March 17, 2010
Syria and Iran Think We’re the Sick Horse
Lee Smith, author of The Strong Horse
Posted by Michael J. Totten at March 17, 2010 4:55 PM
Comments
Apologies for being off-topic, Michael, but it's nice to see you posting more often, even if just short items like this. Reminds me of the early days of your blog.
Posted by: Gene at March 17, 2010 5:22 pm
Gene,
I'm going to try to do more of it. I'm just about finished with the hardest chapter of my book and don't have time to write anything (else) lengthy, but I hate it when the content at the top of the blog gets stale.
When this chapter is done, I will be through 90 percent of the book. I feel like I'm climbing a Mt Everest of words, but I can see the top now.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 17, 2010 5:34 pm
I'm going to try to do more of it. I'm just about finished with the hardest chapter of my book and don't have time to write anything (else) lengthy, but I hate it when the content at the top of the blog gets stale.
When this chapter is done, I will be through 90 percent of the book. I feel like I'm climbing a Mt Everest of words, but I can see the top now.
The US in the Middle East often makes me think of the Thrymskvitha. We have been playing the fool for long, but may yet have the last laugh.
Posted by: Thrasymachus at March 17, 2010 9:23 pm
Quite a few of the commenters at Slate are, to put it charitably, fools.
One however does point out correctly,
"People who grow up in different cultures often have different mindsets and views of the world. Correspondingly, their views of strength and weakness, honor, etc. is often different from ours in the US.
You [another commenter] seem to believe that everyone thinks just like us and, presumably, they would all act just like us Americans if given the choice."
That is the basis of the failure of the US State Department and Executive Branch over two plus decades: the assumption that the world is a global village, and by golly, everyone is really the same and if only we could make nice then everything would be nice. And gosh, what can we do to make nice? We really really want everyone to like us. And to be like us. They are, aren't they? I mean they must be. Cuz its like inconceivable that they aren't. Way!
Posted by: del at March 17, 2010 9:34 pm
One however does point out correctly,
"People who grow up in different cultures often have different mindsets and views of the world. Correspondingly, their views of strength and weakness, honor, etc. is often different from ours in the US.
You [another commenter] seem to believe that everyone thinks just like us and, presumably, they would all act just like us Americans if given the choice."
That is the basis of the failure of the US State Department and Executive Branch over two plus decades: the assumption that the world is a global village, and by golly, everyone is really the same and if only we could make nice then everything would be nice. And gosh, what can we do to make nice? We really really want everyone to like us. And to be like us. They are, aren't they? I mean they must be. Cuz its like inconceivable that they aren't. Way!
Michael, I 'second' Gene's comment...you have many fans down under in Australia, cant wait for the book but PLEASE more blogging...even 'micro-blogs', tweets whateva!
Posted by: Zvi at March 17, 2010 9:35 pm
del: Quite a few of the commenters at Slate are, to put it charitably, fools.
I noticed that, too.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 17, 2010 9:36 pm
I noticed that, too.
Trying to explain something as basic as "other cultures don't necessarily see dishonesty as inherently wrong" to most people is a grand way to earn all sorts of charming labels. They become especially appalled at the suggestion that Westerners are viewed as being childishly idealistic in our expectations of honesty.. particularly when you use some nonsense uttered for Western consumption that they themselves hold to as an example.
Posted by: Squires at March 17, 2010 10:07 pm
Squires,
You're right. Your examples are inconceivable to many Vizzinis around the internet.
Posted by: del at March 17, 2010 11:29 pm
You're right. Your examples are inconceivable to many Vizzinis around the internet.
Another fan from Australia. Looking forward to the book and always happy to see thought provoking new entries on the blog.
Posted by: Virus at March 18, 2010 5:02 am
Interesting article. Probably the most honest in directly urging the US to start a war to further Israel's security.
Posted by: tg at March 18, 2010 12:09 pm
Interesting article. Probably the most honest in directly urging the US to start a war to further Israel's security.
Spare us the talking points. The Islamic Republic is and has been a threat to American national security. Israel is only the "little" satan. If we were talking about Syria or Lebanon you might have an argument, but Iran? Does the US even have a worse enemy than the Islamic Republic? If so, I can't name it.
Posted by: Craig at March 18, 2010 3:00 pm
Spare us the talking points. The Islamic Republic is and has been a threat to American national security. Israel is only the "little" satan. If we were talking about Syria or Lebanon you might have an argument, but Iran? Does the US even have a worse enemy than the Islamic Republic? If so, I can't name it.
"People who grow up in different cultures often have different mindsets and views of the world."
Ya think?
But how could someone hate a people so lovable? Must be a communication---or an aid---problem.
Like insecure adolescents.
Hell, you can hate this American all you want, minus credible threats, and we'll co-exist just fine. I'll spend any tourist dollars elsewhere.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 18, 2010 4:11 pm
Ya think?
But how could someone hate a people so lovable? Must be a communication---or an aid---problem.
Like insecure adolescents.
Hell, you can hate this American all you want, minus credible threats, and we'll co-exist just fine. I'll spend any tourist dollars elsewhere.
Does the US even have a worse enemy than the Islamic Republic? If so, I can't name it.
Saudi Arabia sponsored and staffed the 9/11 attacks, and they also did the same for al Qaeda in Iraq, so they're contenders.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Saudi Arabia sponsored and staffed the 9/11 attacks, and they also did the same for al Qaeda in Iraq, so they're contenders.
Saudi Arabia sponsored and staffed the 9/11 attacks, and they also did the same for al Qaeda in Iraq, so they're contenders.
Pakistan bears more responsibility for the 9/11 attacks than KSA, but even so there's no comparison in my opinion. The IRI has on numerous occasions either directly perpetrated attacks on the US (such as the 1979 hostage crisis) or has directly sponsored attacks on the US via militias that it has complete operational control over. I know it's very popular for people on the right to be more pissed off at KSA and Pakistan than at Iran these days, but look at where there's trouble for the US in the middle east, and you'll find Iranian involvement. And they are soon to export that to Afghanistan if people like Anand have their way.
Posted by: Craig at March 18, 2010 6:18 pm
Pakistan bears more responsibility for the 9/11 attacks than KSA, but even so there's no comparison in my opinion. The IRI has on numerous occasions either directly perpetrated attacks on the US (such as the 1979 hostage crisis) or has directly sponsored attacks on the US via militias that it has complete operational control over. I know it's very popular for people on the right to be more pissed off at KSA and Pakistan than at Iran these days, but look at where there's trouble for the US in the middle east, and you'll find Iranian involvement. And they are soon to export that to Afghanistan if people like Anand have their way.
Craig has a point.
If we're speaking of today, Iran has its dirty little fingers everywhere...Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, even the west Bank but too a minimal degree (so far). They are likely trying Jordan and have a hand in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Pakistan and Afganistan are next or they may be there already.
Every whacko Jihadist mosque in Europe has Iran's thumbprints on it.
No wonder the Saudis, Egyptians etc are crapping their pants.
And the US administration thinks that "discussions around a nice table will solve everything. Lets all hold hands and sing "We Shall Overcome"
Obama and Co. better get their collective heads out of their collective asses and realize that Iran isn't just gunning for Israel!
Posted by: yesjb at March 18, 2010 7:14 pm
If we're speaking of today, Iran has its dirty little fingers everywhere...Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, even the west Bank but too a minimal degree (so far). They are likely trying Jordan and have a hand in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Pakistan and Afganistan are next or they may be there already.
Every whacko Jihadist mosque in Europe has Iran's thumbprints on it.
No wonder the Saudis, Egyptians etc are crapping their pants.
And the US administration thinks that "discussions around a nice table will solve everything. Lets all hold hands and sing "We Shall Overcome"
Obama and Co. better get their collective heads out of their collective asses and realize that Iran isn't just gunning for Israel!
I know it's very popular for people on the right to be more pissed off at KSA and Pakistan than at Iran these days, but look at where there's trouble for the US in the middle east, and you'll find Iranian involvement.
There are very few on the left or the right who criticize the KSA's support of terrorism in any way. No one in any position of power in the government or the media will make the obvious connection between the fact that al Qaeda is a Saudi operation (as are most Sunni-operated terror organizations) and worldwide terrorism.
Fortunately, we're finally waking up about Pakistan's involvement.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Pakistani terrorism and every other group that we consider to be our enemies are also supported by the Saudis. The Iranians are going to the mattresses, trying to muscle into Saudi territory, and the Saudis are enlisting our help. They want control of their Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Jihadi mob back and we're stupid enough to help them get it.
The fact that no Saudis were tried and convicted for their substantial role in 9/11, and the fact that we hugged and kissed them while Saudi al Qaeda was killing our solders is proof that we're not the strong horse. Everyone knows it, there's no going back. If we cripple Iran, we'll just be empowering the Saudis.
It's also worth noting that Saudi Arabia is making more of a fuss about Iran, and is more anxious to attack Iran than Israel is. I trust Israel's intelligence on nuclear matters. When they're concerned, they don't wait to strike, yet they just don't seem to see the Iranian issue as their first priority. Why is that?
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 18, 2010 8:20 pm
There are very few on the left or the right who criticize the KSA's support of terrorism in any way. No one in any position of power in the government or the media will make the obvious connection between the fact that al Qaeda is a Saudi operation (as are most Sunni-operated terror organizations) and worldwide terrorism.
Fortunately, we're finally waking up about Pakistan's involvement.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Pakistani terrorism and every other group that we consider to be our enemies are also supported by the Saudis. The Iranians are going to the mattresses, trying to muscle into Saudi territory, and the Saudis are enlisting our help. They want control of their Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Jihadi mob back and we're stupid enough to help them get it.
The fact that no Saudis were tried and convicted for their substantial role in 9/11, and the fact that we hugged and kissed them while Saudi al Qaeda was killing our solders is proof that we're not the strong horse. Everyone knows it, there's no going back. If we cripple Iran, we'll just be empowering the Saudis.
It's also worth noting that Saudi Arabia is making more of a fuss about Iran, and is more anxious to attack Iran than Israel is. I trust Israel's intelligence on nuclear matters. When they're concerned, they don't wait to strike, yet they just don't seem to see the Iranian issue as their first priority. Why is that?
Mary,
There are very few on the left or the right who criticize the KSA's support of terrorism in any way.
I disagree. I think most conservative Americans rant more about KSA than anything else on the Arab blogs. I especially saw it a lot on Iraqi blogs a two or three years ago, because the Saudis were taking the blame for the insurgency.
No one in any position of power in the government or the media will make the obvious connection between the fact that al Qaeda is a Saudi operation (as are most Sunni-operated terror organizations) and worldwide terrorism.
