West Asia News and Discussions

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 25 Oct 2011 11:05

Interesting remark...Mullah Lite!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Oct 2011 11:08

Saudi Arabia wants to limit the remittances expats can make to prop up the economy. If so, it will hit Pakistan hard.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Oct 2011 11:42

Shyam,we have been saying this on BR for over a decade,that the Sino-Paki-Saudi axis has a nuclear dimension to it.BR has been far ahead of the curve about this nefarious relationship.

The Wahabi empire-as it should be properly called,made huge inroads into Pak from the time of Partition.Pak has been massively financed both above and below the table by the Saudis,who have used the Pakis as trusted mercenaries to protect their backsides from their own people.The Saudis were also part of the design to acquire for the Islamic world through the Pakis the nuclear bomb.This fitted in well with the dragon's grand strategy,to hurt the US and the west through N-proliferation using both Pak and NoKo as two surrogate states with whom the west could do nothing against as they both had powerful Chinese military backing.The secret sale of DF-31 nuclear capable missiles by the PRC to the Saudis decades ago was a very provocative act...to Israel who warned off the Saudis,who instead have been using the Iranians and Indians...perhaps even the Russians too, as an excuse for acquiring them!

Thus,the PRC missiles,supposedly being replaced with more lethal newer missiles,via the same route,which will eventually have Paki built PRC designed N-warheads are ostensibly meant to deter Iran.But they also serve as another insurance policy for the Pakis,as part of the Paki N-arsenal can safely be stored in Saudi Arabia,far away from the grasping hands of the US if it chooses to go after them in Pak! This is the secret relationship between the Pakis and the Saudis,with a benevolent Chinese godfather beaming over this axis of evil! The Chinese allowed N-proliferation so that the Pakis and NoKos could acquire a N-capablity and now the Pakis with their blessing are doing the same thing for the Saudis,protecting their precious backsides in the bargain.

Tell me which nation will go after the Saudis to divest them of their secretly stored Paki N-weapons and their N-tipped ballistic missiles? Cinton ,who was allegedly bankrolled by the Chinese intelligence,let the Paki N-genie out of the bottle by turning a blind eye to PRC N-proliferation.The arrogant Yanquis always thought that they could control their favourite rent-boy Pak through pay-offs to its crore-commanders and decadent politicos.The latest statements emnanating from Paki-land about using N-weapons against the Afghans and the US must be giving the Pakis the hope that it is giving the Yanquis the proverbial belly from Delhi!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 26 Oct 2011 10:54

Apparently a new video has surfaced showing that Gaddafi had a hunting knife shoved up his musharraf.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 26 Oct 2011 12:08

Anujan wrote:Saudi Arabia wants to limit the remittances expats can make to prop up the economy. If so, it will hit Pakistan hard.

Anujan, any link?

If so, it will also hit the funds coming to India. It wil have both +ve and -ve consquences.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 26 Oct 2011 12:57

Anujan wrote:Saudi Arabia wants to limit the remittances expats can make to prop up the economy. If so, it will hit Pakistan hard.

It only means more opportunity for D bhai and illegal money pumping gangs.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Oct 2011 14:18

Anujan wrote:Apparently a new video has surfaced showing that Gaddafi had a hunting knife shoved up his musharraf.

maybe... the few videos available show scenes of utter chaos, anything could have happened, but he is not shown reacting to any specific thing, e.g. knife up the mush. to be honest he is lucky he didn't get the "Full-Najibullah", perhaps there were no lamposts nearby...

the rebel rabble were disgraceful - but then what does one expect of irregular forces high on vengeance?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Oct 2011 20:11

Phillip, I completely agree with your assessment.

------
Khamanei has totally disarmed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has nothingto do with the nuclear file any more.
Khamanei is going full steam ahead to get the bum. All the regional intelligence agencies came together to contribute a joint intel report titled nuclearisation of iran.
This has been distributed to friendly services already, but it is meant to be issued before the GCC defence min meeting in riyadh I think next month.

---
Sarko caled Sheikh Hamad and complained to him about the Qatari's not coordnating with the west on what they are doing.
The qatari's are backing the islamists, so even though sarko wants qatari biz, he put all that on risk when he spoke to Sheikh hamad about this issue and how he isn't happy about it.
-------

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Oct 2011 20:16

Shyamd,

I asked many times for folks to dig deeper into the Iranian delivery system and not be taken by 'expert' opinions. It will give better understanding of what is being pursued. use the Iran thread for that exploration.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Oct 2011 21:12

Ok will answer now in Iran thread

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Oct 2011 22:42

Russia's talks with Hezbollah officials in Moscow centred around Syria. Syria's foreign service and SVR also want to get a new network in the middle east. As part of this they want to strengthen relations with Hezbollah and also establish networks/ties with groups in Yemen and Lebanon.

Its clear to me that everyone is taking over from a weakening US. From PRC to Iran to Russia

---------------
Meanwhile Crown Princ Sultan'sdeath. Ghulam nabi azad led the delegation to KSA to pay respects..

Some interesting pics

PM Malaysia,Karzai, Jap Crown prince, massive US delegation meant to be landing tomorrow all def officials apparently. etc all turned up.

Hariri was very emotional when he came to receive the body.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Oct 2011 03:16

Pretty good read on Syria. I think most of it isaccurate apart from the ending. Gora doesnt understand the GCC.

The 'great game' in Syria

By Alastair Crooke

This summer, a senior Saudi official told John Hannah [1], former United States vice president Dick Cheney's former chief-of-staff, that from the outset of the Syrian upheaval in March, the king has believed that regime change in Syria would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria," said the official.

