West Asia News and Discussions

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 16 Nov 2012 20:56

Om Ganesha yena maha
Israel on standby to invade Gaza
This is bait for Iran to chew and frett out MB
Chaps for a good Jhapad

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 Nov 2012 21:02

I agree. By getting Syria embroiled in its own mess they are now going to neutralize Iran's proxy Hamas. This will indirectly put a lot of pressure on the Iranians.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 18 Nov 2012 06:58

Jordanians Call for End to Monarchy

Public expressions of anger at the Jordanian monarchy intensified as protests sparked by rising prices evolved into a rare show of open defiance aimed directly at King Abdullah II.

Thousands of protesters turned out Friday, the fourth consecutive day of demonstrations across the country. In downtown Amman, the capital, a large group of protesters drawn from various groups including Islamists, leftist liberals and independents called for a "revolution," chanting, "People want the toppling of the regime."

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 18 Nov 2012 07:24

Yes it's always like
To end monarchy you need anarchy
Be it Russian revolution
French Revolution

Only the color revolution have evolution else where

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 18 Nov 2012 09:26

Revolution in Jordan...Bah!. Pakistan Army contigent in that country has its task clearly cut out, that's all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Nov 2012 11:19

The emir of Qatar gifted a number of watches and ballpoint pens to Hamas leaders, which transmitted low-frequency signals to Israeli satellites, the sources, who asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the information, told FNA, adding that the Israeli military officials would then use the received signals to spot and assassinate senior Hamas officials.

Sheikh Hamad arrived in Gaza on October 23 to become the first head of state to visit the besieged enclave since the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, took power in the territory five years ago.

Qatar's emir has repeatedly met with Israeli leaders, and is working hard to boost the diplomatic clout of his small Persian Gulf country.

The Israeli military frequently carries out airstrikes and other attacks on Gaza Strip.
The new wave of Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip has claimed more than 41 lives since November 14. Ahmed al-Ja'abari, the popular and influential head of the Hamas military wing, the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, was assassinated in an Israeli attack on his car on Wednesday.

On Friday, Ahmed Abu Jalal, a field commander of the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, was also killed in an Israeli airstrike on the central Gaza district of Maghazi.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Nov 2012 04:39

pentaiah wrote:Paging Johann

Sorry, what was the question?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Nov 2012 04:48

What's going on in Jordan is that the current king's model for development mostly benefits the Palestinians -who have the education and the entrepreneurism- rather than the former Bedouin who are the bedrock of the state, especially the security services. Jordan is an expensive country, and waves of Iraqi and Syrian refugees have made things tough for those living on fixed incomes and state salaries. So they're protesting, not to overthrow, but to register displeasure and make sure they arent forgotten. The state usually concedes and offers some sort of benefits as a compromise. Algeria and Jordan in that sense are like India - protests are just part of the way disgruntled groups negotiate with the state, which responds with carrots and sticks. Jordan's ruling family is not facing the same kind of crisis as Bahrain or Kuwait.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Nov 2012 08:05

Walter russell mead explains why Americans support Israel and its disproportionate response to Hamas/Palestinian attacks even though this American blind support is unpopular in the rest of the world.