Right... well, there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the Saudis play the same double-game as the Pakistanis do, where they co-operate with the US to an extent while at the same time covertly supporting the opposition. To a diplomat, cooperation is better than non-cooperation, even if it's only partial. Another reason is all the oil, of course.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Pakistani terrorism and every other group that we consider to be our enemies are also supported by the Saudis.
Not Hezbollah. I don't think the Saudis support Hamas anymore, either. Not since Iran started arming them.
The Iranians are going to the mattresses, trying to muscle into Saudi territory, and the Saudis are enlisting our help.
That's been going on since 1979. I think Iran's feud with Egypt even predates the Iran-Iraq war.
They want control of their Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Jihadi mob back and we're stupid enough to help them get it.
We'd be stupid not to, if that's the only choice we get to make. Attacks on Americans were always pretty much taboo until the Iranians got into the terrorism business. They're the ones who set the precedent that AQ followed.
If we cripple Iran, we'll just be empowering the Saudis.
The Saudis could certainly use some empowering. It looks like they are getting their asses kicked, from where I'm sitting.
It's also worth noting that Saudi Arabia is making more of a fuss about Iran, and is more anxious to attack Iran than Israel is.
I'm making a fuss about Iran. Me. And I'm not Saudi.
I trust Israel's intelligence on nuclear matters. When they're concerned, they don't wait to strike, yet they just don't seem to see the Iranian issue as their first priority.
What do you think is their first priority?
Why is that?
I'm guessing it's because they don't want to deal with the shitstorm that will start, without a green light from the US and a "we'll back you" commitment from Obama. Which they probably aren't going to get. So when push comes to shove I think they are going to hit the nuke cites anyway. But I don't follow Israeli politics very closely, so I could be wrong.
Posted by: Craig at March 18, 2010 10:56 pm
There are very few on the left or the right who criticize the KSA's support of terrorism in any way.
I disagree. I think most conservative Americans rant more about KSA than anything else on the Arab blogs. I especially saw it a lot on Iraqi blogs a two or three years ago, because the Saudis were taking the blame for the insurgency.
No one in any position of power in the government or the media will make the obvious connection between the fact that al Qaeda is a Saudi operation (as are most Sunni-operated terror organizations) and worldwide terrorism.
Right... well, there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the Saudis play the same double-game as the Pakistanis do, where they co-operate with the US to an extent while at the same time covertly supporting the opposition. To a diplomat, cooperation is better than non-cooperation, even if it's only partial. Another reason is all the oil, of course.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Pakistani terrorism and every other group that we consider to be our enemies are also supported by the Saudis.
Not Hezbollah. I don't think the Saudis support Hamas anymore, either. Not since Iran started arming them.
The Iranians are going to the mattresses, trying to muscle into Saudi territory, and the Saudis are enlisting our help.
That's been going on since 1979. I think Iran's feud with Egypt even predates the Iran-Iraq war.
They want control of their Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Jihadi mob back and we're stupid enough to help them get it.
We'd be stupid not to, if that's the only choice we get to make. Attacks on Americans were always pretty much taboo until the Iranians got into the terrorism business. They're the ones who set the precedent that AQ followed.
If we cripple Iran, we'll just be empowering the Saudis.
The Saudis could certainly use some empowering. It looks like they are getting their asses kicked, from where I'm sitting.
It's also worth noting that Saudi Arabia is making more of a fuss about Iran, and is more anxious to attack Iran than Israel is.
I'm making a fuss about Iran. Me. And I'm not Saudi.
I trust Israel's intelligence on nuclear matters. When they're concerned, they don't wait to strike, yet they just don't seem to see the Iranian issue as their first priority.
What do you think is their first priority?
Why is that?
I'm guessing it's because they don't want to deal with the shitstorm that will start, without a green light from the US and a "we'll back you" commitment from Obama. Which they probably aren't going to get. So when push comes to shove I think they are going to hit the nuke cites anyway. But I don't follow Israeli politics very closely, so I could be wrong.
I especially saw it a lot on Iraqi blogs a two or three years ago, because the Saudis were taking the blame for the insurgency.
The Saudis were taking the blame for the sunni insurgency because they were to blame. When the Anbar Iraqis started killing al Qaeda in Iraq, they were responding to the typical cruelty of Saudis. AQI was a Saudi operation, openly encouraged by their chief Justice, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, who was caught on tape in 2004 encouraging young Saudis to go to Iraq to kill Americans.
When Abdullah returned from his kiss/hug visit to America, he promoted Al Luhaidan for his efforts.
We'd be stupid not to, if that's the only choice we get to make.
That's not the only choice we get to make, and if we let our enemies (the Saudis and the Iranians) make our choices for us, we lose no matter what we do.
What do you think is their first priority?
Maintaining a civilized and democratic nation in the world's most uncivilized and undemocratic region.
I'm guessing it's because they don't want to deal with the shitstorm that will start, without a green light from the US and a "we'll back you" commitment from Obama
I'm guessing it's because the Russians (and even the Pakistanis) are to smart to sell genuine, workable nukes to the Iranians, and the Israelis are aware of this. But they're also aware of (and they play along with) our toadying relationship to the Saudis. I think they're willing to play this game to some point, but if push comes to shove, they'll quietly stop cooperating.
We and the Saudis have been not-to-subtly pressuring them to hit the nuke sites, and they haven't done it. We tell them that 'Arab cooperation' is based on a total settlement freeze, and they build on contested areas anyway. They're quietly telling us that we should stop listening to the Arabs and we should stop freaking out. But we're not listening.
The Saudis could certainly use some empowering.
If you acknowledge that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11 attacks and the sunni insurgency in Iraq, if you acknowledge that they're covertly supporting terrorism and extremism around the world, then you acknowledge that they're our enemy. Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 19, 2010 5:57 am
The Saudis were taking the blame for the sunni insurgency because they were to blame. When the Anbar Iraqis started killing al Qaeda in Iraq, they were responding to the typical cruelty of Saudis. AQI was a Saudi operation, openly encouraged by their chief Justice, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, who was caught on tape in 2004 encouraging young Saudis to go to Iraq to kill Americans.
When Abdullah returned from his kiss/hug visit to America, he promoted Al Luhaidan for his efforts.
We'd be stupid not to, if that's the only choice we get to make.
That's not the only choice we get to make, and if we let our enemies (the Saudis and the Iranians) make our choices for us, we lose no matter what we do.
What do you think is their first priority?
Maintaining a civilized and democratic nation in the world's most uncivilized and undemocratic region.
I'm guessing it's because they don't want to deal with the shitstorm that will start, without a green light from the US and a "we'll back you" commitment from Obama
I'm guessing it's because the Russians (and even the Pakistanis) are to smart to sell genuine, workable nukes to the Iranians, and the Israelis are aware of this. But they're also aware of (and they play along with) our toadying relationship to the Saudis. I think they're willing to play this game to some point, but if push comes to shove, they'll quietly stop cooperating.
We and the Saudis have been not-to-subtly pressuring them to hit the nuke sites, and they haven't done it. We tell them that 'Arab cooperation' is based on a total settlement freeze, and they build on contested areas anyway. They're quietly telling us that we should stop listening to the Arabs and we should stop freaking out. But we're not listening.
The Saudis could certainly use some empowering.
If you acknowledge that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11 attacks and the sunni insurgency in Iraq, if you acknowledge that they're covertly supporting terrorism and extremism around the world, then you acknowledge that they're our enemy. Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver.
Shhh. Don't tell MoDo!
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 19, 2010 8:18 am
LOL. MoDo is as dopey (and predictable) as Frank Rich -
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 19, 2010 11:14 am
The Saudis were taking the blame for the sunni insurgency because they were to blame. When the Anbar Iraqis started killing al Qaeda in Iraq, they were responding to the typical cruelty of Saudis.
You blame the Saudis too much. In fact the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq have been non-Saudis. North Africans, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and etc. The Saudis really prefer to let other people do the fighting, for the most part. Look at their history with Israel for proof of that.
AQI was a Saudi operation...
The leader of AQI was Jordanian, until he became a dead Jordanian.
...openly encouraged by their chief Justice, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, who was caught on tape in 2004 encouraging young Saudis to go to Iraq to kill Americans.
Which is despicable. But it's still not as bad as what the Islamic Republic does. As far as I know the Saudis have never directly founded, staffed, trained and managed a terror organization.
That's not the only choice we get to make, and if we let our enemies (the Saudis and the Iranians) make our choices for us, we lose no matter what we do.
Oh, I agree that's not the only choice we get to make. I was being dismissive of the views of some neocons who seem to favor establishing a close relationship with the IRI to help us fight al qaida and the taliban. Both sets of terrorists are our enemies, and it would be stupid beyond belief to make some kind of devil's deal with either one. That's the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
Maintaining a civilized and democratic nation in the world's most uncivilized and undemocratic region.
That's kind of a non-answer! I meant in the ongoing mid-east conflict :)
I'm guessing it's because the Russians (and even the Pakistanis) are to smart to sell genuine, workable nukes to the Iranians, and the Israelis are aware of this.
"Smart" is one word I wouldn't use to describe either Pakistan or Russia. "Trustworthy" is another.
As far as I know Russia has never in it's history achieved anything without relying on brute force. And Pakistan is being kicked in the ass by it's own alleged cleverness as we speak.
If you acknowledge that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11 attacks and the sunni insurgency in Iraq...
I didn't. You did.
Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver.
You mean like Roosevelt sending all that military equipment and other aid to the Soviets in the early years of the war so that they'd be able to keep fighting? The Soviets won the war for us in Europe you know. Not sure what would have happened if they'd folded, but the world would certainly be a very different place today.
Posted by: Craig at March 19, 2010 12:38 pm
You blame the Saudis too much. In fact the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq have been non-Saudis. North Africans, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and etc. The Saudis really prefer to let other people do the fighting, for the most part. Look at their history with Israel for proof of that.
AQI was a Saudi operation...
The leader of AQI was Jordanian, until he became a dead Jordanian.
...openly encouraged by their chief Justice, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, who was caught on tape in 2004 encouraging young Saudis to go to Iraq to kill Americans.
Which is despicable. But it's still not as bad as what the Islamic Republic does. As far as I know the Saudis have never directly founded, staffed, trained and managed a terror organization.
That's not the only choice we get to make, and if we let our enemies (the Saudis and the Iranians) make our choices for us, we lose no matter what we do.
Oh, I agree that's not the only choice we get to make. I was being dismissive of the views of some neocons who seem to favor establishing a close relationship with the IRI to help us fight al qaida and the taliban. Both sets of terrorists are our enemies, and it would be stupid beyond belief to make some kind of devil's deal with either one. That's the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
Maintaining a civilized and democratic nation in the world's most uncivilized and undemocratic region.
That's kind of a non-answer! I meant in the ongoing mid-east conflict :)
I'm guessing it's because the Russians (and even the Pakistanis) are to smart to sell genuine, workable nukes to the Iranians, and the Israelis are aware of this.
