapse. Instead, the authors advocate snatching defeat from victory.
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers.
Absolutely wrong, and wrong for a simple reason: there's no way to reach 'the people' with any of those incentives and opportunities.
The authors may not realize this (pro'ly not given what they've written), but you see, Iran is a 'dictatorship': a government controlled and run by a group of clerical thugs for their own, personal benefit. The usual way 'incentives' and 'opportunities' work in a dictatorship is that they're all channeled to the thugs, their families and toadies. The poor working stiffs see nothing. And just try to audit them, let alone call them on their thievery and thuggery. The authors would brandish a carrot -- the Mullahs will eat the carrot and demand another one. Then another one. This will keep going, and if you dare suggest that we perhaps shouldn't offer any more carrots, you'll be accused of 'taking a step backwards'.
Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector,
... so as to grab a few table scraps ...
the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
They'll be increasingly marginalized by ensuring that we don't do stupid things that keep them in power, like giving them an unlimited supply of carrots.
Admittedly, much of what we're prescribing dovetails with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. We thought it appropriate to offer a reminder. The American people must tell their leaders to lead with a big stick, but peacefully, and with respect for a great civilization.
It's precisely because we respect the great civilization of Medes and Persians that we need to remove the Mad Mullahs.
Marc Gopin is the James Laue Professor at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and the director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution. Gregory Meeks is a Democrat who represents the Sixth District of New York in the House of Representatives and serves on the foreign affairs committee.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[19 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like that "News organization" does not understand the nuance of what this really is. Ever heard of GOG or MAGOG?
But thanks for the suggestion. It is in the box.
P.S. Natural allies means with the people, not that mullahcracy.
#3
Nice job, Steve. You've more patience than I. What nonsense - and how typical - we're awash in this sophomoric crap. "Conflict resolution" was how WWII was ended.
One of the central problems with the Bush administration is that it thinks military first and sometimes military only with disastrous results for America.
WTF? What hallucinogenic make-believe world do these idiots inhabit? Yes - the one created by the pathetic, tendentious media that misinforms and energetically constructs vast edifices of distortion and fabrication.
Name a single time the Bush admin. has thought "military first, military only" - a single time. Or any time there have been "disastrous consequences for America". Any.
Don't forget, this childish garbage is exactly the sort of crap that is pushed on college and even some high school students. Many, to their credit, resist (a friend teaches the most popular classes at a state college, as a guest lecturer, and many students confide in him that they get only crap like this in their other courses). But that this sort of junk can even be published demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance and delusion among "educated" folks.
#5
Iran is not Al Qaeda. We need to isolate the ruling elite and radical clerics by reaching out to the Iranian people directly.
I think we were trying that and Iran found out and tossed all the operatives in jail.
Although it's not clear that they were there specifically to foment insurrection, and even if they were, it's not clear they were working at the behest of the US govt or Sorostan.
#6
How to challenge Iran's militancy without using arms
What, you mean kick them to death? That doesn't use any arms.
As the massive amount of justified inline indicates, this entire article is one gigantic rectal fetch. The authors are not just clueless, they are dangerously clueless.
#7
An external attack often shifts public opinion to the hard right.
Which laughably absurd statement puts the writers neatly into their conceptual box, nails the lid down firmly, and buries it six feet under the ground.
#8
This is an ongoing debate here at Rantburg U. My idea is that the time to deal diplomatically with the Mad Mullahs passed some 25 years ago, and the best at this point we can hope for is airstrikes to degrade Iran's ability to wage nuclear war.
This is not the first option: it is the only option. Some here argue that a softer approach may tip the Mullahs over and my response is: after 2 severe oil price breaks and a bloody war in 28 years, what makes you think that a pinprick here or sabotage there will do anyhing but provide dinner conversation for Iranian Islamists?
And a leftist presidency in 2008 would be a nightmare for America, for as badly as Iran has been handled to date, none of us want to see the left in this country maintain their crowning diplomatic ahievement in the latter half of the 20th Century, Islamic Iran.