America, Israel, Gaza, the World

As Israeli airstrikes and naval shells bombarded Gaza this weekend, the world asked the question that perennially frustrates, confuses and enrages so many people across the planet: Why aren’t the Americans hating on Israel more?
As in Operation Cast Lead, the last big conflict between Israel and Hamas, and as during the operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, much of the world screams in outrage while America yawns. If anything, many of Israel’s military operations are more popular and less controversial in the United States than they are in Israel itself. This time around, President Barack Obama and his administration have issued one statement after another in support of Israel’s right to self defense, and both houses of Congress have passed resolutions in support of Jerusalem’s response.
Commentators around the world grasp at straws in seeking to explain what’s going on. Islamophobia and racism, say some. Americans just don’t care about Arab deaths and they are so blinded by their fear of Islam that they can’t see the simple realities of the conflict on the ground. Others allege that a sinister Jewish lobby controls the media and the political system through vast power of Jewish money; the poor ignorant Americans are the helpless pawns of clever Jews. Still others suggest that it is fanatical fundamentalists with their carry on flight bags packed for the Rapture who are behind American blindness to Israel’s crimes.
America is a big country with a lot of things going on, but the real force driving American support for Israeli actions in Gaza isn’t Islamophobia, Jewish conspiracies or foam-flecked religious nuts. It’s something much simpler: many though not all Americans look at war through a distinctive cultural lens. Readers of Special Providence know that I’ve written about four schools of American thinking about world affairs; from the perspective of the most widespread of them, the Jacksonians, what Israel is doing in Gaza makes perfect sense. Not only are many Jacksonians completely untroubled by Israel’s response to the rocket attacks in Gaza, many genuinely don’t understand why the rest of the world is so steamed about Israel—and so angry with the United States.
Americans as a people have never much believed in fighting by “the rules.” The Minutemen who fought the British regulars at Lexington and Concord in 1776 thought that there was nothing stupider in the world than to stand in even ranks and brightly colored uniforms waiting to shoot and be shot like gentlemen. They hid behind stone walls and trees, wearing clothes that blended in with their surroundings, and took potshots at the British wherever they could. George Washington saved the Revolution by a surprise attack on British forces the night before Christmas; far from being ashamed of an attack no European general of the day would have countenanced, Americans turned a painting of the attack (“Washington Crossing the Delaware”) into a patriotic icon. In America, war is not a sport.
Theoreticians of “just war” say that in order for war to be justifiable, two tests must be met. You have to have a legitimate cause for war (self defense, for example, rather than grabbing land from a weaker neighbor) and you must fight the war in the right way. You must fight fair (that is, fight a just war), and you must fight nice.
One of the criteria for jus in bello (fighting nice as opposed to jus ad bellum which is about whether it is just ) is proportionality. If the other guy comes at you with a stick, you can’t pull a knife. If he’s got a knife, you can’t pull a gun. If he burned your barn, you can’t nuke his capital. Your use of force must be proportionate to the cause and to the danger.
Israel’s fiercer critics attack it for fighting unjust wars against the Palestinians. For some, Zionism itself is an illegitimate idea and a state that has no right to exist has no right to defend itself. Anything it does to defend itself is a crime. This is how Hamas and many others think and it is why people in this camp are able to work themselves up into such a froth of indignation and rage when Israel responds to their fire.
For others, Israel may have a right to exist, but its occupation of the West Bank and other crimes against the Palestinians have deprived it of a just grounds for war when Palestinians attack it. People in this camp attack any use of force by Israel as lacking jus ad bellum, basically because they think Israel has forfeited its jus by its occupation and settlement policy. This is where a lot of the non-Muslim European left comes out and it is why they are so quick to attack Israel for a war which, after all, was triggered by rockets from Gaza landing in Israel.
But more moderate critics of Israel (including many Israelis) focus on jus in bello, and in particular they look at the question of proportionality. When the Palestinians flick a handful of fairly crude rockets at random across Israel, these critics say, Israel has a right to a kind of pinprick response: tit for tat. But it isn’t entitled to bring the full power of its industrial grade air force and its mighty ground forces into an operation designed to crush Hamas at the cost of hundreds of civilian casualties. You can’t fight slingshots with tanks.
For many people around the world, this seems patently obvious: Israel has a right to respond to attacks from Hamas but it doesn’t have an unlimited right to respond to limited attacks with unlimited force. Israeli blindness to this obvious moral principle strikes many observers as evidence of hardheartedness and national moral decline, and colors their perceptions of many other Israeli policies.