"Smart" is one word I wouldn't use to describe either Pakistan or Russia. "Trustworthy" is another.
As far as I know Russia has never in it's history achieved anything without relying on brute force. And Pakistan is being kicked in the ass by it's own alleged cleverness as we speak.
If you acknowledge that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11 attacks and the sunni insurgency in Iraq...
I didn't. You did.
Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver.
You mean like Roosevelt sending all that military equipment and other aid to the Soviets in the early years of the war so that they'd be able to keep fighting? The Soviets won the war for us in Europe you know. Not sure what would have happened if they'd folded, but the world would certainly be a very different place today.
You mean like Roosevelt sending all that military equipment and other aid to the Soviets in the early years of the war so that they'd be able to keep fighting? The Soviets won the war for us in Europe you know.
People often use this misguided analogy to defend our alliance with the KSA. Yes, we allied with the Russians, but they were not actively at war with us. They did not send kamikazes into Hawaii to bomb Pearl Harbor, they didn't send troops of car bombers into areas that we occupied to murder American soldiers.
According to the Washington Post, the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi. Sunni suicide bombers were the cause of most of the unrest in Iraq during the dark days before the Anbar awakening.
Allying with the Sauds to 'fight Islamist terrorism' is not equivalent to our alliance with Russia in WWII. It would have been equivalent if Roosevelt had allied with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor in an effort to fight fascism.
I doubt that this alliance would have been successful.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 19, 2010 1:28 pm
People often use this misguided analogy to defend our alliance with the KSA. Yes, we allied with the Russians, but they were not actively at war with us. They did not send kamikazes into Hawaii to bomb Pearl Harbor, they didn't send troops of car bombers into areas that we occupied to murder American soldiers.
According to the Washington Post, the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi. Sunni suicide bombers were the cause of most of the unrest in Iraq during the dark days before the Anbar awakening.
Allying with the Sauds to 'fight Islamist terrorism' is not equivalent to our alliance with Russia in WWII. It would have been equivalent if Roosevelt had allied with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor in an effort to fight fascism.
I doubt that this alliance would have been successful.
I know it's very popular for people on the right to be more pissed off at KSA and Pakistan than at Iran these days, but look at where there's trouble for the US in the middle east, and you'll find Iranian involvement. And they are soon to export that to Afghanistan if people like Anand have their way.
According to recent reports by finance experts, the Taliban get the majority of their funds from the drug trade. Their second highest donors are the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The next issue is the fact that our military is actually paying Taliban subcontractors not to attack us.
In contrast, Iran's support is described by Petraeus as 'modest'.
When politicians evaluate the problems in the Middle East, they usually focus on issues that will benefit them and ignore things that will cause them problems.
In contrast, financial experts use rational methods to evaluate the problem. All of the experts who have commented on the issue of terrorism, from Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official in charge of tracking terror financing to Rachel Ehrenfeld, acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is central to the terrorist infrastructure.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 19, 2010 1:44 pm
According to recent reports by finance experts, the Taliban get the majority of their funds from the drug trade. Their second highest donors are the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The next issue is the fact that our military is actually paying Taliban subcontractors not to attack us.
In contrast, Iran's support is described by Petraeus as 'modest'.
When politicians evaluate the problems in the Middle East, they usually focus on issues that will benefit them and ignore things that will cause them problems.
In contrast, financial experts use rational methods to evaluate the problem. All of the experts who have commented on the issue of terrorism, from Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official in charge of tracking terror financing to Rachel Ehrenfeld, acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is central to the terrorist infrastructure.
People often use this misguided analogy to defend our alliance with the KSA.
That isn't what I did. I was exposing the flaw in this generality of yours: "Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver."
If you want to get specific, get specific. Don't tout things as universal truths. Especially when they aren't :)
According to the Washington Post, the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi.
Got a link? I'd like to check their sources, because that's at odds with what I've come to understand as a longtime observer.
Sunni suicide bombers...
You said "Saudi" earlier. Now you say "Sunni". Which are you talking about?
When politicians evaluate the problems in the Middle East, they usually focus on issues that will benefit them and ignore things that will cause them problems.
They aren't the only ones who do that :)
In contrast, financial experts use rational methods to evaluate the problem.
Right. Because financial experts never have an agenda. Everyone knows that.
All of the experts who have commented on the issue of terrorism, from Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official...
That's a politician. He works for the US government. Didn't you just accuse government officials of not being reputable sources?
...in charge of tracking terror financing to Rachel Ehrenfeld, acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is central to the terrorist infrastructure.
Which terrorist infrastructure?
An observation: You have the exact same anti-KSA tilt that I was talking about some people on the right having, earlier in this thread. So I'm glad we had this discussion. If I was you I wouldn't let your animosity towards KSA blind you to what else is going on in the world. You barely mentioned Pakistan, for instance, and without Pakistan the Taliban would evaporate over night.
Posted by: Craig at March 19, 2010 2:03 pm
That isn't what I did. I was exposing the flaw in this generality of yours: "Empowering one's enemy is the ultimate weak horse maneuver."
If you want to get specific, get specific. Don't tout things as universal truths. Especially when they aren't :)
According to the Washington Post, the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi.
Got a link? I'd like to check their sources, because that's at odds with what I've come to understand as a longtime observer.
Sunni suicide bombers...
You said "Saudi" earlier. Now you say "Sunni". Which are you talking about?
When politicians evaluate the problems in the Middle East, they usually focus on issues that will benefit them and ignore things that will cause them problems.
They aren't the only ones who do that :)
In contrast, financial experts use rational methods to evaluate the problem.
Right. Because financial experts never have an agenda. Everyone knows that.
All of the experts who have commented on the issue of terrorism, from Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official...
That's a politician. He works for the US government. Didn't you just accuse government officials of not being reputable sources?
...in charge of tracking terror financing to Rachel Ehrenfeld, acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is central to the terrorist infrastructure.
Which terrorist infrastructure?
An observation: You have the exact same anti-KSA tilt that I was talking about some people on the right having, earlier in this thread. So I'm glad we had this discussion. If I was you I wouldn't let your animosity towards KSA blind you to what else is going on in the world. You barely mentioned Pakistan, for instance, and without Pakistan the Taliban would evaporate over night.
Craig - here's the link to the Washington Post article titled: 'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html
The majority of Sunni 'foreign fighters' and suicide bombers were Saudi, not Iraqi as some had previously believed.
If I was you I wouldn't let your animosity towards KSA blind you to what else is going on in the world. You barely mentioned Pakistan, for instance, and without Pakistan the Taliban would evaporate over night.
I'm aware of what's going on in the world, but you asked who our 'worst enemies' were, and in my opinion, the Saudis are the worst. During our 'war on terrorism', they've killed the most Americans by far. They've contributed the most to what I call 'the terrorist infrastructure' (the interwoven military, financial and ideological structure of sunni terrorism).
Most terrorist groups worldwide are sunni.
Saudis are also the most dangerous because our government markets them as allies. Because of this, if we were fighting a war against terrorism, we would probably also be our own worst enemies.
Pakistan, Syria and Iran are also enemies, but you already knew that, so why would I point that out?
In any case, we're not really fighting a war against terrorism. Our politicians pretend that it's about oil, but we get most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere. Mostly, 'security' and the 'war on terrorism' is about political games.
The left uses terrorists and our failure to effectively fight them as a weapon in their war against the right. The right uses terrorists and our failure to effectively fight them as a weapon in their war against the left. We use our alliance with the Chechnya-rebel supporting Saudis to scare the Russians and they use their alliance with Iran to scare us. The Chinese jump in and cause trouble whenever they can, and the Saudis, the UAE and the Yemenis take advantage of their current glory days to grab whatever money and power they can get.
The situation is similar to the Elizabethan era, when Britain pretended to be fighting piracy while covertly supporting pirates who would attack Spanish ships. Other countries did the same thing, and they fought their 'covert' wars for years. The golden age of piracy only ended when the pirates became a real military and political threat.
When one of these terrorist states/groups causes some real damage, this self-destructive political strategy will probably end. Hopefully, there will be someone alive to witness the end of our great games.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 19, 2010 5:47 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html
The majority of Sunni 'foreign fighters' and suicide bombers were Saudi, not Iraqi as some had previously believed.
If I was you I wouldn't let your animosity towards KSA blind you to what else is going on in the world. You barely mentioned Pakistan, for instance, and without Pakistan the Taliban would evaporate over night.
I'm aware of what's going on in the world, but you asked who our 'worst enemies' were, and in my opinion, the Saudis are the worst. During our 'war on terrorism', they've killed the most Americans by far. They've contributed the most to what I call 'the terrorist infrastructure' (the interwoven military, financial and ideological structure of sunni terrorism).
Most terrorist groups worldwide are sunni.
Saudis are also the most dangerous because our government markets them as allies. Because of this, if we were fighting a war against terrorism, we would probably also be our own worst enemies.
Pakistan, Syria and Iran are also enemies, but you already knew that, so why would I point that out?
In any case, we're not really fighting a war against terrorism. Our politicians pretend that it's about oil, but we get most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere. Mostly, 'security' and the 'war on terrorism' is about political games.
The left uses terrorists and our failure to effectively fight them as a weapon in their war against the right. The right uses terrorists and our failure to effectively fight them as a weapon in their war against the left. We use our alliance with the Chechnya-rebel supporting Saudis to scare the Russians and they use their alliance with Iran to scare us. The Chinese jump in and cause trouble whenever they can, and the Saudis, the UAE and the Yemenis take advantage of their current glory days to grab whatever money and power they can get.
The situation is similar to the Elizabethan era, when Britain pretended to be fighting piracy while covertly supporting pirates who would attack Spanish ships. Other countries did the same thing, and they fought their 'covert' wars for years. The golden age of piracy only ended when the pirates became a real military and political threat.
When one of these terrorist states/groups causes some real damage, this self-destructive political strategy will probably end. Hopefully, there will be someone alive to witness the end of our great games.
Craig, I'm in agreement with you that Iran is the big problem now though I'm not quite as sanguine on the KSA. But where do you get "... some neocons who seem to favor establishing a close relationship with the IRI ..."? If there's a "neocon" consensus on Iran it's "nuke the motherfuckers ASAP", or at least de-nuke them with extreme prejudice. The most pro-Iranian poster here is anand, who lies in the neocon spectrum somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 20, 2010 12:21 pm
Mary, I checked your article and she seems to be quoting from a jihadi website:
Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
I don't think that a reliable way to gather stats. Especially since she doesn't even source the website lol.
Also, the article is from 2005. I don't think anyone had a very good idea what was really going on in Iraq in 2005.
The majority of Sunni 'foreign fighters' and suicide bombers were Saudi, not Iraqi as some had previously believed.