Please, Iranians don't do diplomacy. But I wonder how long it will before this lesson sinks in and will it sink in before the first Iranian nuke flies.
#9
It's not a question of means. It's a question of will and the perception that we have that will. Given mealy mouth hand wringing approaches attempted time and time again in the past with the ineffectual results, why should the adversary ever be concerned?
#11
The authors may not realize this (pro'ly not given what they've written), but you see, Iran is a 'dictatorship': a government controlled and run by a group of clerical thugs for their own, personal benefit.
More of a kleptocracy, but that's quibbling. And it's not just the clerics on the take. The IRGC seized a major portion of the economy recently. There are some estimates that their wealth and economic power is higher than the mullahs.
Then again, anyone with experience with Iranians knows they are quick to sense an ethically questionable opportunity, and make the most of it.
my response is: after 2 severe oil price breaks and a bloody war in 28 years, what makes you think that a pinprick here or sabotage there will do anyhing but provide dinner conversation for Iranian Islamists?
We've gone through this before. My response is (again): 28 years. Twenty eight years. A lot changes in 28 years. Iran back then is not the same Iran now.
All that said, Gopin is an idiot. Meeks... well, let's just say he fits his name.
#12
More of a kleptocracy, but that's quibbling. And it's not just the clerics on the take. The IRGC seized a major portion of the economy recently. There are some estimates that their wealth and economic power is higher than the mullahs.
I agree and could have (and should have) used 'kleptocracy' to describe the Mad Mullahs and their IRGC dogs. I didn't want to use polysyllabic words with Messrs. Gopin and Meeks ;-)
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/23/2007 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
A totalitarian kleptocracy. Entirely too many syllables for such brilliant (for a given definition of brilliant, anyway) conflict analysts to grasp comfortably.
#14
This is not the first option: it is the only option.
Word, badanov. We cannot rely upon a subsequent administrationbe it democrat or republicanto take the needed measures against Iran. All other options slid over the event horizon long, long ago. Catastrophic dismantling of Iran's nuclear R7D even outweighs decapitating their government, although I certainly wouldn't object to a two-fer.
Bitter rivalry between Lebanon's political camps and between their respective foreign backers could torpedo next month's presidential election, threatening a new constitutional crisis, instability and economic paralysis. The poll is the next battle in a struggle that pits the ruling coalition backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia against a Shi'ite-Christian opposition including the powerful Hezbollah group, which enjoys Syrian and Iranian support.
According to the constitution, parliament should meet on September 25 to elect a successor to President Emile Lahoud, a close Syrian ally whose term ends at midnight on November 23. But the vote is unlikely to happen then or before the end of Lahoud's term without a settlement of the political standoff which has paralyzed Lebanon since November and triggered outbreaks of strife reminiscent of the 1975-1990 civil war. "Everybody is awaiting the positions of the Americans and the influential regional states," a senior Lebanese politician said. "All the talk on the local level is just to pass time."
Syria's insistence on extending Lahoud's term in 2004 raised tension in Lebanon and provoked U.S.-led pressure on Damascus. Replacing Lahoud with someone independent of Syrian tutelage has been a priority for supporters of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government since Syrian troops left Lebanon in 2005, amid an outcry over the killing of ex-premier Rafik al-Hariri. Hezbollah is equally determined to stop the presidency falling into the hands of political adversaries it says are controlled by Washington.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, I know you do not want hezbollah running your country, do you? Or are you that dumb? This is a sanctuary city aforementioned. Do you want to throw that away to sheite heads? Heads or tails? It is your damn country. Question is, will I ever get to visit it again?
On August 14, the anniversary of the end of last summer's Lebanon war, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned Israel of a "big surprise" if it initiated a new conflict in the South. Analysts immediately began speculating over the nature of the promised surprise. But what is most important to note is that Hezbollah, a year after its last war, is making serious preparations for the next one.
The Litani Line
The most significant development in southern Lebanon since the end of the 2006 war is Hezbollah's construction of a defensive line north of the Litani River. Whereas all territory south of the Litani falls under the jurisdiction of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), territory north of the river is off-limits to UNIFIL.