The whole jus in bello argument sails right over the heads of most Americans. The proportionality concept never went over that big here. Many Americans are instinctive Clausewitzians; Clausewitz argued that efforts to make war less cruel end up making it worse, and a lot of Americans agree.
From this perspective, the kind of tit-for-tat limited warfare that the doctrine of proportionality would require is a recipe for unending war: for decades of random air strikes, bombs and other raids. An endless war of limited intensity is worse, many Americans instinctively feel, than a time-limited war of unlimited ferocity. A crushing blow that brings an end to the war—like General Sherman’s march of destruction through the Confederacy in 1864-65—is ultimately kinder even to the vanquished than an endless state of desultory war.
The European just war tradition springs in part from the reality that historically in Europe war was an affair of kings and rulers that hurt the little people without doing anything for them. Peasants really didn’t care whether the Duke of Burgundy or the Count of Anjou was recognized as the rightful overlord of their village, and moralists and theologians worked to limit the violence that the dukes and the counts and their henchmen wreaked on the poor peasants caught up in a quarrel that wasn’t theirs.
With no feudal past in this country, Americans have tended to see wars as wars of peoples rather than wars of elites and in a war of peoples the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets tends to collapse. The German civilian (male or female) making weapons for Hitler’s Wehrmacht was as much a part of the enemy’s warmaking potential as the soldier at the front. Furthermore, in a war of peoples in which civilians are implicated in the conflict, the health and morale of the civilian population is a legitimate target of war. This justified the blockades against the Confederacy and against Germany and German occupied Europe during the world wars, and it also justified the mass terror bombing raids of World War Two in which the destruction of enemy morale was one of the stated aims.
This is the same logic by which someone like Osama bin Laden could justify his attacks on civilians at the World Trade Center, and it is the fundamental logic behind Hamas’ indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilian targets. Americans don’t like it when their enemies use this kind of logic, but it is a type of warfare they understand and they have fought and won enough of these wars in the past to be ready if necessary to do it again.
From this perspective, in which war is an elemental struggle between peoples rather than a kind of knightly duel between courtly elites, the concept of proportionality seems much less compelling. Certainly if some kind of terrorist organization were to set up missile factories across the frontier in Canada and Mexico and start attacking targets in the United States, the American people would demand that their President use all necessary force without stint or limit until the resistance had been completely, utterly and pitilessly crushed. Those Americans who share this view of war might feel sorrow at the loss of innocent life, of the children and non-combatants killed when overwhelming American power was used to take the terrorists out, but they would feel no moral guilt. The guilt would be on the shoulders of those who started the whole thing by launching the missiles.
Thus when television cameras show the bodies of children killed in an Israeli air raid, Jacksonian Americans are sorry about the loss of life, but it inspires them to hate and loathe Hamas more, rather than to be mad at Israel. They blame the irresponsible dolts who started the war for all the consequences of the war and they admire Israel’s strength and its resolve for dealing with the appalling blood lust of the unhinged loons who start a war they can’t win, and then cower behind the corpses of the children their foolishness has killed. The whole situation strengthens the widespread American belief that Palestinian hate rather than Israeli intransigence is the fundamental reason for the Middle East impasse, and the television pictures that drive much of the world away from Israel often have the effect of strengthening the bonds between Americans and the Jewish state.
This automatic Jacksonian response to the Middle East situation overlooks some important complexities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the past America’s Jacksonian instincts have gotten us into trouble. But anyone trying to analyze the politics of the Middle East struggle as they unfold in American debates needs to be aware of the power of these ideas about war in American life.
In any case, when Israel brings the big guns and fast planes against Gaza’s popguns and low tech missiles, a great many Americans see nothing but common sense at work. These Americans aren’t mad about ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence in Gaza because they don’t really accept the concept of proportionality in war. They think that if you have jus ad bellum, and rocket strikes from Gaza are definitely that, you get something close to a blank check when it comes to jus in bello.
If anything, rather than weakening American sympathy for Israel, Israel’s response in Gaza (and the global criticism that surrounds it) is likely to strengthen the bonds of respect and esteem that many Americans feel for Israelis. Far from seeing Israel’s use of overwhelming force against limited provocation as harsh or immoral, many Americans see it as courageous and wise. It strengthens the sense that in a wacky world where a lot of foreigners are hard to understand, the Israelis are honest, competent and reliable friends — good people to have on your side in a tight spot.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 19 Nov 2012 08:49