This is today's "great game": the formula for playing it has changed; the US-instigated "color" revolutions in the former Soviet republics have given way to a bloodier, and more multi-layered process today, but the underlying psychology remains unchanged.

The huge technical requirements of mounting such a complex

game in Syria are indeed prodigious: but in focussing so closely on technique and on coordinating diverse interests, inevitably something important may recede from view, too.

Europeans and Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria game as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya "game" in remaking the Middle East, but the very tools that are being used on their behalf are highly combustible and may yet return to haunt them - as was experienced in the wake of the 1980s "victory" in Afghanistan.

It will not be for the first time that Western interests sought to use others for their ends, only to find they have instead been used.

In any event, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Yet Western strategy, in response to the continuing cascade of new events in the region, remains curiously static, grounded in gaming the awakening and tied ultimately to the fragile thread connecting an 88-year-old king to life.

There seems to be little thought about the strategic landscape when, and as, that thread snaps. We may yet see the prevailing calculus turned inside out: nobody knows. But does the West really believe that being tied into a model of Gulf monarchical legitimacy and conservatism in an era of popular disaffection to be a viable posture - even if those states do buy more Western weapons?

What then is the new anatomy of the great game? In the past, color revolutions were largely blueprinted in the offices of the political consultancies of "K" Street in Washington. But in the new format, the "technicians" attempting to shape the region [2] , hail directly from the US government: according to reports by senior official sources in the region, Jeffrey Feltman, a former ambassador in Lebanon, and presently assistant secretary of state, as chief coordinator [3], together with two former US ambassadors, Ron Schlicher and David Hale, who is also the new US Middle East Peace Envoy.

And instead of an operations center established in some phony "Friends of Syria" organization established in Washington, there is a gold-plated operations center located in Doha, financed, according to a number of sources, by big Qatari money.

The origins of the present attempt to refashion the Middle East lie with the aftermath of Israel's failure in 2006 to seriously damage Hezbollah. In the post-conflict autopsy, Syria was spotlighted as the vulnerable lynchpin connecting Hezbollah to Iran. And it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who planted the first seed: hinting to US officials that something indeed might be done about this Syria connector, but only through using the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, adding quickly in response to the predictable demurs, that managing the Syrian Brotherhood and other Islamists could safely be left to him.

John Hannah noted on ForeignPolicy.com [4] that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern; but Bandar working as a partner against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset". Bandar was co-opted.

Hypothetical planning suddenly metamorphosed into concrete action only earlier this year, after the fall of Saad Hariri's government in Lebanon, and the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak in Egypt: Suddenly, Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, enmired in troubles, held a strategic allure.

In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore, as Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist, former Israeli parliament member, expelled from the Knesset and now established in Doha, architected a schema through which television - as various in the Arabic press have reported [5] - that is, al-Jazeera, would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region - or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisia and Egyptian uprisings.

This was a new evolution over the old model: Hubristic television, rather than mere media management. But Qatar was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention by endlessly repeating "reforms are not enough" and the "inevitability" of Assad's fall, but also - as in Libya - Qatar was directly involved as a key operational actor and financier.

The next stage was to draw French President Nikolas Sarkozy into the campaign through the emir of Qatar's expansive nature and ties to Sarkozy, supplemented by Feltman's lobbying. An "Elysee team" of Jean-David Levite, Nicholas Gallet and Sarkozy, was established, with Sarkozy's wife enlisting Bernard Henri-Levy, the arch promoter of the Benghazi Transitional Council model that had been so effective in inflating North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into an instrument of regime change.

Finally, President Barack Obama delegated Turkey [6] to play point on Syria's border. Both of the latter components however are not without their challenges from their own security arms, who are skeptical of the efficacy of the Transitional Council model, and opposed to military intervention.

The Turkish leadership, in particular, is pushed by party pressures in one direction [7] , whilst at another there are deep misgivings about Turkey becoming a NATO "corridor" into Syria. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends.

In operational terms, Feltman and his team coordinate, Qatar hosts the "war room", the "news room" and holds the purse strings, Paris and Doha lead on pushing the Transitional Council model, whilst Bandar [8] and Turkey jointly manage the Sunni theater in-country, both armed and unarmed.

The Salafist component of armed and combat experienced fighters was to have been managed within this framework, but increasingly they went their own way, answering to a different agenda, and having separate finances.

If the scope of the Syria "game" - for let us not forget the many killed (including civilians, security forces, and armed fighters) make it no game - is on a different scale to the early "color" revolutions, so its defects are greater too. The NTC paradigm, already displaying its flaws in Libya, is even more starkly defective in Syria, with the opposition "council" put together by Turkey, France and Qatar caught in a catch-22 situation. The Syrian security structures have remained rock solid [9] through seven months - defections have been negligible - and Assad's popular support base is intact.

Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it, would be tantamount to political suicide, and they know it. Doha and Paris [10] may continue to try to harass the world towards some intervention by maintaining attrition but the signs are that the internal opposition will opt to negotiate.

But the real danger in all this, as John Hannah himself notes on ForeignPolicy.com [11], is that the Saudis, "with their back to the wall", "might once again fire up the old jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shi'ite Iran".

In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the West does not seem to have noticed. As Foreign Affairs noted last week, Saudi and its Gulf allies are "firing up" the Salafists [12], not only to weaken Iran, but mainly in order to do what they see is necessary to survive - to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings which threaten absolute monarchism.

Salafists are being used for this end in Syria [13] , in Libya, in Egypt (see their huge Saudi flag waving turn-out in Tahrir Square in July ) [14] in Lebanon, Yemen [15] and Iraq.