As soon as the war with Israel ended, wealthy Hezbollah sympathizers began buying up land north of the Litani -- in historically Christian and Druze areas -- at prices well above the market rate. Much of the Christian village of Chbail, for example, has been bought by the Shiite businessman Ali Tajeddine and repopulated with poor Shiites from the south. Another village just south of the Litani has been built entirely from scratch. Such developments have alarmed other Lebanese communities for purely sectarian reasons. But the construction and repopulation of these villages is almost certainly intended to link the traditionally Shiite villages of the western Bekaa Valley with those of southern Lebanon.
Most of this construction is along a new, Iranian-funded road being built along the Litani's northern edge. Constructed by the "Iranian Organization for Sharing in the Building of Lebanon," the road is as large as any in southern Lebanon and features signs every few hundred meters with slogans such as "In the service of the people of Lebanon."
To be sure, there is nothing implicitly wrong with either the resettlement of impoverished Shiites or the development of large public works projects. But these moves mask a static defensive line that Hezbollah intends to use in what it sees as the inevitable sequel to last summer's fight against Israel. Using friendly Shiite-dominated villages as fighting bases was key to Hezbollah's successes last summer. The Litani River valley offers Hezbollah an opportunity to link these villages with other Shiite villages in the Bekaa Valley.
Why the Litani?
From the perspective of a Hezbollah military planner, it is difficult to surmise what strategic objectives Israel might seek to accomplish in the event of another war. Hezbollah is left in the awkward position of trying to answer the question of how Israel might fight without knowing why it would fight.
At the moment, the group seems to think that despite Israel's heavy reliance on airpower in the last war -- with ground forces deployed in only a limited fashion -- the next war would begin with a much larger Israeli ground assault. Any attempt to defend the area south of the Litani would therefore be suicidal. Moreover, the deployment of 12,000 UN peacekeepers and several thousand Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) personnel has made the construction of static defensive lines in southern Lebanon much more difficult than it was before summer 2006. Accordingly, even as Hezbollah continues to train village units south of the Litani in the hope that they could slow an Israeli ground invasion, the group has constructed its main defensive positions to the north, where the terrain favors the defender and where Hezbollah could deny Israeli armor columns easy access to the Bekaa Valley.
Although Hezbollah had ample time to prepare for the last war -- which the group initiated with its decision to kidnap two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006 -- the next clash could result from either a wider regional conflict or an Israeli decision to finish the job begun in 2006. Whether or not there is a real danger of a war initiated by either Israel or Syria matters little for the purpose of understanding Hezbollah's strategy -- at the moment, the group seems convinced that another war is likely.
Another good reason for Hezbollah to build positions north of the Litani is that this approach allows for entrenched positions that can house medium- and long-range missiles. Hezbollah successfully launched large numbers of short-range and largely ineffective katyusha rockets into Israel in 2006, but the Israeli air force had knocked out its longer-range and more potent arsenal just a few days into the fighting.
Israeli planners, for their part, have never understood why Hezbollah felt the need to launch rockets from such advanced positions in the first place. Launching them from the other side of the Litani -- over the heads of UNIFIL and the LAF -- has the advantage of leaving Hezbollah positions unharassed by the initial stages of an Israeli ground invasion. From positions north of the Litani, Hezbollah katyushas could comfortably reach major Israeli population centers vulnerable from firing positions along the border (e.g., the 16,000 people in the town of Kiryat Shimona), while its longer-range missiles could reach more distant potential targets such as Haifa and even Tel Aviv.
All along the Iranian-built route north of the Litani, new roads and trails are springing up where once there were only trees and rocks. Where do these roads go, and what is taking place there? It is difficult to tell because many of them have been designated closed "military areas," patrolled by Hezbollah gunmen. To longtime Lebanon observers, these areas evoke memories of border zones similarly off-limits between 2000 and 2006, used to great effect by Hezbollah as reinforced fighting positions during the summer war.