The above quote only shows that Americans are terroristic in warfare, not rule bound.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2012 09:42

The Yanquis have never fought by the rules or the Geneva Convention in recent times.The lies that led to the invasion of Iraq,war crimes galore,concentration camps,rendition flights and secret prisons worldwide ,a million+ killed,are for the Yanquis mere statistics.Their ends justify the means.

The tragedy in the Middle East today is that Israel has lost/fast losing the window of opportunity to determine a peace settlement loaded in its favour.As the so-called Arab Spring sweeps across Islamic states,the real winners are the fundoos and those of the Al Q mentality.Fat chance that a motley bunch of pro-western pimps-the so-called civiliised "Syrian Opposition" will replace Assad.Rather ,when he eventually goes, a more violent tribe will take his place and Israel will find itself surrounded on all sides with very hostile neighbours willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of fighters to "throw Israel into the sea".

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 19 Nov 2012 12:27

>>"throw Israel into the sea".

Maybe that is why the Yanks favour the take over of ME by fundos - remember that not one Xtian country in the world protested when the holocaust was going on. Maybe that is the end game of the whole crisis in the ME - planned and executed by the Xtain-Muslim alliance. And maybe, just maybe, they are such good friends and have common foreign policy goals towards Jews and Hindus.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Nov 2012 13:51

It is inhuman to ignore or downplay brutalities carried on minority Jews.

Even in this current conflagration, the seriousness is lost.
From link

Even Saddam Hussein, when he led Iraq, avoided targeting Jerusalem when he aimed Scud missiles at Israel during the Persian Gulf war in 1991, not wishing to inadvertently destroy Muslim shrines or hit Arab neighborhoods.

The attacks on Jerusalem signify nothing less than warmongering and bloodthirst. Any actions to suppress and destroy such attacks from their roots are justified clearly, regardless of whether Muslim shrines or Arab neignborhoods are selectively considered or not.

Hopefully, Israel can build forts on the land and sea and prepare for battles ahead. UN deployments in Golan etc should not mind such a defensive build up.

Madhusudhan · Post by **Madhusudhan** » 20 Nov 2012 02:05

This video about sums up the Israel/Palestine situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... evIyrrjTTY

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 20 Nov 2012 05:01

This Gaza business is like 20 20 match
Also match is Test match with strong batting line up Israel and
Decent bowling by Iran hopefully

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Nov 2012 01:01

Our fraandship by congress and Indian islamists with the Shiekdoms is soo good and true that we cannot even stop OIC from farting about Kashmir.

http://www.business-standard.com/genera ... njk/81332/

It is India which has to adjust its world view to the islamists but our influence on them is soo great that they dont care. India should run after the shiekdoms and carry their poop.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Nov 2012 01:16

abhischekcc wrote:The above quote only shows that Americans are terroristic in warfare, not rule bound.

That is very simplistic view.

By that means one should go to war not with the weapons they have but the weapons their opponents have.

This is the stupid logic GoI is continuing to work with. Those days of dharmic militaries fighting and the farmer in the neighboring fields can continue work on his fields.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Nov 2012 19:38

As the poor poor civilized Palestinians who are so unjustly hurt by Israel

Gaza lynch mob kills 6 'Israeli collaborators,' drags body of one behind motorbike

More photos of poor suffering Palestinians here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-mob.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Nov 2012 21:24

There was a statement on the BBC by a talking head about the situ in Gaza/Israel."If you treat people in a barbaric way,they will behave like barbarians".It pretty much sums up the situ.Typical Mosaic law,"smiting thine enemy again and again a hundredfold,even unto a thousandfold!"..........."An eye for an eye..." and as Ghandiji rightly said,there are going to be a lot of toothless and blind men in the Palestine-Israel region.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Nov 2012 21:36

^ which is not bad proposition.

My only sadness is that the aKrishna (of abrahamic trinity) is nicely enjoying on his aseshasayana in the middle of aksheerasagara far away from the battle between ABhrahma and Achandramauli.