Actually, 2005 was the "previously believed". The more recent information (including the data coming out of the Iraqi government) is at odds with what the author of this article is claiming. For instance, she mentions Kuwait as a contributing factor. I think she was just guessing there, because I haven't even heard of a kuwaiti suicide bomber in Iraq. She fails to mention Egypt, and quite a few Egyptians went to Iraq to wage jihad. I've even read interviews with some of the Egyptian jihadis who decided to go home because when they got to Iraq they weren't given missions to attack US forces, but weer instead sent after Iraqis.
Gary,
Craig, I'm in agreement with you that Iran is the big problem now though I'm not quite as sanguine on the KSA.
I'm not at all comfortable with the Saudis and their ideology. I'm just objecting to people who focus on KSA to the exclusion of all else. I especially don't like the amount of misinformation being distributed about Saudi Arabia. It doesn't do anyone any good to exaggerate one problem and ignore several others. Islamic terrorism is a very complex and intractable problem and while I can understand how people want to narrow down the focus so that it seems more manageable, it's not helpful.
But where do you get "... some neocons who seem to favor establishing a close relationship with the IRI ..."? If there's a "neocon" consensus on Iran it's "nuke the motherfuckers ASAP"...
That's not the kind of neocon I've been running into...
The most pro-Iranian poster here is anand, who lies in the neocon spectrum somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke.
I think you are wrong about anand. He's harder on sunni terrorists than I am. He does seem to have a soft spot for the shiite variety that I can't understand, but I think you are wrong about him being motivated by anti-semitism (as Pat Buchanan and David Duke are).
Posted by: Craig at March 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
I don't think that a reliable way to gather stats. Especially since she doesn't even source the website lol.
Also, the article is from 2005. I don't think anyone had a very good idea what was really going on in Iraq in 2005.
The majority of Sunni 'foreign fighters' and suicide bombers were Saudi, not Iraqi as some had previously believed.
Actually, 2005 was the "previously believed". The more recent information (including the data coming out of the Iraqi government) is at odds with what the author of this article is claiming. For instance, she mentions Kuwait as a contributing factor. I think she was just guessing there, because I haven't even heard of a kuwaiti suicide bomber in Iraq. She fails to mention Egypt, and quite a few Egyptians went to Iraq to wage jihad. I've even read interviews with some of the Egyptian jihadis who decided to go home because when they got to Iraq they weren't given missions to attack US forces, but weer instead sent after Iraqis.
Gary,
Craig, I'm in agreement with you that Iran is the big problem now though I'm not quite as sanguine on the KSA.
I'm not at all comfortable with the Saudis and their ideology. I'm just objecting to people who focus on KSA to the exclusion of all else. I especially don't like the amount of misinformation being distributed about Saudi Arabia. It doesn't do anyone any good to exaggerate one problem and ignore several others. Islamic terrorism is a very complex and intractable problem and while I can understand how people want to narrow down the focus so that it seems more manageable, it's not helpful.
But where do you get "... some neocons who seem to favor establishing a close relationship with the IRI ..."? If there's a "neocon" consensus on Iran it's "nuke the motherfuckers ASAP"...
That's not the kind of neocon I've been running into...
The most pro-Iranian poster here is anand, who lies in the neocon spectrum somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke.
I think you are wrong about anand. He's harder on sunni terrorists than I am. He does seem to have a soft spot for the shiite variety that I can't understand, but I think you are wrong about him being motivated by anti-semitism (as Pat Buchanan and David Duke are).
How about John Bolton and Daniel Pipes? They are quite vociferous about Iran. Not to mention that paleocons of the Buchanan stripe are constantly accusing neos of fomenting war with Iran for the benefit of Israel. Can you name the pro-Iran "neocons" you are "running into"?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 20, 2010 4:18 pm
Craig: I think you are wrong about anand. He's harder on sunni terrorists than I am.
Do you doubt that anand shills for Hamas? They're Sunni.
The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew as far as I can tell.
Hamas, as we all know, aims exclusively for The Jew. Do the math....
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 20, 2010 4:26 pm
Do you doubt that anand shills for Hamas? They're Sunni.
The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew as far as I can tell.
Hamas, as we all know, aims exclusively for The Jew. Do the math....
I don't think that a reliable way to gather stats. Especially since she doesn't even source the website lol.
I don't think it's a good idea to write off an article unless you check to see if it's been referenced by others. Since this information has also been referenced by several counter terrorism experts, the LA Times, and many others, I'd have to guess that they're better at research than you are.
Since Michael's site rejects articles with too many links, you might want to google information about articles titled:
"Iraq insurgency said to include many Saudis"
"Grim Saudi export -- suicide bombers"
...and that's about as much time as I'm willing to spend on this.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 20, 2010 8:57 pm
I don't think it's a good idea to write off an article unless you check to see if it's been referenced by others. Since this information has also been referenced by several counter terrorism experts, the LA Times, and many others, I'd have to guess that they're better at research than you are.
Since Michael's site rejects articles with too many links, you might want to google information about articles titled:
"Iraq insurgency said to include many Saudis"
"Grim Saudi export -- suicide bombers"
...and that's about as much time as I'm willing to spend on this.
Mary, Craig and I really do know a lot about the Iraqi insurgency. This is not a statement of pride (in Craig, since he is my friend; or in myself); but a genuine statement of fact made without pretense and without airs.
If you genuinely want to learn about the Iraqi insurgency; please ask us to teach you. :-)
Posted by: anan at March 20, 2010 9:49 pm
If you genuinely want to learn about the Iraqi insurgency; please ask us to teach you. :-)
Li'l and Gary; I genuinely like and love both of you. I am not being facetious. I have reflected to try to understand what about you guys I like and love. I still don't know why. But I think that why I like both of you doesn't really matter. I believe that everything in the universe comes from the same source, call it "the force" . . . or "God" or . . . "spirit" . . . or "life" . . . or whatever. Somehow, we are connected at some deep level. Maybe that is why I like and love you.
So in that spirit, because I like and love both of you so much; I would like to speak to you as a friend and well wisher.
I have tried to understand you and failed. I think that this is a major shortcoming of mine. I would like to understand you better. Please help me do so.
Are you both Israelis or Americans? I think you aren't American. I think you are Israelis. I think that you are perturbed and disturbed by the recent tension between America and Israel. Truth be told; tensions between America and Israel are greater now than at any time since the Suez crisis of 1956. I think that this is a lot of what is subconsciously disturbing you. Am I right?
Let me for the moment assume that this is so.
I speak to you know from a place of love and respect. America and Americans love Israel. America and Americans admire and respect Israelis. I genuinely believe that this has not changed. Please don't let this disturb or affect you.
I am now reflecting upon myself. I think the reason I write what I do about Israelis is because I love, admire and respect Israelis so much. I could write 100 pages about what it is about the many Israelis I have met that I admire, love and respect so much. Maybe I'll write more about this in another comment on this blog. But for now; let me state this as a fact and move on.
Because I love, admire and respect Israelis so much; it hurts me at a very deep level when Israelis do not live up to their full intrinsic goodness and greatness. All the powers in all the cosmoses and all the levels of existence lives in every Israeli. The greatness and goodness of each Israeli is beyond comprehension and understanding.
I know that the Israeli people could treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters much better. I also know that if the Israelis did treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters much better:
- the Israelis would be expressing their true selves
- Israelis would benefit greatly in many ways, materially and spiritually
I want the Israelis to treat their Palestinian family members better because I want Israel to prosper, succeed, and express its true and full goodness in thought, word and deed.
Maybe I comment on this blog because I hope that doing so might in some infinitesimally small way facilitate Israelis inspiring themselves to treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters better.
Li'l and Gary, very respectfully, I don't think you understand Palestinians. At a deep level, I think that the Palestinians want the Israelis to consider the Palestinians as their own people. I think that if the Israelis are able to consider Palestinians as their own people, then it is highly probable that the Israelis and Palestinians will form a close alliance and friendship. I think that this alliance and friendship would greatly benefit both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine.
Please bare with me and try to imagine the future world that I see.
I see a world where Israeli and Palestinians go to the same undergraduate and graduate programs in the same universities. I see a world where Israeli and Palestinians jointly start new businesses and start-ups. I see a world where large companies have many senior executives that are Israeli and many senior executives that are Palestinian. I see a world where many Israeli and Palestinian knowledge workers work closely together on common teams to:
1) develop new technologies that transform the world
2) develop new products that transform the world
3) market the products that they have developed to the rest of the world
4) radically change business process in ways that transform the world
5) create new ideas that transform the world
6) create new art [movies, culture, fields of academic research] that transform the world.
I like this world that I imagine; and I think that you too want this world. Therefore, I think we should work collectively to facilitate this world coming into existence.
I believe that Israelis doing right by Palestinians will help create the reality that I hope for.
Have I expressed by thoughts and feelings clearly?
Posted by: anan at March 20, 2010 10:22 pm
So in that spirit, because I like and love both of you so much; I would like to speak to you as a friend and well wisher.
I have tried to understand you and failed. I think that this is a major shortcoming of mine. I would like to understand you better. Please help me do so.
Are you both Israelis or Americans? I think you aren't American. I think you are Israelis. I think that you are perturbed and disturbed by the recent tension between America and Israel. Truth be told; tensions between America and Israel are greater now than at any time since the Suez crisis of 1956. I think that this is a lot of what is subconsciously disturbing you. Am I right?
Let me for the moment assume that this is so.
I speak to you know from a place of love and respect. America and Americans love Israel. America and Americans admire and respect Israelis. I genuinely believe that this has not changed. Please don't let this disturb or affect you.
I am now reflecting upon myself. I think the reason I write what I do about Israelis is because I love, admire and respect Israelis so much. I could write 100 pages about what it is about the many Israelis I have met that I admire, love and respect so much. Maybe I'll write more about this in another comment on this blog. But for now; let me state this as a fact and move on.
Because I love, admire and respect Israelis so much; it hurts me at a very deep level when Israelis do not live up to their full intrinsic goodness and greatness. All the powers in all the cosmoses and all the levels of existence lives in every Israeli. The greatness and goodness of each Israeli is beyond comprehension and understanding.
I know that the Israeli people could treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters much better. I also know that if the Israelis did treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters much better:
- the Israelis would be expressing their true selves
- Israelis would benefit greatly in many ways, materially and spiritually
I want the Israelis to treat their Palestinian family members better because I want Israel to prosper, succeed, and express its true and full goodness in thought, word and deed.
Maybe I comment on this blog because I hope that doing so might in some infinitesimally small way facilitate Israelis inspiring themselves to treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters better.