Nasrallah's Surprise?
Although Hezbollah positions north of the Litani might be the "big surprise" Hassan Nasrallah referred to in his August 14 speech, that hardly seems likely. Observers have been taken aback by how overt much of the construction has been -- very unlike Hezbollah, an organization famous for its secrecy. Perhaps these positions are being constructed as decoys in the same way that others were constructed for this purpose between 2000 and 2006. Or, as some have argued, maybe these construction projects are just a way to keep Hezbollah's gunmen busy while the real fight -- the political one -- takes place to the north, in Beirut. Most likely, though, Hezbollah -- which remains a disciplined fighting force -- is motivated by a genuine sense of urgency, unsure when the next round of fighting will begin and concerned that its pre-2006 defenses would be insufficient against a massed Israeli ground invasion (and too difficult to reconstruct with UNIFIL in the way).
There is speculation that Nasrallah's "surprise" would be the inclusion of antiaircraft capabilities in the next round of fighting, a move Hezbollah hopes would break Israel's air superiority and enable it to fight on a more fluid battlefield. For U.S. observers, however, the source of continued fascination remains Hezbollah's transformation from the world's finest guerrilla army into a force that, in 2006 and today, seems quite comfortable in conventional fighting as well.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Must be more since various Net sites have reported on the Hezzies'. etal. new toys = weapons for a while now, so Israeli INTEL shouldn't be caught off guard. IMO, the "big surprise" is likely more related to Israel's enemies having indigenous LR IRBMS wid WMD warheads, and Russ lifting of its own Cold War sanctions agz giving nuclear mortars and tacnuke tech for the Hezzies' rockets.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
08/23/2007 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah
woof! Grrr. BoW Wow
SloberSneezeShakesHead!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
08/23/2007 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Russ lifting of its own Cold War sanctions agz giving nuclear mortars and tacnuke tech for the Hezzies' rockets.
Joe, they are bastids, but not insane. It would bite them back into ass in a big way.
OTOH, I don't exclude a posiblity of a black market. However, this would be likely "I have a bridge to sell" scenario, i.e. degraded, non-working nuke ammo. For instance, Russkis left about 1200 tacnukes in Bulgaria, manufactured in early 80's, not bothering to take them back with them when they withdrew their brotherly forces in 1989. One local dude was selling them recently for about $750 a piece, from a wire-fenced site with a padlock on the main gate. He is probably in a slammer at this moment, or should be, but he did sell at last a dozen.
#5
Nasrallah's "Big Surprise" is premised that the idea that the Israeli won't use maneuver and because of that omission, which was glaring in the 2006 war, that Hezbollah will have unimpeded resupply routes for men and materiel, and that artillery displacement routines will actually work as well as they did in 2006.
I think next round Nasrallah's surpise will be the effectiveness of Israeli counterbattery fire. Why risk a multi-million dollar airplane for a few well placed DPICM rounds?
#6
The Israelis should have cleared to the Litani the last time. They made a huge mistake of not doing so - coastal thrust, the up the Litani and across for the Golan, they would have bagged the entire Hezzie army and defeated it in detail. But they went with piecemeal uncoordinated pinpricks.
If Israel is that stupid again, they deserve defeat.
#7
Israel shouldn't play their games. If war happens they should head North to Damascus (and set up a puppet, perhaps Kurd government) and then out of Syria into the Ba'ka valley and deal with the Litani line from the North.
#8
Israel should wipe the entire Litani "line" out with nukes, from the Med to the Bekaa. Then they would have a PERMANENT (at least 3-5000 years), glass-lined border. Annex the southern bank, if possible, after clearing the Lebanese and UNIFIL. Lebanon will be smaller, but the percentage of non-Shi'ites would be considerably larger. Win-win.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/23/2007 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#1
In war our main objective is the opponents heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him. (p. 59)
Posted by: john frum ||
08/23/2007 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I write these few lines to commend Brigadier Malik's book on 'The Quranic Concept of War' to both soldier and civilian alike.
JEHAD FI-SABILILLAH is not the exclusive domain
of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.