I hope avishnu is pulled into this and he also loses few teeth and a couple of eyes.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Nov 2012 03:17

Just a note of caution about any European voice on European media speaking about brutalization effects on "innocent" people due to babarism of "barbarians". Conveniently, this logic is onlee applied to justify Islamists.

Islamists are alway shown as onlee reacting to previous violence on them. Sadomasochists may have every reason to feel at one with Islamist brutalities, but the fact of the matter is - in each and every case, it was the Islamists or their culural ancestors with whom they identify and all whose barbarities they proudly acknowledge as legitimate - who started the cycle of violence.

Right from the very start of the movement, the movement was one continuous sequence of unprovoked atrocities - never lettng up in any of their violent and deceptive methods. This was how they treated their hosts in Yathrib [who gave them refuge originally] - by ambush, assassinations, and outright raids and genocide - proudly declared in their holy texts themselves. That was again the story when they expanded into Palestine and Syria. Many Islamophiles now try to suppress the early and continuous record of Islamist hatred for the jews and atrocties on the Jews by Muslims - in the Palestine region. Thre never was any letting up on this - never - maybe ebb and flow - under certain Pashas - Ottoman and otherwise - there was bit of reigning in, but onlee that - reigning in.

That meant less killing, less pogroms, less rapes and abductions, less economic exploitation - compared to peak periods - but it never stopped. It went up again under the Brit mandate - when the Brits practically provided cover for the local Plestinian Islamists to try and carry out their riotous/genocidal techniques in buildup to WWII.

It is not Zionism that precipitated Palestinian violence - but Palestinian islamism that precipitated and helped Zionism to come to power. If we are looking for everything in terms of "reaction" to past "atrocities" - then why exclude the supposed perperators of that atrocity from having been motivated by "reaction" either? If Gandhian logic is to be asked of everyone - why is it never asked of Islamists? Why should they not stop the cycle of violence voluntarily either - for once in their history?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 22 Nov 2012 06:56

^
Already proposed here - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1366018

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2012 09:05

Bri,Gaza today is a latter-day version of a European ghetto,where it is in fact a virtual prison not allowing for freedom of movement of people and goods.Israel must understand that it cannot be prosperous and peaceful while its neighbour is a hellhole.The envy,hatred and jealousy of the impoverished Palestinians herded together in one of the most densely populated spaces on the planet,is a recipe for disaster,encouraging the smuggling of everything including weapons from Egypt through tunnels.A latter-day concrete "Berlin Wall" has proved a futile defence against rockets and mortars lobbed over it.Hamas has now taken over from the Fatah as the true leaders of the Palestinian people,sadly foretold years ago and along with the Hiz,for Israel,the barbarians are truly at the gates.Who were the first barbarians would be the doctoral thesis for zillions of researchers,a real historical chicken and egg story,which would include the Crusades .

It is unfortunate that most of the peoples of the region on both sides are still living in the past and not casting aside their prejudices and planning for a peaceful future where both communities can live side by side prosperously and in peace..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Nov 2012 09:55

Philip,
the Islamic has repeatedly proven that it can never be trusted. That makes it impossible for the Jews to give up their advantage. Every retreat by Israel - is islamism's gain. Even if Israel stuck to its 48 borders - Islamists and Palestinians as their goaded frontsmen, would never have been allowed by their Islamic handlers to give up on the dreams of enslaving the "Jew".

I know that all leads to a very unfortunate situation - but at some point one has to choose which side of totalitarianism one stands on. A Brit or American style totalitarianism would be preferable - for me - compared to Stalinist or Khomeinist or Saudi totalitarianism, if for nothing else other than the illusion of greater freedom of speech and expression. If I would have to choose between Palestinian/Islamist/Hamas totalitarianism and Israeli totalitarianism - I would have to choose the Israeli one.