Salafists may be generally viewed as non-political and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they shall be the king-makers in the region and pour buckets-full of money at them, do not be surprised if they then metamorphose - yet again - into something very political and radical.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency Bin Laden Unit, recently warned [16] that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting Western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam" and will set the seeds of a further round of radicalization.

Saudi Arabia is America's ally. The US, as friends, should ask them if the fall of Assad, and the sectarian conflict that is almost certain to ensue, is really in their interest: Do they imagine that their Sunni allies in Iraq and Lebanon will escape the consequences? Do they really imagine that the Shi'ites of Iraq will not put two-and-two together and take harsh precautions?

One of the sad paradoxes to the sectarian "voice" adopted by the Gulf leaders to justify their repression of the awakening has been the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, now caught between the rock of being seen as a Western tool, and the hard place of Sunni Salafists just waiting for the chance to displace them.

Alastair Crooke is founder and director of Conflicts Forum and is a former adviser to the former EU Foreign Policy Chief, Javier Solana, from 1997-2003.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 27 Oct 2011 17:13

shyamd wrote:- pakI's have smuggled maal into western cities and blackmail.

Is this really true

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2011 03:24

Prince Nayef is now Crown Prince

He is a known fundoo.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Oct 2011 03:27

abhischekcc wrote:
shyamd wrote:- pakI's have smuggled maal into western cities and blackmail.
Is this really true

One agency guy told me this in 2000 about the maal in a van being driven around the western country.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 28 Oct 2011 11:41

shyamd,

The article posted by you gives an entirely different interpretation of the great Arab 'democratic' uprising. If that was really funded by the guld monarchies, then there was nothing democratic about them. It is really the fundamentalists in KSA who have funded and created the movement, using the global jihadi network to take control of local proxies (as can be seen in the kind of people who are taking over after the dictators were toppled). In other words, the great 'democratic' uprising was in reality the great Wahabbi takeover.

The west has either been played like a fiddle or was a willing co-conspirator in the takeover by the fundamentalists. They can either be accused of incompetence or worse, of loyalty to the Wahabs/Saudis.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Oct 2011 12:59

abhischekcc wrote:
shyamd wrote:- pakI's have smuggled maal into western cities and blackmail.
Is this really true

Apparently. Has been doing the rounds for years.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Oct 2011 13:01

abhischekcc wrote:shyamd,

The article posted by you gives an entirely different interpretation of the great Arab 'democratic' uprising. If that was really funded by the guld monarchies, then there was nothing democratic about them. It is really the fundamentalists in KSA who have funded and created the movement, using the global jihadi network to take control of local proxies (as can be seen in the kind of people who are taking over after the dictators were toppled). In other words, the great 'democratic' uprising was in reality the great Wahabbi takeover.

The west has either been played like a fiddle or was a willing co-conspirator in the takeover by the fundamentalists. They can either be accused of incompetence or worse, of loyalty to the Wahabs/Saudis.

Abhischekcc, are you referring to the Alistair cooke article?

If yes, it is only true for Syria. Iran tried to take advantage of Bahrain. Libya, Egypt were indigenous coupled with western backing. Nations will always go in to secure their interests. For example, KSA has a big interest in Egypt due to its security and security programs.

-------------------------
Confirmation of Iran - Turkey alliance to take on the PKK and PJAK. Iran has joined the alliance against Syria but asks for no NATO intervention. Mainly because they are worried about Hezbollah. Iran and Syria fell out. Russia has stepped in with some economic support.

Meanwhile, the Syrian troops have made incursions into lebanon to stem the flow of arms. There will also be operations possibly into Turkey and Jordan. So this will raise the spectre of NATO intervention possibly.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2011 02:16

Syria on “No Fly Zone” Friday
http://www.dp-news.com/en/detail.aspx?articleid=101567

Sudanese demonstrate in support of Syrian protesters
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditi ... WW20111028

Russia pushes for reforms as US tells Assad to go
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... d739342.61

It is time for Pres.Assad either to give up power or time to go.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2011 04:58

More criticism of Bibi from key Israeli individuals.

'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... iator.html

Stupid’ Netanyahu jeopardising security, says Israeli negotiator

Benjamin Netanyahu is pursuing a "stupid and dangerous" policy of weakening the moderate Palestinian government that is jeopardising its security, Israel's former chief negotiator has warned.

By Adrian Blomfield, Tel Aviv

9:30PM BST 28 Oct 2011
In a withering broadside against the administration of the Israeli prime minister, Dov Weissglas predicted that the determination of Mr Netanyahu's cabinet to punish the Palestinian Authority (PA) for seeking membership of the United Nations would harm Israel's security.

"I believe the policy of the present government of weakening the PA, if adopted, is both stupid and dangerous," he said in an interview. "I would not punish the Palestinians for approaching the UN.

"I think the approach to the UN was a mistake, simply an unproductive measure, but I prefer Palestinian resistance in diplomatic measures than in other modes."

Mr Weissglas accused Mr Netanyahu of squandering chances for peace with the Palestinians.

Short memories in Israel failed to give Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, credit for bringing terrorism under control. "I know the efforts they made, how difficult it was to stand up to speak loudly and clearly against terrorism when it was very unpopular in Palestine," he said. "To say that in 2003 needed a hell of a lot of courage."

Such gains, so difficult to achieve, could unravel with frightening speed, he warned. "Nobody feels like going back to the old days. This stability is bundled together by shoelaces. It is like a leaf. All you need is one blow and it is gone."

Mr Weissglas called on the Israeli government to make a major concession to Mr Abbas, either by releasing prisoners or through a similarly substantial gesture to strengthen his standing. Without such steps, he predicted that, even if the PA survived in weakened form, Mr Abbas would be forced into a corner and have to abandon his policy of moderation.