Li'l and Gary, very respectfully, I don't think you understand Palestinians. At a deep level, I think that the Palestinians want the Israelis to consider the Palestinians as their own people. I think that if the Israelis are able to consider Palestinians as their own people, then it is highly probable that the Israelis and Palestinians will form a close alliance and friendship. I think that this alliance and friendship would greatly benefit both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine.
Please bare with me and try to imagine the future world that I see.
I see a world where Israeli and Palestinians go to the same undergraduate and graduate programs in the same universities. I see a world where Israeli and Palestinians jointly start new businesses and start-ups. I see a world where large companies have many senior executives that are Israeli and many senior executives that are Palestinian. I see a world where many Israeli and Palestinian knowledge workers work closely together on common teams to:
1) develop new technologies that transform the world
2) develop new products that transform the world
3) market the products that they have developed to the rest of the world
4) radically change business process in ways that transform the world
5) create new ideas that transform the world
6) create new art [movies, culture, fields of academic research] that transform the world.
I like this world that I imagine; and I think that you too want this world. Therefore, I think we should work collectively to facilitate this world coming into existence.
I believe that Israelis doing right by Palestinians will help create the reality that I hope for.
Have I expressed by thoughts and feelings clearly?
"The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew as far as I can tell.
Hamas, as we all know, aims exclusively for The Jew."
I think that this is a misunderstanding. Hamas is a diverse organization with many different kinds of people with many different kinds of objectives. Some of these members of Hamas are bad people. Some of these members of Hamas are good people.
This said, I have been heartened that most of Hamas has tried to abide by a temporary cease-fire with Israel for the vast majority of over 6 years. This has convinced me that most of the Palestinians who support Hamas have many positive redeeming features. This has also convinced me that a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas is conceivable and desirable. I think that Israel should enter into genuine full fledged peace talks with both Fayyed and Hamas. Perhaps these talks should be trilateral. Perhaps these talks should be trilateral and hosted by the US or some other moderator who has the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians at heart. I don't know exactly how these peace talks should be organized; but I hope that peace talks broadly similar to this happen.
Li'l Mamzer and Gary, is this also what you would like to see?
I don't think that Hamas wants war without end with Israel. I think Hamas has an end state in mind. This state is either:
1) a one free plural diverse democratic successful prosperous state
2) or a two free plural diverse democratic successful prosperous state solution. The borders many Hamas members envisions for these two states are based on the 1948 UN partition plan with territory swaps between Palestine and Israel of equal quality. Hamas also envisions that Israel as part of a final settlement of a two state solution would provide full market rate compensation for all Palestinian property that has been confiscated by the Israeli government since 1948; and some partial right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper.
"The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew as far as I can tell."
I think Craig might understand my views on this. But perhaps I haven't explained by views on MJT's comment section.
I believe that the greatest security threat that the homo sapien species (all 7 billion of us) confront emanates from global Takfiri salafi extremists. I believe that the greatest security threat that Israel confronts comes from global Takfiri salafi extremists. I believe that the greatest security threat that Palestinians confront comes from global Takfiri salafi extremists.
Therefore, my hope is that Israel and Palestine form an alliance with each other; that this Israeli Palestinian alliance join with the rest of the world to resist, dismantle and end the global Tafkiri threat.
I think that one way to defeat the global Takfiri threat is to facilitate the establishment of powerful successful institutions (Army, police and civilian) in one of four countries. These countries are:
1) Pakistan
2) Iraq
3) Egypt
4) Saudi Arabia
If this is achieved in just one of these four countries; I believe that the global Takfiri movement will be structurally and strategically defeated. By this I don't mean that the war between the civilized world [muslim and nonmuslim alike] and the Takfiri will end anytime soon. In fact the actual war may continue for over a decade longer. However; establishing powerful successful institutions in just one of these four countries will start a global domino affect that over more than a decade will make the final and complete defeat of the global Takfiri movement almost 100% certain.
This is what I believe.
I think that the greatest "security" related objective of the international community [to include the Islamic world, America, Palestine and Israel] should be to facilitate the establishment of powerful successful institutions in at least one of the four countries mentioned.
I don't believe that this global domino affect can be started by any other muslim majority country. Afghanistan is seen by the muslim world as too remote and too different. Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh (I admit this even though I am Bengali), Turkey, Kosovo, Bosnia and former East Block muslim majority countries are not perceived by enough muslims as authentically muslim enough.
This leaves only four countries as "authentically muslim" enough and "important" enough to start this global chain reaction.
I think that Afghanistan is also important. But the reason Afghanistan matters is because Pakistan matters and because Afghanistan affects Pakistan.
I would like to see both Israel and Palestine help out with this global effort. I would like for every country in the world to help out with this global effort.
Li'l and Gary, how would you critique my global perspective and global strategy? Do you agree that the global extremist Takfiri pose the greatest "security" threat to the human species today? Do you agree that if strong institutions can be established in just one of the four countries I mentioned that this would result in the inevitable ultimate global defeat for the global Takfiri movement?
Li'l and Gary, MJT, Craig, and others, if we lay aside the question of whether establishing strong successful institutions in one of these four countries is important. If, rather, we merely assume that this is the most important global "security" objective of the international community; what are your constructive proposals for how to facilitate the establishment of successful institutions in at least one of these four countries?
I look forward to learning everyone else's thoughts and suggestions regarding my thoughts as well.
I apologize for any lack of clarity and precision in how I have expressed my thoughts.
Posted by: anan at March 20, 2010 11:11 pm
Hamas, as we all know, aims exclusively for The Jew."
I think that this is a misunderstanding. Hamas is a diverse organization with many different kinds of people with many different kinds of objectives. Some of these members of Hamas are bad people. Some of these members of Hamas are good people.
This said, I have been heartened that most of Hamas has tried to abide by a temporary cease-fire with Israel for the vast majority of over 6 years. This has convinced me that most of the Palestinians who support Hamas have many positive redeeming features. This has also convinced me that a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas is conceivable and desirable. I think that Israel should enter into genuine full fledged peace talks with both Fayyed and Hamas. Perhaps these talks should be trilateral. Perhaps these talks should be trilateral and hosted by the US or some other moderator who has the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians at heart. I don't know exactly how these peace talks should be organized; but I hope that peace talks broadly similar to this happen.
Li'l Mamzer and Gary, is this also what you would like to see?
I don't think that Hamas wants war without end with Israel. I think Hamas has an end state in mind. This state is either:
1) a one free plural diverse democratic successful prosperous state
2) or a two free plural diverse democratic successful prosperous state solution. The borders many Hamas members envisions for these two states are based on the 1948 UN partition plan with territory swaps between Palestine and Israel of equal quality. Hamas also envisions that Israel as part of a final settlement of a two state solution would provide full market rate compensation for all Palestinian property that has been confiscated by the Israeli government since 1948; and some partial right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper.
"The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew as far as I can tell."
I think Craig might understand my views on this. But perhaps I haven't explained by views on MJT's comment section.
I believe that the greatest security threat that the homo sapien species (all 7 billion of us) confront emanates from global Takfiri salafi extremists. I believe that the greatest security threat that Israel confronts comes from global Takfiri salafi extremists. I believe that the greatest security threat that Palestinians confront comes from global Takfiri salafi extremists.
Therefore, my hope is that Israel and Palestine form an alliance with each other; that this Israeli Palestinian alliance join with the rest of the world to resist, dismantle and end the global Tafkiri threat.
I think that one way to defeat the global Takfiri threat is to facilitate the establishment of powerful successful institutions (Army, police and civilian) in one of four countries. These countries are:
1) Pakistan
2) Iraq
3) Egypt
4) Saudi Arabia
If this is achieved in just one of these four countries; I believe that the global Takfiri movement will be structurally and strategically defeated. By this I don't mean that the war between the civilized world [muslim and nonmuslim alike] and the Takfiri will end anytime soon. In fact the actual war may continue for over a decade longer. However; establishing powerful successful institutions in just one of these four countries will start a global domino affect that over more than a decade will make the final and complete defeat of the global Takfiri movement almost 100% certain.
This is what I believe.
I think that the greatest "security" related objective of the international community [to include the Islamic world, America, Palestine and Israel] should be to facilitate the establishment of powerful successful institutions in at least one of the four countries mentioned.
I don't believe that this global domino affect can be started by any other muslim majority country. Afghanistan is seen by the muslim world as too remote and too different. Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh (I admit this even though I am Bengali), Turkey, Kosovo, Bosnia and former East Block muslim majority countries are not perceived by enough muslims as authentically muslim enough.
This leaves only four countries as "authentically muslim" enough and "important" enough to start this global chain reaction.
I think that Afghanistan is also important. But the reason Afghanistan matters is because Pakistan matters and because Afghanistan affects Pakistan.
I would like to see both Israel and Palestine help out with this global effort. I would like for every country in the world to help out with this global effort.
Li'l and Gary, how would you critique my global perspective and global strategy? Do you agree that the global extremist Takfiri pose the greatest "security" threat to the human species today? Do you agree that if strong institutions can be established in just one of the four countries I mentioned that this would result in the inevitable ultimate global defeat for the global Takfiri movement?
Li'l and Gary, MJT, Craig, and others, if we lay aside the question of whether establishing strong successful institutions in one of these four countries is important. If, rather, we merely assume that this is the most important global "security" objective of the international community; what are your constructive proposals for how to facilitate the establishment of successful institutions in at least one of these four countries?
I look forward to learning everyone else's thoughts and suggestions regarding my thoughts as well.
I apologize for any lack of clarity and precision in how I have expressed my thoughts.
anan: I don't know exactly how these peace talks should be organized
A good start would be with precision air-delivered care packages packed with tritonal on every single Hamas and Fatah warren, vehicle, training camp, propaganda office, rocket factory, bomb factory, smuggling tunnel, and storage facility. With extreme prejudice.
Need I continue?
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 20, 2010 11:59 pm
A good start would be with precision air-delivered care packages packed with tritonal on every single Hamas and Fatah warren, vehicle, training camp, propaganda office, rocket factory, bomb factory, smuggling tunnel, and storage facility. With extreme prejudice.
Need I continue?
"Li'l and Gary; I genuinely like and love both of you."
I figured out who that was right away so I scrolled down to the end of the post so as not to waste my time reading the ensuing drivel and sure enough it was anand. I guess I could say for the 4 or 5 thousandth time that someone who relentlessly shills for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs is obviously a fanatic Jew hater but it's starting to get kind of boring.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 21, 2010 12:45 am
I figured out who that was right away so I scrolled down to the end of the post so as not to waste my time reading the ensuing drivel and sure enough it was anand. I guess I could say for the 4 or 5 thousandth time that someone who relentlessly shills for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs is obviously a fanatic Jew hater but it's starting to get kind of boring.
Li'l and Gary; I genuinely like and love both of you.
And I love you, anand. Truly, deeply, profoundly. In kind, of course.
What was that you were saying about Hamas?