You will notice that a whole slew of Israeli media, think tanks, politicians and intelligentsia regularly bash up their own gov and "hawks" - but none whatsoever from within the Palestinian side ever condmens any of its Islamists and "hawks" and atrocities. That is the whole difference between what the two sides represent as threats to human civilization.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 22 Nov 2012 10:53

^^^_bji

I have noticed that too.

in Kashmir, folks are protesting ajmal kasabs death. wow. the buggers should get their own banana republic asap. keep amarnath and pehelgaum. leave tue rest to its own stench.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Nov 2012 19:16

mahadevbhu wrote:^^^_bji

I have noticed that too.

in Kashmir, folks are protesting ajmal kasabs death. wow. the buggers should get their own banana republic asap. keep amarnath and pehelgaum. leave tue rest to its own stench.

One day we will learn how to deal with them!

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 Nov 2012 21:51

RamaY wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:The above quote only shows that Americans are terroristic in warfare, not rule bound.
That is very simplistic view.

By that means one should go to war not with the weapons they have but the weapons their opponents have.

This is the stupid logic GoI is continuing to work with. Those days of dharmic militaries fighting and the farmer in the neighboring fields can continue work on his fields.

RamaY, perhaps you are not aware that US has not signed the Geneva convention.

Their mindset is not to follow any rule in warfare - the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes comparable to Holocaust. But have the Anglo Saxons ever felt sorry for their crimes? They always justify their savagery with a Christian sense of self righteousness. This is exactly how terrorists justify their crimes also.

Let's face it - monotheism breeds terrorists.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 Nov 2012 22:10

The hanging of Kasab is a great slap into the face of terrorists. It not only upholds the superiority of Indian force over Islamic force, but more importantly it upholds the superiority of Indian justice system over the Islamic violence system - it is a great propaganda victory.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Nov 2012 04:37

^ ABCC garu,

Fair enough, US is wrong. But the context here is Israel's disproportionate response to Palastinian terror acts.

By one (twisted) logic, Indian response to Kasab too is disproportionate. Kasab was an illiterate and he is asked to face Indian justice in india. If he were to face an Islamic sharia in say Pakistan, he would have been acquitted.

When one decides to go to war they cannot expect kid treatment from their enemy.

The Islamic world want to go to war with everyone else. Let them face the music that is prohibited to them by their prophet.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 23 Nov 2012 07:22

Rangudu in US thread wrote: Many of the same people who talk of Israel's 'brutality' also accuse India of the same in J&K. ...

In light of the above fact, Indians who are hemmed in on all sides by rapacious enemies should show the least concern to the current action in Gaza , (Arnab Goswami will not agree but then he is a "modern" journalist and needs an issue to rile upon)

Let us leave the moralistic grandstanding to the usual bunch of "do goody for show" types (Britturds, the Nordics , and the collective "leftist" bunch ruling the roost in western airwaves ) - they all have the benefit of secure borders and friendly neighbors, so they can pretend to be the Tagoresqe "global citizens". Not us.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 23 Nov 2012 09:04

An 'important' Syrian military post near the Iraq border has fallen into opposition control. This after 6 weeks of heavy clashes in the area.

The opposition sources confirmed that with the fall of this HQ, the entire rural area on the Iraq border up into the city of Deyr al-Zawr is now in opposition control. BBC Beirut says that opposition activists have released videos of the situation in that area. Some parts of the film show opposition soldiers standing near the burned out buildings of military HQ and other Syrian military bldgs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/world/2012 ... ured.shtml

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 23 Nov 2012 11:22

More Muslim Brotherhood concentration of power. I'm thinking of Rudradev ji's recent analysis on the TIRP thread.

[url=ttp://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/meast/egypt-morsy-powers/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]Egypt's Morsy gives himself new powers[/url]

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 23 Nov 2012 19:44

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyd ... epage=true

Partly explains why I consider this part of the world to be filled with barbaric sewer animals that should be nuked once oil runs out...

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 23 Nov 2012 20:59

Suppiah wrote:..... once oil runs out...

1)The mecca building spree (ala Dubai - glittering shopping malls,bell towers,star hotels,metros etc) by the generally drab wahabist Saudi's , as if they finally decided to again start fleecing the visiting momeen (as they used to before oil, ref:"Future of Islam - Blunt") instead of propagating their "deen" as usual with the excess petro dollah..