"You can take courageous decisions only when you are strong and self-confident," he said. "When you are weak you have to manifest a more radical position and demonstrate less flexibility."

A powerful figure in Ariel Sharon's government, Mr Weissglas fronted Israel's faltering negotiations with the Palestinian Authority at the height of the bloodletting.

Mr Abbas has suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks after his controversial decision to seek UN backing for the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

His moderate Fatah party has lost considerable standing with the Palestinian people after its Islamist rivals in Hamas secured the release of 1,027 prisoners in exchange for freeing the Israeli conscript Gilad Shalit. The deal has convinced many Palestinians that only the violent approach espoused by Hamas can wring major concessions from Israel
....

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Oct 2011 06:15

Saudi succession starts to gel

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2011 13:00

I think Israel for her own protection and for her own interests should give Palestinians and live with the reality of two nations. They should not allow Jewish right wings to influence their decisions. This will implicitly persuade the neighbouring Islamic countries to go big in terms of acquiring long range and accurate missiles and also nukes in their backyard. In spite of all sort of self defense mechanism, the modern techis can sneak one of the nukes into Israel in future. Pakistan is ready to do this for other small Islamic countries as long as they give them money. So for Israel's sake keep your neighbourhood in peace! Israelis should also remember the prophetic words about them if they behave too arrogant against God created humanity.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Oct 2011 13:07

joshvajohn wrote:So for Israel's sake keep your neighbourhood in peace! Israelis should also remember the prophetic words about them if they behave too arrogant against God created humanity.

What if God created neighbors don't give a damn, do al-taqiya and do not recognize Israel regardless of anything else?

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2011 13:15

For me defending one's nation against terrorism is different from taking away other people their rights. Israel has right to defend herself against any attacks by other nations or terrorists. But at the same time treating other people like animals is not going to help anyone. This will certainly encourage and give ideological support for the suicide bombers and any attacks on Israelis. for me I am genuinely interested in protecting Israelis from any terror attacks and that is why I argue in this way. Both sides have to come to an agreement of recognising each other as different nation and also Palestinians should give gurantee to Israel that their soil will not be used for any attacks against Israel. These have to negotiated strongly both sides! If there is a will there is a way.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Oct 2011 13:35

joshvajohn wrote:For me defending one's nation against terrorism is different from taking away other people their rights. Israel has right to defend herself against any attacks by other nations or terrorists. But at the same time treating other people like animals is not going to help anyone. This will certainly encourage and give ideological support for the suicide bombers and any attacks on Israelis. for me I am genuinely interested in protecting Israelis from any terror attacks and that is why I argue in this way. Both sides have to come to an agreement of recognising each other as different nation and also Palestinians should give gurantee to Israel that their soil will not be used for any attacks against Israel. These have to negotiated strongly both sides! If there is a will there is a way.

That is correct, but it is not so for neighbors of Israel, as mentioned above in the same paragraph as "This will certainly encourage and give ideological support for the suicide bombers and any attacks on Israelis."

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2011 14:45

the best goverance is to have an iron rod on the one hand to stop terrorism and flower on the other hand to the normal people. If both sides iron rod is used, it shows a failure of governance and the right to rule as well.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Oct 2011 17:15

joshvajohn wrote:I think Israel for her own protection and for her own interests should give Palestinians and live with the reality of two nations. They should not allow Jewish right wings to influence their decisions. This will implicitly persuade the neighbouring Islamic countries to go big in terms of acquiring long range and accurate missiles and also nukes in their backyard. In spite of all sort of self defense mechanism, the modern techis can sneak one of the nukes into Israel in future. Pakistan is ready to do this for other small Islamic countries as long as they give them money. So for Israel's sake keep your neighbourhood in peace! Israelis should also remember the prophetic words about them if they behave too arrogant against God created humanity.

This is the old logic - given to protect Islamism. [Not by you - but by illustrious regimes - Brits, congrez]. The logic is that if your neighbours are Islamic - they will forever nurse the ambition of oneday overrunning your orchard and backyard, slitting your throat, and taking over your home and any attractive female you might happen to have.

Islamics will do this - when you do not attack them - because their God promised all this to them as their birthright - just for the taking. If you resist them, then it goes against their theological birthright and hence they can do this anyway.

So allowing them to survive in peace does not buy you security. They will attack anyway. Only with peaceful treatment they get the time and resources they need to mount the attack more successfully.

Israel can give in to this campaign to provide more peaceful "growth" opportunities to the Islamics surrounding them. The eventual demographic pressure and the mullah's survival with their institutions under the benevolent international pro-Islamic campaign of "let them survive in peace==do not prevent their accelerated population and militarization growth" - will mean Jews forced into another diaspora [perhaps minus the more attractive women].

Looking at the ideological background to the proponents or voices behind this campaign who are also not Muslim - there is a striking emergent common pattern : they have the "old -school" continental Christian background [specifically non-radical-Anglican derivatives], or people who believe they are more Marxist than Marx himself, and Jews or Hindus extremely ashamed of their birth identity. By adoption or by faith - I would say that is a borderline pro-Islamic anti-Semitism.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2011 21:53

One cannot escape the realities by blaming others as proIslamic and antisemitic. One has to come to negotiation table and explore common ground. No regime can kill or persecute innocent people by blaming them as terrorists. It is very difficult to fulfil your dreams of faith by eliminating other people. That has to be a myth of the past. Today people have to find a way to live together. Israel is not going to solve all their problems by giving Palestinians their freedom. But they can certainly sort out one by one and live a better possibilities of a better world than simply living with fear. Many of their proactive attacks on others clearly show how much fear they have got in their mind. It is better to live finding a centric position to sort today and face tomorrow with a bit of hope rather than live in fear and die with fear tomorrow too.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Oct 2011 23:58

joshvajohn wrote:No regime can kill or persecute innocent people by blaming them as terrorists. It is very difficult to fulfil your dreams of faith by eliminating other people. That has to be a myth of the past. Today people have to find a way to live together. Israel is not going to solve all their problems by giving Palestinians their freedom. But they can certainly sort out one by one and live a better possibilities of a better world than simply living with fear. Many of their proactive attacks on others clearly show how much fear they have got in their mind. It is better to live finding a centric position to sort today and face tomorrow with a bit of hope rather than live in fear and die with fear tomorrow too.