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 21, 2010 5:32 am
And I love you, anand. Truly, deeply, profoundly. In kind, of course.
What was that you were saying about Hamas?
Gary,
How about John Bolton and Daniel Pipes? They are quite vociferous about Iran.
And neither is a neocon. Daniel Pipes seems to be an Iran specialist, as I've never seen him comment on anything else. John Bolton is just a conservative, not a neo-conservative.
Not to mention that paleocons of the Buchanan stripe are constantly accusing neos of fomenting war with Iran for the benefit of Israel.
I find it somewhat offensive you classify Buchanan (and David Duke) as "paleocons". Buchanan got booted from the Republican party for all intents and purposes in the 1992 elections, when he gave an outrageous convention speech calling on Republicans to be anti-gay, anti-minority, etc.
Can you name the pro-Iran "neocons" you are "running into"?
Some of em are right here on this blog, and if you don't notice then it wouldn't do any good to name names :)
And I'm not accusing them of being "pro" Iran. I'm accusing them of not thinking the Islamic Republic is a problem, because they think KSA is *the* problem.
By the way, can you tell me why Bush invaded the wrong country in 2003? Did he just pull names out of a hat, and Saddam lost the draw? Was it the infamous WMD program that Saddam didn't actually have - but Iran did and does? Aren't we so concerned with Iran right now because they are building NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Didn't we know about Iran's nuke program in 2003? Maybe it's just because of Iraq's ceasefire violations, which gave us a good excuse - even though that isn't the excuse we used? Ah, but! A defacto state of war has existed between the US and Iran since 1979, and numerous acts of war and other grievous provocations have occurred. There's no statute of limitations on war, is there? Just something to think about!
Li'l Mamzer,
Do you doubt that anand shills for Hamas? They're Sunni.
The money is Shiite. The agenda is Shiite.
The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew...
And who do you think I'm referring to?
Posted by: Craig at March 21, 2010 4:11 pm
How about John Bolton and Daniel Pipes? They are quite vociferous about Iran.
And neither is a neocon. Daniel Pipes seems to be an Iran specialist, as I've never seen him comment on anything else. John Bolton is just a conservative, not a neo-conservative.
Not to mention that paleocons of the Buchanan stripe are constantly accusing neos of fomenting war with Iran for the benefit of Israel.
I find it somewhat offensive you classify Buchanan (and David Duke) as "paleocons". Buchanan got booted from the Republican party for all intents and purposes in the 1992 elections, when he gave an outrageous convention speech calling on Republicans to be anti-gay, anti-minority, etc.
Can you name the pro-Iran "neocons" you are "running into"?
Some of em are right here on this blog, and if you don't notice then it wouldn't do any good to name names :)
And I'm not accusing them of being "pro" Iran. I'm accusing them of not thinking the Islamic Republic is a problem, because they think KSA is *the* problem.
By the way, can you tell me why Bush invaded the wrong country in 2003? Did he just pull names out of a hat, and Saddam lost the draw? Was it the infamous WMD program that Saddam didn't actually have - but Iran did and does? Aren't we so concerned with Iran right now because they are building NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Didn't we know about Iran's nuke program in 2003? Maybe it's just because of Iraq's ceasefire violations, which gave us a good excuse - even though that isn't the excuse we used? Ah, but! A defacto state of war has existed between the US and Iran since 1979, and numerous acts of war and other grievous provocations have occurred. There's no statute of limitations on war, is there? Just something to think about!
Li'l Mamzer,
Do you doubt that anand shills for Hamas? They're Sunni.
The money is Shiite. The agenda is Shiite.
The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew...
And who do you think I'm referring to?
Mary,
I don't think it's a good idea to write off an article unless you check to see if it's been referenced by others.
Actually, when I noticed how flimsy her evidence was I did a google search on the author. That was the only article by her I found in the first 3 pages of results, which is when I stopped looking.
Since this information has also been referenced by several counter terrorism experts, the LA Times, and many others, I'd have to guess that they're better at research than you are.
Research? Is that what it's called, when somebody quotes from an un-named "extremist" website? I call that speculation, and reckless speculation at that considering jihadis are notorious propagandists.
...and that's about as much time as I'm willing to spend on this.
Works for me :)
Posted by: Craig at March 21, 2010 4:11 pm
I don't think it's a good idea to write off an article unless you check to see if it's been referenced by others.
Actually, when I noticed how flimsy her evidence was I did a google search on the author. That was the only article by her I found in the first 3 pages of results, which is when I stopped looking.
Since this information has also been referenced by several counter terrorism experts, the LA Times, and many others, I'd have to guess that they're better at research than you are.
Research? Is that what it's called, when somebody quotes from an un-named "extremist" website? I call that speculation, and reckless speculation at that considering jihadis are notorious propagandists.
...and that's about as much time as I'm willing to spend on this.
Works for me :)
Craig: The money is Shiite. The agenda is Shiite.
The money is Shiite (for now) but the agenda is all Hamas, which happens to be Sunni. The Iran - Hamas relationship is one of common strategic interests and not theological, apart from wanting to get rid of the Jews.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 21, 2010 5:13 pm
The money is Shiite (for now) but the agenda is all Hamas, which happens to be Sunni. The Iran - Hamas relationship is one of common strategic interests and not theological, apart from wanting to get rid of the Jews.
The Iran - Hamas relationship is one of common strategic interests and not theological, apart from wanting to get rid of the Jews.
In other words, it's a marriage of convenience, and you know there are irreconcilable sectarian issues they simply don't have to confront right now; so they sleep together.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 21, 2010 5:17 pm
In other words, it's a marriage of convenience, and you know there are irreconcilable sectarian issues they simply don't have to confront right now; so they sleep together.
Craig: The Sunni terrorists I think you are referring to haven't killed a single Jew...
And who do you think I'm referring to?
Sorry for being unclear. I thought you were referring to anand's preoccupation with "Takfiri" terrorists. I'd like a do-over on that comment, actually. From what I understand, Hamas qualifies as Takfiri, since they extol the virtues of homicide-bombing and so-called martyrdom.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 21, 2010 5:21 pm
And who do you think I'm referring to?
Sorry for being unclear. I thought you were referring to anand's preoccupation with "Takfiri" terrorists. I'd like a do-over on that comment, actually. From what I understand, Hamas qualifies as Takfiri, since they extol the virtues of homicide-bombing and so-called martyrdom.
If Pipes and Bolton aren't neocons, then what is your definition of neocon? And who are the "neocons" on this blog who don't think Iran is a problem? There may be a few who think the Saudis are as bad - and I don't blame them - but is anyone in the pro-Israel camp giving Iran a pass???? It makes no sense whatsoever. It seems your definition of "neocon" is self-referential, describing a very tiny proportion of people who are right-wing, pro-Israel but do not think Iran is a problem.
As for some other stuff, Buchanan is the first person who would come to anyone's mind as a typical "paleocon". Unfortunately, despite his odious views on several subjects he is still regarded in many quarters (including the MSM) which still toadies to him) as a respectable spokesman. Also the Republican party is not totally equivalent to the conservative movement. And I did *not* describe Duke as a "paleocon", just that he is not a neocon.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 21, 2010 5:28 pm
As for some other stuff, Buchanan is the first person who would come to anyone's mind as a typical "paleocon". Unfortunately, despite his odious views on several subjects he is still regarded in many quarters (including the MSM) which still toadies to him) as a respectable spokesman. Also the Republican party is not totally equivalent to the conservative movement. And I did *not* describe Duke as a "paleocon", just that he is not a neocon.
"Hamas qualifies as Takfiri, since they extol the virtues of homicide-bombing and so-called martyrdom."
Is this true? Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri hate Hamas and attack Hamas in public speeches. It's fun to watch. There have been many gun battles between Hamas and AQ in Gaza and the West Bank. There seems to have been outreach by Hamas a few years ago for Hamas and America to work together to resist the AQ crazies.
This said, Hamas made exceedingly stupid brain dead remarks about the Saddam Hussein, GoI, ISF and Zarkawi in the mid 2000s.
Hamas' leaders aren't that bright. :LOL:
More importantly, Hamas' failures in running the Gazan education system; improving the quality of governance, and facilitating business development are egregious; as is the harm the Hamas/Fatah war causes the Palestinian people. The suffering of Palestinians in turn gives propaganda points to Takfiri who never did and still don't give a damn about helping Palestinians.
It looks like I didn't express my thoughts clearly enough in my previous comment . . . since not even Craig understood them. :LOL: Let me try again.
The greatest security threat in the world comes from Takfiri extremists. The best way to defeat the Takfiri extremists is to facilitate strong institutions in Iraq, KSA, Egypt or Pakistan. If strong successful institutions can be established in any one of these countries, I believe it will unleash a global domino affect that will over time defeat the global Takfiri extremist movement.
Only these four countries in my opinion are perceived as "important enough" and "authentically muslim enough" to set off a global cascade against the extremists.
This is why Iraq matters more in the global war against extremism than Israel or Palestine or Lebanon or Syria or Turkey or other countries.
What are Israel and/or Palestine doing to help strengthen institutions in Egypt, Iraq, KSA and Pakistan? Not a whole lot. The best thing Israel could do to help in these four countries would be to treat their Palestinian siblings more justly; which they aren't doing.
Nor is Hamas making large contributions in the war against global extremism [outside of Palestine itself, where they genuinely are fighting them.]
This is yet another reason why it would be inaccurate to say that I like Hamas.
Sayyed Nasrallah, however, did something to help strengthen successful institutions in Iraq.
Hezbollah and Sayyed Nasrallah supported al Dawa, ISCI/Badr, Sadrists/INC/Chalabi, Allawi, and the rest of the Iraqi resistance against Saddam Hussein from the formation of Hezbollah (around 1983) to 2003. To this day, many Iraqis, including PM Maliki, Jafari, Chalabi, Muqtada, Amar al Hakim, Allawi and Talabani are grateful for Hezbollah's help during the most difficult hours of the Iraqi resistance.
I also like the way Nasrallah has been consistently publicly supportive of the Najaf Marjeya, the Iraqi Governing Council [7.03 to 6.04], Allawi's interim administration [6.04 to 4.05], and GoI from 4.2005 to the present. Nasrallah has consistently backed the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police as heroes in ever public statement he has made since 2003. Nasrallah never . . . not even once . . . said that the GoI, Iraqi institutions, or ISF were not fully legitimate and didn't deserve complete international and Iraqi support. Nasrallah never called Iraqi institutions "puppets." Nasrallah, in every public statement he has made since 2003, to my knowledge, has condemned all violent attacks against the ISF, GoI and Iraqi elected leaders.
In practice, Nasrallah while praising the GoI and ISF in public has secretly supported attacks against them . . . but Nasrallah has always consistently praised the GoI and ISF in public none the less; and has been helpful in increasing the international and Iraqi legitimacy of the GoI and ISF.