This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision, the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force, within the context of the totality that is JEHAD. The professional
soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, CANNOT become 'professional' if in all his activities he does not take on 'the colour of Allah.' The non-military citizen of a Muslim state. must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his county must produce and the ONLY pattern of war that his country's armed forces may wage.
I have read this book with great interest and believe that it has a useful contribution to make towards this understanding that we jointly seek as citizens of an Islamic State, soldier or civilian. I pray and trust that this book will be read by many. For a task so sincerely undertaken and so devotedly executed, the author's reward is with his Lord.
GENERAL M. ZIA-UL-HAQ Chief of the Army Staff
Pakistan
Posted by: john frum ||
08/23/2007 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
#1 The official motto of the Pakistan Army is Iman-Taqwa-Jihad fi sabilillah
Faith, Fear of Allah, Jihad in the way of Allah
Kinda makes sense that they won't hunt jihadis too hard.
Posted by john 2006-05-06 14:39|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top
#6
I actually saw most of this this past weekend, and it was VERY well done. Very SIMPLE scientific explanations to most of their arguments.
My favorite ones were about flight 93. The "mysterious" white plane that "trailed" the flight (History Channel found those aboard the corporate jet who were asked to look around for flight 93 in that area and interviewed them). Oh, and about the Pentagon and the only video released of the attack was from that automatic parking lot ticket puncher (near the Pentagon), which showed no video of the plane actually hitting the Pent, just a "before" and "after" pictures....well, it turned out the camera speed isn't up to snuff (7 frames/second or so), so physics tells ya when you have a jet colliding with a stone building at 500+ mph, you may miss the exact frame where the collision happens.
It's a very good show, and has a lot of the guys over at Popular Mechanics (who did their thorough cleansing of the conspiracy theorists back in 2005, I think) interviewed showing simple scientific reasons these theories are wrong (he really goes off on the Pentagon theory because there's not an exact 747 shaped hole in STONE (wings sheared off, plane actually hit ground just before building, etc.). Pretty good smackdown.
Posted by: BA ||
08/23/2007 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Thruthers reject engineering and scientific analysis/proof. They are hopelessly conspiratorial. They are the same as the global warming religionists and the UFO types. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't the grandson's of those aliens that landed in New Mexico back after WW2 (you know the ones I'm talking about).
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/23/2007 17:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The bizarre thing is that the fact that this program was produced will be "evidence" that there's a vast coverup for the truthers, with stuff like:
the Gov't/Jews/Masons/Scientologists/UN/Trilateral Commision/etc. must really want to cover this up to go to such lengths. That PROVES it.
If they're so sure they're right, why won't they let us do a rebuttal? What are they afraid of?
And so, they're convinced they're right more than ever. It's like one of those finger trap toys. The more you pull the tighter it gets around your fingers.
#9
At this point in time, Radical Islam is losing the WOT, so PCorrectness = Totalitarian Centrism is the Order of the Day for anti-Bush/USA Pols, Activists, and Hollyweird. POST-AMER HIROSHIMA/NEW 9-11's > change in another PC heartbeat.
CONSPIRACY BUFFS > Example - need to refocus on why post 9-11 footage-photos of aircraft tails/parts at the Pentagon are no longer shown either on the Net or on USG reports, for years now. 'TIS A VALID QUESTION + GAP WHICH THE HISTORY CHANNEL HAD FAILED TO ANSWER OR CLOSE [for yarns].
There used to be certain laws about mortgages, wisdom slowly acquired through past boom and bust cycles of American history. You got a fixed, usually 30-year mortgage. You paid 20% down. And you bought a house whose debt payments did not eat up more than 30-40% of your monthly income.
Tales of wild real estate riches and speculative profits, even if true, meant little, since a home was more than just an investment. Somehow all that was forgotten with no or little down payment loans, adjustable-rate or interest only schedules, and excess purchased square footage.