This reads as if Israel has avowed to obliterate Arabs. Actually many on Arab lands have vowed the other way.

If Ironclad guarantees are not given to Israel, why would Israel do anything? What Israel is doing is correct. If Arabs do not recognize human rights of Jews, Israel can not wait till enemies of Jews get enough time to arm up and attack. If Arabs do not recognize human rights of Jews, why should Jews offer one sided disproportionate concessions?

In fact, how much strength and depth do Jews have to keep on playing a dhimmi and offer concessions? One can not judge Israel the way India behaves with Pakistan and not recognize limits of the nation.

Israel are not averse to talks, but what is the clarity on any neighborhood recognitions and rights acknowledged and cooperations available to Jews on table? Unless there is clarity on centric position and recognition on rights of Jews in this position, all this is just a way to not recognize rights of Jews and force the small nation without solid ally in the region to offer unilateral concessions.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 00:05

Why are the concessions always demanded onlee from the Israeli side? In spite of all propaganda about peaceful "protective" benevolence on the dhimmi Jew, the Islamics of Palestine have been at it against the Jews from the first forays by the Arabs into the region after Byzantine retreat. Yes it was yadda yadda about property and supposed jealousy or grievance at the supposed relative economic success of the Jews - all reasons invented by modern historians based on flimsy or no direct evidence at all.

Given half a chance, an independent Palestine will be a launchpad for erasure of the Jewish nation. If each nation is justified - according to many - in doing everything it can to prevent destructive outcomes it can foresee, not giving in to demands of a full-fledged Palestine nation led by Hamas or any two bit Islamist organization that is after all driven by theological compulsion to eradicate all non-Muslims as the long term end-goal, - is justified in Israelis.

Moreover support for Palestinian voices can be really looked into - its almost surely going to end up in coming up from one of the three ideological leanings I have mentioned.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 30 Oct 2011 00:11

First off, who the heck cares for the "troubles" of palestinians. When has any islamic country shown any measure of sympathy for indian experience ubder islamics?

Secondly, if sympathy for palestinians advances indian interests, then i would wholeheartedly supprt it. So how exactly is an independent palestine useful for india? IMO, ALL IT WILL DO IS EMBOLDEN J&K SEPARATISTS and the focus of islamic rage will gradually shift to india as israel is slowly conquered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2011 00:48

jJ are you being objective about the post or letting dogma take over? your formulation blames the Israelis as if they are the only side in the dispute. It takes two to tango.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 01:58

Just a tip of the iceberg. There are lots of confusion about the gameplan of the west in the period it seems. There is plenty more for those who are inquisitive.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
[....]
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

This is ZB speaking in 1998 - casually dissing "ideological" contiguity and any "common" currents in the "Islamic" world. How prescient he was - isnt he cute?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Oct 2011 04:54

India and the Syrian Imbroglio: Part 1

President Assad has been a good friend of India, as was his father Hafez Al Assad. Both Syria and India are secular countries, have been partners in NAM and have shared several common interests (economic and diplomatic). However, India has expressed its concern over the current situation in Syria and that too with good reason. According to the UN over 3000 people have been killed since unrest broke out in March.

India along with several nations (Brazil and South Africa) have sensed that another military intervention by is in the offing. In order to prevent another Libya like situation, India along with what is termed as IBSA – India, Brazil and South Africa, visited Damascus and had told President Assad that he needs to implement multi party reforms and thereby alter article 8 of the Syrian constitution which states that only the Baath party can select its leader. In return, Assad told his Indian interlocutors that he did make some mistakes when handling the situation and a national dialogue was in process to solve the prevailing problems. Many analysts have opined that this is at best a stall tactic for Assad to retain power.

The Syrian protests are being done for genuine economic and political reasons, however, there are nations in the region who see it as in their interests to remove Assad and are taking advantage of the prevailing situation. The Assad regime has been allied with Iran over several issues – Iraq, continued support of the Palestinian groups such as Hamas and military support to Hezbollah. Iran has deployed extensive military support to Hezbollah via Syria.

Iran sees the protection of the Syrian regime as part of their strategic interests. As part of this process, Iran has sent police forces, militia, advisers and has brought in Hezbollah militiants to help Syria deal with the current unrest. The aim is to utilize and apply the experience learned in dealing with the unrest in Iran after Pres. Ahmadinejad’s victory.

The GCC along with an alliance of other countries were formed around 5 years ago to coordinate against what was seen as growing Iranian expansionism. The GCC had felt threatened as Iran had extended its influence throughout the region. In Iraq – today the GCC views the Iraqi PM as an “Iranian stooge” and for example Iranian backed shia militants who are extremely powerful in the south of Iraq have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. Lebanon has now a Hezbollah dominated government which is naturally aligned with Iranian interests. In Yemen, Houthi rebels who are in the Northwest of Yemen were battling Saudi troops as well as the Yemeni government troops and had seized several villages on the Saudi border. The GCC as well as Yemen had accused Iran of funding and arming the rebels. With the ongoing unrest in Yemen, there are fears in Riyadh that Iran could take advantage of the situation. In Egypt, Iran has attempted to build relations with the government as well as pro-Iran groups. Lastly, the GCC had also accused Iran of backing the unrest in Bahrain – the US had confirmed that they had intelligence to confirm this view. Several Iranian spy cells have been dismantled in the last few months in Kuwait and Bahrain.