None of this can be said for "any" Arab country, for many European countries, for most members of the US Congress in both parties, or for many elected leaders in many countries around the world.
Most people I discussed Iraq with in person inside the US and internationally shared snide outrageous racist attitudes towards the ISF and GoI . . . until 2008.
O'Reilly, Rush Limbah, and many Americans on the left and the right use to speak about the ISF and GoI in snide and offensive language in 2007.
The kind of attitudes that ordinary Arabs had towards the GoI and ISF . . . Oh la la.
Maybe this colors how I view Nasrallah and Hezbollah a little bit. Guilty as charged.
Am I too close to the question of the ISF? Maybe.
Again, I wouldn't take this too far, since Nasrallah also secretly supported attacks against the GoI and ISF while publicly pretending to be their BFF.
Hamas didn't do nearly as much to strengthen Iraqi institutions. Nor have I forgotten their stupid statements about the GoI, ISF, Saddam and Zarkawi. Hamas has a lot to answer for.
Posted by: anan at March 21, 2010 6:28 pm
Is this true? Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri hate Hamas and attack Hamas in public speeches. It's fun to watch. There have been many gun battles between Hamas and AQ in Gaza and the West Bank. There seems to have been outreach by Hamas a few years ago for Hamas and America to work together to resist the AQ crazies.
This said, Hamas made exceedingly stupid brain dead remarks about the Saddam Hussein, GoI, ISF and Zarkawi in the mid 2000s.
Hamas' leaders aren't that bright. :LOL:
More importantly, Hamas' failures in running the Gazan education system; improving the quality of governance, and facilitating business development are egregious; as is the harm the Hamas/Fatah war causes the Palestinian people. The suffering of Palestinians in turn gives propaganda points to Takfiri who never did and still don't give a damn about helping Palestinians.
It looks like I didn't express my thoughts clearly enough in my previous comment . . . since not even Craig understood them. :LOL: Let me try again.
The greatest security threat in the world comes from Takfiri extremists. The best way to defeat the Takfiri extremists is to facilitate strong institutions in Iraq, KSA, Egypt or Pakistan. If strong successful institutions can be established in any one of these countries, I believe it will unleash a global domino affect that will over time defeat the global Takfiri extremist movement.
Only these four countries in my opinion are perceived as "important enough" and "authentically muslim enough" to set off a global cascade against the extremists.
This is why Iraq matters more in the global war against extremism than Israel or Palestine or Lebanon or Syria or Turkey or other countries.
What are Israel and/or Palestine doing to help strengthen institutions in Egypt, Iraq, KSA and Pakistan? Not a whole lot. The best thing Israel could do to help in these four countries would be to treat their Palestinian siblings more justly; which they aren't doing.
Nor is Hamas making large contributions in the war against global extremism [outside of Palestine itself, where they genuinely are fighting them.]
This is yet another reason why it would be inaccurate to say that I like Hamas.
Sayyed Nasrallah, however, did something to help strengthen successful institutions in Iraq.
Hezbollah and Sayyed Nasrallah supported al Dawa, ISCI/Badr, Sadrists/INC/Chalabi, Allawi, and the rest of the Iraqi resistance against Saddam Hussein from the formation of Hezbollah (around 1983) to 2003. To this day, many Iraqis, including PM Maliki, Jafari, Chalabi, Muqtada, Amar al Hakim, Allawi and Talabani are grateful for Hezbollah's help during the most difficult hours of the Iraqi resistance.
I also like the way Nasrallah has been consistently publicly supportive of the Najaf Marjeya, the Iraqi Governing Council [7.03 to 6.04], Allawi's interim administration [6.04 to 4.05], and GoI from 4.2005 to the present. Nasrallah has consistently backed the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police as heroes in ever public statement he has made since 2003. Nasrallah never . . . not even once . . . said that the GoI, Iraqi institutions, or ISF were not fully legitimate and didn't deserve complete international and Iraqi support. Nasrallah never called Iraqi institutions "puppets." Nasrallah, in every public statement he has made since 2003, to my knowledge, has condemned all violent attacks against the ISF, GoI and Iraqi elected leaders.
In practice, Nasrallah while praising the GoI and ISF in public has secretly supported attacks against them . . . but Nasrallah has always consistently praised the GoI and ISF in public none the less; and has been helpful in increasing the international and Iraqi legitimacy of the GoI and ISF.
None of this can be said for "any" Arab country, for many European countries, for most members of the US Congress in both parties, or for many elected leaders in many countries around the world.
Most people I discussed Iraq with in person inside the US and internationally shared snide outrageous racist attitudes towards the ISF and GoI . . . until 2008.
O'Reilly, Rush Limbah, and many Americans on the left and the right use to speak about the ISF and GoI in snide and offensive language in 2007.
The kind of attitudes that ordinary Arabs had towards the GoI and ISF . . . Oh la la.
Maybe this colors how I view Nasrallah and Hezbollah a little bit. Guilty as charged.
Am I too close to the question of the ISF? Maybe.
Again, I wouldn't take this too far, since Nasrallah also secretly supported attacks against the GoI and ISF while publicly pretending to be their BFF.
Hamas didn't do nearly as much to strengthen Iraqi institutions. Nor have I forgotten their stupid statements about the GoI, ISF, Saddam and Zarkawi. Hamas has a lot to answer for.
I had been reading anand's profound and philosophic thoughts about love and then I saw this article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7069779.ece
From The Sunday Times March 21, 2010
"Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs"
Didn't anand recently recommend that Afghanistan and ISAF bring in Iran to assist?
Is it possible that anand hasn't been drinking his truth juice recently?
Why does anyone who reads this website believe that anand writes in-good-faith?
What a bummer, eh?
Posted by: del at March 21, 2010 6:40 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7069779.ece
From The Sunday Times March 21, 2010
"Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs"
Didn't anand recently recommend that Afghanistan and ISAF bring in Iran to assist?
Is it possible that anand hasn't been drinking his truth juice recently?
Why does anyone who reads this website believe that anand writes in-good-faith?
What a bummer, eh?
Channel 4 in Afghanistan had a special about Iranian support for the Taliban.
If a faction of the IRGC Kuds force really is supporting the Taliban and AQ backed networks against the GIRoA and ANSF, let alone other factions inside Iran, then they should be thoroughly investigated and exposed.
Karzai and the commanding general of the ANSF should blast Iran on public Afghan TV for betraying their Afghan allies; and a price will have to be paid.
If clear irrefutable evidence can be found that the IRGC Kuds is complicit in the mass murder of Afghans and Shiites; it will drive a nail through their coffin. It will hasten the end of the Iranian regime--a regime that perennially an serially commits treason against the Iranian people--and good riddance to them.
Posted by: anan at March 21, 2010 6:58 pm
If a faction of the IRGC Kuds force really is supporting the Taliban and AQ backed networks against the GIRoA and ANSF, let alone other factions inside Iran, then they should be thoroughly investigated and exposed.
Karzai and the commanding general of the ANSF should blast Iran on public Afghan TV for betraying their Afghan allies; and a price will have to be paid.
If clear irrefutable evidence can be found that the IRGC Kuds is complicit in the mass murder of Afghans and Shiites; it will drive a nail through their coffin. It will hasten the end of the Iranian regime--a regime that perennially an serially commits treason against the Iranian people--and good riddance to them.
Nor is Hamas making large contributions in the war against global extremism [outside of Palestine itself, where they genuinely are fighting them.]
You heard it right: Hamas fights extremists in Palestine.
What a freak show.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 21, 2010 6:59 pm
You heard it right: Hamas fights extremists in Palestine.
What a freak show.
Li'L, would you rather AQ linked networks weren't at war with Hamas? Would you rather Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden didn't bash Hamas in so many sermons?
See Bill Roggio's piece:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/hamas_and_al_qaeda_l.php
Please don't tell me Bill is in the tank for Hamas too.
Posted by: anan at March 21, 2010 7:15 pm
See Bill Roggio's piece:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/hamas_and_al_qaeda_l.php
Please don't tell me Bill is in the tank for Hamas too.
Anand,
I have to disagree with everything you said about Hezbollah. Nasrallah is head of an organization that CREATED suicide bombing as we know it. It was one of his agents who drove a truck into the Marine Baracks back in 1983 and killed hundreds of people. So what if he condemns violent attacks in Iraq? Al-Qaeda and the Sunni fanatics are just copying his tactics against Israel and the US...and throwing them at Iraqi Shia instead.
Nasrallah worked hand in hand with Imad Mughniyeh, one of the most aggressive terrorists the Middle East has ever seen. He's responsible for the deaths of countless Israelis, Americans, Jews, and Lebanese.
While not directly, his obsession with "martyrdom" is what allowed for Iraq to be destroyed by the "resistance".
Worst of all though, Hezbollah is armed and trained by Khamenei. I've heard from friends inside Iran that Hezbollah fighters have been working in tandem with the Basiji, giving them a needed backbone...and helping them beat down Iranians who are fighting for their rights...rights that you claim Nasrallah backs for Iraqis!
Posted by: C.H. at March 21, 2010 7:53 pm
I have to disagree with everything you said about Hezbollah. Nasrallah is head of an organization that CREATED suicide bombing as we know it. It was one of his agents who drove a truck into the Marine Baracks back in 1983 and killed hundreds of people. So what if he condemns violent attacks in Iraq? Al-Qaeda and the Sunni fanatics are just copying his tactics against Israel and the US...and throwing them at Iraqi Shia instead.
Nasrallah worked hand in hand with Imad Mughniyeh, one of the most aggressive terrorists the Middle East has ever seen. He's responsible for the deaths of countless Israelis, Americans, Jews, and Lebanese.
While not directly, his obsession with "martyrdom" is what allowed for Iraq to be destroyed by the "resistance".
Worst of all though, Hezbollah is armed and trained by Khamenei. I've heard from friends inside Iran that Hezbollah fighters have been working in tandem with the Basiji, giving them a needed backbone...and helping them beat down Iranians who are fighting for their rights...rights that you claim Nasrallah backs for Iraqis!
al-Qardawi also criticized Bin Laden shortly after 9/11. That did not, in any worthwhile way, make him an ally of non-muslims nor make him a "moderate". It was merely a demonstration of rivalry between competing egos and disagreement about tactics. The goal of both al-Qardawi and Bin Laden is to reach out and touch the world's hands with islam. Think of it as a perversion of that Jackie DeShannon song.
When Hamas had a short showdown with a freaky sheikh in Gaza who had declared the creation of an islamic emirate in gaza with himself in charge, Hamas was not "moderate". They were merely crushing a rival and smaller group of thugs. Even among fanatics there are disagreements and rivalries for power and prestige. Those rivalries should be exploited to the detriment of each.