2)The weakening amrikhan support to gulf monarchies (symbolizing stability) going through the Arap spring farce and the correspondingly increasing support to (inherently destabilizing) groups like MB and other Islamists in ME...

The above two weakly allude to a delightful scenario in the future

Where is ShyamD ji btw ?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 24 Nov 2012 03:12

Suppiah wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyd ... epage=true

Partly explains why I consider this part of the world to be filled with barbaric sewer animals that should be nuked once oil runs out...

From the report:

On being informed by some Telugu people working in Bahrain that they spotted her once there, her son Srinivas flew to Bahrain in 2002 on work permit. While working there, he started looking out for his mother and finally traced her. But Satyavati’s employer refused to let her return to India and threatened Srinivas with imprisonment. “With the help of her son, she even approached the Indian Embassy in 2007 and again in 2011, but couldn’t secure any support,” P. Laxman, faculty member of the Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, said.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Nov 2012 08:04

^ Carl garu,

Today I read about another (or may be the same) story in Andhrajyothy paper.

Looks like our Embassies in ME are not properly trained and equipped to help indians.

I kind of feel that we are still in to some "glorified" slave trade economy

and people think it is something to be proud of.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 24 Nov 2012 08:34

George Jonas: Let’s hear it for Israel, the Arab world’s all-purpose enemy

Hatred against Israel, kept on a low boil, is the organizing principle of the Middle East. It’s the region’s main fuel of governance; often its only fuel. Some ruling regimes — kings, dictators, whatever — may have oil wells and sandy beaches, but other than hating Israel (and looking after their families and tribes) they have few if any ideas. If they do, chances are it’s to hate some other group in addition to Israel.

In the Middle East a country’s national purpose often amounts to little more than a list of its enemies. A feeling of being ill-done by dominates the consciousness of groups and individuals. Since it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, it’s not necessarily baseless: The easiest way to have an enemy is to be one.

The centrality of hatred to the culture is remarkable. The Cartesian idea is “I hate, therefore I am.” Self-righteousness is overwhelming: each desire thwarted becomes an example of justice denied. It’s not a pretty place, but millions call it home.

In many ways, Israel is a godsend to the one-trick ponies who rule the region. Their culture defines “ruling” as inoculating your own sect or tribe against all others, including the ones that form your own country. Many Middle East nations — Iraq, Syria, Libya, to name three — are just temporarily halted civil wars. They’re truces rather than countries. Canada may be “two solitudes,” but it isn’t an uneasy truce between French and English Canadians. Iraq is, between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

In such an ambiance, nothing is handier than an all-purpose enemy, just out of reach, close enough to seem a realistic threat but too far to be one. Tyrants can govern by whipping up enough popular sentiment against the Jewish state to give their regimes an apparent national purpose and distract people’s attention from domestic woes, then relax and spend some money in the capitals of Europe.

The key is a low boil, though. If the anti-Israeli sentiment boils over, causing riots against the government for being too soft on the Zionists, or foolish attempts to attack Haifa with rockets, which in turn invites retaliation, the people’s hatred of Israel becomes a headache for the very rulers who instigated it.

Good articulation of West Asian pisko, applicable with some modifications (delete the oil and insert unkil's largesse, which is better than oil; replace Israel / Jews with India / Yindooz, delete fear of retaliation if things boil over, etc.) to TSP pisko also.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 24 Nov 2012 08:39

RamaY wrote:Looks like our Embassies in ME are not properly trained and equipped to help indians.

More than lack of training, I feel it is sheer lack of enthusiasm to do a professional job and duty to the nation. These embassies would be staffed by people who get a decent pay, and are least bit bothered about the other Indian citizens. Regarding ME embassies and their lack of helping mentality, these gets reported time and again in Malayalam dailies. So much so that in many cases the people generally approach some Keralite MP or MLA to put pressure on these embassy folks. Leaving these to embassy alone, would be a waste of time.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Nov 2012 08:54

Another thing we hear commonly is the employers holding the passports. Can the embassies hold them for the people so when they reach the embassy, they are as good as in India?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Nov 2012 11:32

Paris Hilton's store in Mecca sparks outrage