All these moves by Iran, have made the GCC feel surrounded and feel threatened. As a result, the GCC and its allies have decided the time has come to aggressively remove Iranian influence in the region. As part of this process, the GCC has decided to turn up the rhetoric and coordinate with Sunni Turkey against Syrian President Assad.

The removal of President Assad will deliver the first defeat to Iranian influence in the region. It will cause the supply lines to Lebanese Hezbollah to be damaged and thereby weaken Hezbollah. The Iranian regime has been utilizing Hezbollah for its nefarious activities in the Gulf, a swift military force that can be used to defend Iranian interests in the region and fight the GCC in a war (if it comes to that).

What will we see now?

The Leader of the Free Syrian Army

President Assad has now crossed the point of no return. Intelligence sources have pointed out that defections have taken place in the Syrian conscript army. Slowly but surely if the killings of the Syrian people continue, the Syrian army begin to defect with the protesters – as soldiers question the orders provided by the Syrian military high command.

The UAE is said to have already offered Assad asylum. However, the GCC as well as the Turkish intelligence have concluded that Assad’s fall will come quickly. Hence, now you are seeing a tightening of the noose around Assad’s kneck. Turkey has today announced sanctions. It is highly possible that Turkey will create a “buffer zone” where Syrian refugees will receive military training and help continue the fight. Turkey will be forced to take the action as it cannot see Syria’s Kurds assert their independence which will automatically instigate Kurds in Turkey.

Erdogan’s rhetoric against Israel was nothing but a cover for his inaction in Syria and to win over the Arab street. Erdogan’s Turkey has initiated intelligence cooperation with Israel since 6th June due to the prevailing situation in Syria.

Iran hasn’t sat quietly watching the developments, it has issued strong warnings to Turkey. It conducted a major missile exercise in the North west which was sent as a message to Ankara that any military intervention in Syria will be met with war against Turkey. As a result Turkey has beefed up its anti missile batteries being deployed, western ships have also amassed off the Turkish coast including some with AEGIS class anti missile systems to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.

The view is that Assad has crossed the point of no return – even if multi party reforms are initiated, the people will demand an answer to the killings and for the President to be held responsible.

Lebanese army officers have suggested that the prices for weapons in black markets within Lebanon have spiked due to demand from Syria. Some sources have said that the Assad’s close circle has tightened to around 3 or 4 people.

India’s position

In light of the mounting evidence in support of Assad’s downfall and his continuing massacres. It is time for India to work together with the UN Security council to prevent further massacres from taking place.

However, India as well as China are indeed wary of the fact that the UN Security council vote against Syria could be used as a historical precedent to interfere in their respective countries. Therefore, it might be prudent for India to remain neutral in this crisis but ensure that its interests in Syria are protected.

India and the Syrian Imbroglio: Part 2

The conclusion in the GCC is that a civil war will strengthen the Asaad regime and allow his regime to last longer. This is why from the beginning the KSA has been telling the US that they don't want the MB in power in Syria (The US is busy cutting deals with MB in Egypt and Syria if some sources are to be believed but we'll leave that for another day) and that the KSA want a secular govt in power (another reason for this is that arabia has been at war with Mesapotamia and Persia since mankind).

So what’s the next step?

The next step is for the intelligence services of the GCC, Turkey and Jordan to contact the key movers and shakers within the Syrian military. Making them split and join with the protestors will actually strengthen the Asaad position and allow him to retain control for longer. Then Syria will descend into another Iraq. So the move is to essentially establish contact with the Syrian Colnols/ National Security Council etc and negotiate with them. Get their opinions together and eventually cripple the ability of the military to function. Then essentially ask for their support for the Syrian people's aspirations. This could be similar to that of Egypt or could even be via a military coup de etat.

This should occur when soldiers are sick off killing unarmed protestors to the point of disgust and start rebelling against illegitimate instructions from superiors.

The defection of Col. Maher Al Asaad showed that even minorities are against the Asaad regime. The protestors have decided not to take up arms and this is actually to prevent a civil war from taking place.

Asaad's response.

Syrian army operations in Northern Syria

Asaad's response has been quite smart. He is not afraid to kill many people. His forces in key positions are mainly from the Syrian minorities and from families that have been allied with the regime. This has brought an attitude where the soldiers are killing for the protection of their communities. The continued use of the terms 'fighting armed groups' is to project a legitimacy and maintain the morale of the military and avert pressure.

However, our sources suggest that the Asaad regime has decided to sideline the military from anti protestor operations. The regime has chosen to use the Hezbollah, Iranian police/troops and other Alawite militia's to conduct the anti protestor policing/killings. This is to prevent the military from splitting.

The Syrian intelligence has conducted several operations in neighbouring countries. Intelligence sources confirm that several key opposition figures (Over a dozen) have been kidnapped in Turkey and Lebanon by the Syrian intelligence. The well known case to date is that of Colonel Hussein Harmoush who has retracted all his statements that he made when he had defected.

Tehran's role

Tehran's role is to provide military support and also from a strategic perspective provide the Syrian regime with the experience (dealing with protestors, their communication, disrupting protesters via the internet) that was learned during the 2009 mass protests in Iran in the wake of Ahmadinejad's election victory.