Apparently the idea was either to appreciate yourself into 2nd and 3rd mortgage equity, or to expect interest rates magically to go down and thus lower payments, or to buy and sell/buy and sell yourself into a mansion. So the house of straw is now tragically collapsing, and the old wisdom of the past being relearned.
Ditto the Chinese serial fiascos. In the 19th century, the muckrakers, crusaders, and populists all lectured us that most industrialists were good, but a small minority that wasnt could do great damage through the mass sale of toxic products. Thus arose the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies and the consumer movement.
But then the new wisdom ignored that and we were told that out-sourcing was a win/win situation, as cheap goods flooded into the US, keeping inflation low, expanding our purchasing power, freeing us up from the drudgery of rote labor, while moderating the Chinese.
Few asked whether there were comparable regulatory institutions in China. And there werent. And now we have everything from toxic pet food to tainted toysexactly in the manner of our own spoiled canned meat and drug-laced soft-drinks of generations past. Again we forget our ancestors past wisdom about human nature.
Ditto again open borders. Our illiberal ancestors worried about letting in too many groups in too quickly a time under less than legal auspices, lest the heralded melting pot stagnate and solidify.
We in our infinite wisdom laughed at all that as protectionist, illiberal, nativist, even racist. And so like the laxity of the Chinese manufacturing sector, for 30 years the U.S. functioned without the rule of law. Now the result is that Los Angeles is the second largest city of Mexican nationals in the world, the legal system has become a mockery, and the bankrupt idea of a salad bowl of unmixed and competing tribes has replaced the melting pot. Apartheid communities in the United Statestry visiting Parlier or Orange Cove, California are somehow models of diversity, not to be lamented for their poverty, racial and linguistic uniformity, and entitlement-dependent and often exploited illegal aliens.
How odd that liberalism is giving us a model right out of the Old Confederacy or South Africa, a nation in the American Southwest of two different societies. The old truism holds true: each time a Mexican national enters the US legally, knows English, and has graduated from high school, an employer loses a potential bargain hire and the Chicano Studies industry an exploited victim in need of its crusading zeal.
So once more we are turning back to the mundane: nations must have borders; a citizenry should have a single uniform official language; assimilation and integration must be encouraged, and separatism and tribalism shunned.
The one common thread is again short-term bounty and convenience at the expense of long-term disaster. An odd thought: I wish I could say that had we more farmers in this society, who are born, live, and die in the same place, and depend on what works over decades rather than what seems to work over a few years, we wouldnt be in such dilemmas.
I say I wish because agriculture for years depended on illegal immigration, failing to realize that scarce labor would make prices rise and mechanization quickenand that the doom of farmers was always overproduction and surfeit never shortages of product.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Nations must have borders; a citizenry should have a single uniform official language; assimilation and integration must be encouraged, and separatism and tribalism shunned.
Thats all I want. But none of the current candidates is standing strong for that, except possibly a couple of the Republicans (but about half the Repubs in Congress aren't strong on the above either).
Looks to me that it all boils down to the fact that the Love of Money is the root of all kinds of evil, and apparently the root of the evils recounted here.
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.
August 23, 2007: Al Qaeda doesn't issue many press releases about its casualties, and for good reason. The Iraqi government recently announced that it had killed over half the civilian leadership of al Qaeda, and in the last few months, three senior al Qaeda military commanders have been killed. As a result of all this, al Qaeda tries to keep the identities of its senior military guys secret, as Iraqi and American intelligence is quick to track down any al Qaeda big shot that is identified. 
Bitter rivalry between Lebanon's political camps and between their respective foreign backers could torpedo next month's presidential election, threatening a new constitutional crisis, instability and economic paralysis. The poll is the next battle in a struggle that pits the ruling coalition backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia against a Shi'ite-Christian opposition including the powerful Hezbollah group, which enjoys Syrian and Iranian support.
On August 14, the anniversary of the end of last summer's Lebanon war, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned Israel of a "big surprise" if it initiated a new conflict in the South. Analysts immediately began speculating over the nature of the promised surprise. But what is most important to note is that Hezbollah, a year after its last war, is making serious preparations for the next one.