The Iranian National Security council have written a document on how they can provide support to the Syrian regime. These mainly involve economic projects such as the $10billion oil & gas pipeline from Iran to Syria of which lots of money had already been transferred to the Syrian government.

Iran will have to switch focus back to its internal problems eventually with planned demonstrations against Corruption and also how to organize future parliamentary elections. It is also important to note the last IRGC exercise was actually on how to deal with demonstrations across Iranian cities.

Conclusion

Our conclusion is that we expect to see this conflict being drawn out for a longer period than previously expected although the Turkish intelligence is telling its friends that Asaad's fall will come quickly. Is this because they have already began negotiating with key players?

As India is a relatively fringe player in this crisis, we should remain neutral and suggest that the Asaad regime must implement reforms or risk exhausting the patience of the international community. At the same time, we should begin establishing contacts with key elements of the regime to ensure our interests in the country are protected in a post Asaad Syria.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 30 Oct 2011 06:18

abhishek_sharma wrote:Saudi succession starts to gel

What a petrified s.it ruling family this is - so-called 'prince' is 78 years old! The rest of the 'princes' are in wheel-chair or worse!

Wikipedia profile says

He has been active in philanthropy to Palestinians, Indonesians and Pakistanis.

Which means a sponsor of fanatic barbarian terrorists..

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 30 Oct 2011 14:29

Israelis have shown that they are at powerful position in shaping the US people's public opinion. The Israeli PM had even contradicted US president in one of the interviews and after that even Barak Obama has changed his views in favour of Israelis. This is because of Christian Zionists whose support is very strong in the Sou th of United States.

On the other Israelis do have nukes and powerful defence systems which US is making sure no other Muslim Country around Israelis are having including Iran.

ofcourse it is true that Muslim countries are around Israel. Some of them have developed hatrd attitude towards Israel.

Israelis have right to protect themselves at all costs from the terrorists. Israelis have right to attack any countries if they are threatened by them. Israelis have got to defend themselves against all their surrounding enemies. but Israelis should remember that their country was formed with the help of British govt in 1947.

Giving Palestinians their land is in no way a threat to Israelis. When they give a governance they will have a govt to blame for any terror attack. Even some kind of buffer zone and gurantee by Palestinians not to allow any of the terror groups against Israelis. Even if Israelis give the Palestinians freedom Israelis will still have right to attack any terror groups within PAlestine if they feel threatened. Even UN presence for a while in Palestinians soil may help Israelis in someways.

In my previous posts about Israelis I have made it clear that there should not be any compromise on the protection of Israelis and their nation. Even the neighbourhood countries will be held responsible if there are any support of terror groups within their soil against Israel which is going on in some countries now.

Israeli govt will be in a better position if they solve it now. I think this is possibly an objective way of looking at the issue.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 30 Oct 2011 14:58

Saudi cleric offers $100k for Israeli soldier, Royal does 9 times better, offers $900k. This is how our / civilised societies oil money is getting spent...by this obnoxious scum..

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... s-1.392666

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Oct 2011 17:01

22nd Oct:

A lot has been made about hte withdrawal of US from Iraq. They will still be in KRG territory and the plan is to base more troops in Kuwait so they can go into IRaq secretly or overtly if need be to get any counter terror work done. So its not really a withdrawal but just no overt presence and its also about iran.

Israel is another issue, US need to defend Israel at all costs as it is getting circled with trouble. So the withdrawal is also about this issue.

24th Oct:

shyamd wrote:Sadr saiid that because US decided to put a lot of military guys In civvie clothes and operate that way.
Hence why the voIce of Iran has come out strongly. The US embassy in Baghdad is massive.
US will likely withdraw to Kuwait and will still operate in and out of iraq as and when required.

Confirmation in Todays NYT. Must read:

U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit

Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
United States soldiers performed a closing ceremony on Oct. 20 for a base in Tikrit, now under the control of Iraqi forces.
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
Related

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

For example, in the time between the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States Army kept at least a combat battalion — and sometimes a full combat brigade — in Kuwait year-round, along with an enormous arsenal ready to be unpacked should even more troops have been called to the region.

“Back to the future” is how Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, Central Command’s chief of staff, described planning for a new posture in the Gulf. He said the command was focusing on smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries. “We are kind of thinking of going back to the way it was before we had a big ‘boots on the ground’ presence,” General Horst said. “I think it is healthy. I think it is efficient. I think it is practical.”

Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers have sought to reassure allies and answer critics, including many Republicans, that the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf even as it winds down the war in Iraq and looks ahead to doing the same in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia last week, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

As they undertake this effort, the Pentagon and its Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, have begun a significant rearrangement of American forces, acutely aware of the political and budgetary constraints facing the United States, including at least $450 billion of cuts in military spending over the next decade as part of the agreement to reduce the budget deficit.

Officers at Central Command said that the post-Iraq era required them to seek more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners. One significant outcome of the coming cuts, officials said, could be a steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region. At the same time, officers hope to expand security relationships in the region. General Horst said that training exercises were “a sign of commitment to presence, a sign of commitment of resources, and a sign of commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity.”

Col. John G. Worman, Central Command’s chief for exercises, noted a Persian Gulf milestone: For the first time, he said, the military of Iraq had been invited to participate in a regional exercise in Jordan next year, called Eager Lion 12, built around the threat of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Another part of the administration’s post-Iraq planning involves the Gulf Cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia. It has increasingly sought to exert its diplomatic and military influence in the region and beyond. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for example, sent combat aircraft to the Mediterranean as part of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, while Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates each have forces in Afghanistan.

At the same time, however, the council sent a mostly Saudi ground force into Bahrain to support that government’s suppression of demonstrations this year, despite international criticism.

Despite such concerns, the administration has proposed establishing a stronger, multilateral security alliance with the six nations and the United States. Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Clinton outlined the proposal in an unusual joint meeting with the council on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York last month.

The proposal still requires the approval of the council, whose leaders will meet again in December in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the kind of multilateral collaboration that the administration envisions must overcome rivalries among the six nations.

“It’s not going to be a NATO tomorrow,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic negotiations still under way, “but the idea is to move to a more integrated effort.”

Iran, as it has been for more than three decades, remains the most worrisome threat to many of those nations, as well as to Iraq itself, where it has re-established political, cultural and economic ties, even as it provided covert support for Shiite insurgents who have battled American forces.

“They’re worried that the American withdrawal will leave a vacuum, that their being close by will always make anyone think twice before taking any action,” Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said in an interview, referring to officials in the Persian Gulf region.

Sheik Khalid was in Washington last week for meetings with the administration and Congress. “There’s no doubt it will create a vacuum,” he said, “and it may invite regional powers to exert more overt action in Iraq.”

He added that the administration’s proposal to expand its security relationship with the Persian Gulf nations would not “replace what’s going on in Iraq” but was required in the wake of the withdrawal to demonstrate a unified defense in a dangerous region. “Now the game is different,” he said. “We’ll have to be partners in operations, in issues and in many ways that we should work together.”

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

Twelve Republican Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.

Thom Shanker reported from MacDill Air Force Base, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 18:42

joshvajohn wrote:Israelis have shown that they are at powerful position in shaping the US people's public opinion. The Israeli PM had even contradicted US president in one of the interviews and after that even Barak Obama has changed his views in favour of Israelis. This is because of Christian Zionists whose support is very strong in the Sou th of United States.

On the other Israelis do have nukes and powerful defence systems which US is making sure no other Muslim Country around Israelis are having including Iran.

But Saudis are not dependent onlee on the US for nukes are they? It has already been claimed that they have the "maal". That they have accessed a delivery system. ostensibly such things are for targeting Iran, but given that it is an Islamist country after all - taqyia is a way of life - isnt it?

ofcourse it is true that Muslim countries are around Israel. Some of them have developed hatrd attitude towards Israel.

This is one of the best downplaying of Muslim anti-Semitism I have ever heard. They have "developed" "hard attitude" - is it? Recently "developed"? That then makes it convenient to forget the intense hatred the Palestinian mufti circles already had against any settllement of Jews long before 1947. That then makes it easy to wash away the fact that the anti-Israel movement was born solidly in the ranks of the Islamist clergy of Palestine - way before any hint of formation of Israel - and, that it actually has a solid theological basis. Its not just about existence of Israel - but about existence of Jews free from Mulsim overlordhsip.

Israelis have right to protect themselves at all costs from the terrorists. Israelis have right to attack any countries if they are threatened by them. Israelis have got to defend themselves against all their surrounding enemies. but Israelis should remember that their country was formed with the help of British govt in 1947.

Giving Palestinians their land is in no way a threat to Israelis. When they give a governance they will have a govt to blame for any terror attack. Even some kind of buffer zone and gurantee by Palestinians not to allow any of the terror groups against Israelis. Even if Israelis give the Palestinians freedom Israelis will still have right to attack any terror groups within PAlestine if they feel threatened. Even UN presence for a while in Palestinians soil may help Israelis in someways.

In my previous posts about Israelis I have made it clear that there should not be any compromise on the protection of Israelis and their nation. Even the neighbourhood countries will be held responsible if there are any support of terror groups within their soil against Israel which is going on in some countries now.

Israeli govt will be in a better position if they solve it now. I think this is possibly an objective way of looking at the issue.

No - an independent nation of Palestine will have means of developing defensive and aggressive capacities that are not possible from within territories controlled by Israel. I think I have already posted about the wonderful foresight shown by "strategists" when they diss the underlying driving role of theology in Muslim thinking - as in ZB pontificating about the islamist world in 1998 in an interview.

There is a deliberate attempt from certain quarters of the west, old-world Christian affiliation, and allied anti-Jew thinking in deracinated Hindus and Jews - to try and suppress the persistent genocidic, other-culture erasing tendency in Islamic clergy everywhere in the world. Once that ideological drive is taken away - the astute taqyia shown by Islamists everywhere to pretend overt peaceful intent in order to preserve and develop the core capacity to eventually erase non-Muslim presence.

Whenever people have fallen for this trap laid by the mullahcracy, as the great ZB has shown how utterly fooled and a stupid a** he became at the hands of Islamists by ignoring or dissing this ideological drive - we have disaster.

Independent Palestine will be a launchpad for continuous aggression on Israel - becuase behind independent Palestine is an alliance of anti-Semitic thoughts from both Muslim and Non-Muslim world. [Outside the Muslim and old-world-Christian world - however such anto-Semitism is more about pleasing Islamists and becomeing fashionable Marxists - than any genuine anti-Semitism].

In a multipolar world, China, or even Russia, may under certain circumstances help the Palestinians to develop the capacities required to eventually squeeze off Israel. That thing will be much more convenient to do once Palestine becomes sovereign. This is why the pressure is being built up by Islamists and their allies - they smell the opportunity now when more keenly -when the balance of power in the world is no longer unipolar and determined entirely to USA's advantage.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 30 Oct 2011 19:58

^^^ Unkil staying on in ME provides template for Afghan too...leave some parts, but stay in some other parts or perhaps move a bit north to Uzbekistan or somewhere...TSPA/ISI wet dreams shared by Beijing puppets in India are going to take a while longer to come true..