However it is delusional to believe that any of the rivals are or ever will be our friends.
Anyone who wishes to understand Hamas should read their charter, not the musings of our pal anand.
thisonesferyou anand:
Do You Love Me? The Contours
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g-1NRN8srY
groooovy, huh?
Posted by: del at March 21, 2010 7:56 pm
When Hamas had a short showdown with a freaky sheikh in Gaza who had declared the creation of an islamic emirate in gaza with himself in charge, Hamas was not "moderate". They were merely crushing a rival and smaller group of thugs. Even among fanatics there are disagreements and rivalries for power and prestige. Those rivalries should be exploited to the detriment of each.
However it is delusional to believe that any of the rivals are or ever will be our friends.
Anyone who wishes to understand Hamas should read their charter, not the musings of our pal anand.
thisonesferyou anand:
Do You Love Me? The Contours
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g-1NRN8srY
groooovy, huh?
Takfiri groups fight each other all the time...TTP has clashed with the Haqqanis in Pakistan and Al-Shabaab is at war with Hizbul Islam in Somalia. However, nothing says any of these are less extreme than the other...they just have different methods of achieving their goals.
Posted by: C.H. at March 21, 2010 8:09 pm
Li'l Mamzer,
The money is Shiite (for now) but the agenda is all Hamas, which happens to be Sunni.
I think of HAMAS as being a proxy militia. So (according to my view) what matters is who they are working for, not what their ideology is.
The Iran - Hamas relationship is one of common strategic interests...
Exactly. And note how Hamas now shares strategic interests with Iran, and not with Saudi Arabia.
Sorry for being unclear. I thought you were referring to anand's preoccupation with "Takfiri" terrorists. I'd like a do-over on that comment, actually. From what I understand, Hamas qualifies as Takfiri, since they extol the virtues of homicide-bombing and so-called martyrdom.
That word, takfiri, is only relevant to Muslims. It's a mechanism by which Islamic terrorists justify killing their fellow Muslims by proclaiming them to be apostates when they don't share the exact same interpretation of Islam. I don't think I've ever used it before now. Since I'm not a Muslim, I'm satisfied with just calling the bastards terrorists.
Gary,
If Pipes and Bolton aren't neocons, then what is your definition of neocon?
A neocon is somebody who used to be on the left and migrated to the right at some point in their adult lives. That's the literal definition. My observation of prominent neocons is that their are similar to libertarians (which is what I am) except for one major difference: neocons are interventionalists.
As for some other stuff, Buchanan is the first person who would come to anyone's mind as a typical "paleocon".
That's nonsense. Any definition of "old-style conservative" that doesn't include Ronald Reagan is seriously flawed, and probably belongs on the scrap heap.
Unfortunately, despite his odious views on several subjects he is still regarded in many quarters (including the MSM) which still toadies to him) as a respectable spokesman.
Your perceptions are quite different than mine. It seems like the only time I ever see him in the media any more are when people want to get a juicy sound byte that has a lot of shock value. The man hasn't been relevant on the US political scene in 15+ years.
Posted by: Craig at March 21, 2010 10:14 pm
The money is Shiite (for now) but the agenda is all Hamas, which happens to be Sunni.
I think of HAMAS as being a proxy militia. So (according to my view) what matters is who they are working for, not what their ideology is.
The Iran - Hamas relationship is one of common strategic interests...
Exactly. And note how Hamas now shares strategic interests with Iran, and not with Saudi Arabia.
Sorry for being unclear. I thought you were referring to anand's preoccupation with "Takfiri" terrorists. I'd like a do-over on that comment, actually. From what I understand, Hamas qualifies as Takfiri, since they extol the virtues of homicide-bombing and so-called martyrdom.
That word, takfiri, is only relevant to Muslims. It's a mechanism by which Islamic terrorists justify killing their fellow Muslims by proclaiming them to be apostates when they don't share the exact same interpretation of Islam. I don't think I've ever used it before now. Since I'm not a Muslim, I'm satisfied with just calling the bastards terrorists.
Gary,
If Pipes and Bolton aren't neocons, then what is your definition of neocon?
A neocon is somebody who used to be on the left and migrated to the right at some point in their adult lives. That's the literal definition. My observation of prominent neocons is that their are similar to libertarians (which is what I am) except for one major difference: neocons are interventionalists.
As for some other stuff, Buchanan is the first person who would come to anyone's mind as a typical "paleocon".
That's nonsense. Any definition of "old-style conservative" that doesn't include Ronald Reagan is seriously flawed, and probably belongs on the scrap heap.
Unfortunately, despite his odious views on several subjects he is still regarded in many quarters (including the MSM) which still toadies to him) as a respectable spokesman.
Your perceptions are quite different than mine. It seems like the only time I ever see him in the media any more are when people want to get a juicy sound byte that has a lot of shock value. The man hasn't been relevant on the US political scene in 15+ years.
The greatest security threat in the world comes from Takfiri extremists. The best way to defeat the Takfiri extremists is to facilitate strong institutions in Iraq, KSA, Egypt or Pakistan.
Anand, Iran is run by a takfiri government. You know they accused many of the people in the Green Movement of being "enemies of God", including I believe, a few mullahs!
So, what's your plan for defeating the takfiri in Iran? And did you get "Sayyed" Nasrallah on-board with it yet? :p
Posted by: Craig at March 21, 2010 10:20 pm
Anand, Iran is run by a takfiri government. You know they accused many of the people in the Green Movement of being "enemies of God", including I believe, a few mullahs!
So, what's your plan for defeating the takfiri in Iran? And did you get "Sayyed" Nasrallah on-board with it yet? :p
Craig is right...by definition, a "Takfiri" does NOT have to be a Sunni Muslim
Posted by: C.H. at March 21, 2010 10:25 pm
Craig, I think we're getting into a semantic dispute about "neocon" and "paleocon" that is probably bigger than our disagreement about the substantive issues at hand. I'll just say that based on most people's perception of "neocon" I think they would be really surprised to hear that neocons are in any sense "soft" on Iran.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 21, 2010 11:02 pm
I don't know of any neocons who are soft on Iran.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2010 11:32 pm
Mary, Craig and I really do know a lot about the Iraqi insurgency. This is not a statement of pride (in Craig, since he is my friend; or in myself); but a genuine statement of fact made without pretense and without airs.
That may be true, but experience in the field does not give one the automatic ability to skillfully critique a piece of investigative journalism.
If Craig has issues with Ms. Glasser's stats, he needs to provide his own numbers. If he has proof that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were not Saudi, we need to see the numbers.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 22, 2010 6:22 am
That may be true, but experience in the field does not give one the automatic ability to skillfully critique a piece of investigative journalism.
If Craig has issues with Ms. Glasser's stats, he needs to provide his own numbers. If he has proof that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were not Saudi, we need to see the numbers.
Mary,
That may be true, but experience in the field...
Anand was probably referring to the fact that we've both been very active on the Iraqi blogs for years. In my case ALL of the Iraqi blogs were daily stops for me between about 2004 and 2006(there were less than a dozen back then). Shortly after Steven Vincent was murdered, I became very ambivalent about US involvement in Iraq since it was the guys the US was supporting who killed him. So, I drastically cut back my activity on Iraqi blogs.
...does not give one the automatic ability to skillfully critique a piece of investigative journalism.
Mary, your source quoted the information being put out by an un-named jihadi website. That's not investigative journalism.
If Craig has issues with Ms. Glasser's stats, he needs to provide his own numbers.
No, I don't. I can dismiss the single source she used as being disreputable without bothering to try to refute her claims. I've seen hundreds of contradictory claims about the insurgency in Iraq over the years. This is just one more, and it isn't even recent. Her article dates back to before the insurgency really even began.
If he has proof that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were not Saudi, we need to see the numbers.
You can find the numbers for yourself. I assume you already tried, and the reason you relied on such a sketchy article from five years ago instead of something more recent and with better substantiated (hers isn't substantiated at all!) claims is that they didn't prove the case you were trying to make.
I thought we were done talking about this? :)
Posted by: Craig at March 22, 2010 10:51 am
That may be true, but experience in the field...
Anand was probably referring to the fact that we've both been very active on the Iraqi blogs for years. In my case ALL of the Iraqi blogs were daily stops for me between about 2004 and 2006(there were less than a dozen back then). Shortly after Steven Vincent was murdered, I became very ambivalent about US involvement in Iraq since it was the guys the US was supporting who killed him. So, I drastically cut back my activity on Iraqi blogs.
...does not give one the automatic ability to skillfully critique a piece of investigative journalism.
Mary, your source quoted the information being put out by an un-named jihadi website. That's not investigative journalism.
If Craig has issues with Ms. Glasser's stats, he needs to provide his own numbers.
No, I don't. I can dismiss the single source she used as being disreputable without bothering to try to refute her claims. I've seen hundreds of contradictory claims about the insurgency in Iraq over the years. This is just one more, and it isn't even recent. Her article dates back to before the insurgency really even began.
If he has proof that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq were not Saudi, we need to see the numbers.
You can find the numbers for yourself. I assume you already tried, and the reason you relied on such a sketchy article from five years ago instead of something more recent and with better substantiated (hers isn't substantiated at all!) claims is that they didn't prove the case you were trying to make.
I thought we were done talking about this? :)
I thought we were done talking about this? :)
When anand said "This is not a statement of pride...but a genuine statement of fact made without pretense and without airs.", I wasn't sure if I was talking to someone who could dissemble an IED in the dark and knew 50 ways to kill a man with a bowl of baba ganouj. You never know, the most interesting assortment of characters visit Michael's blog.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the veracity of the Washington Post article, but I was wondering - how did you find the information about the people who killed Steven Vincent? Was this information published, and is it still online?
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 22, 2010 12:38 pm
When anand said "This is not a statement of pride...but a genuine statement of fact made without pretense and without airs.", I wasn't sure if I was talking to someone who could dissemble an IED in the dark and knew 50 ways to kill a man with a bowl of baba ganouj. You never know, the most interesting assortment of characters visit Michael's blog.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the veracity of the Washington Post article, but I was wondering - how did you find the information about the people who killed Steven Vincent? Was this information published, and is it still online?
The Islamic Republic is and has been a threat to American national security.
Only if you define "American national security" as "Israel's national security." And even then the premise is questionable. Iran is a culturally backwards stagnant economic basket-case. A nuclear Iran is a culturally backwards stagnant economic basket-case with nuclear weapons they will never be willing to use. Everything in foreign affairs today boils down to the US vs. China - the rest is details.
Posted by: Ivan N at March 22, 2010 2:49 pm
Only if you define "American national security" as "Israel's national security." And even then the premise is questionable. Iran is a culturally backwards stagnant economic basket-case. A nuclear Iran is a culturally backwards stagnant economic basket-case with nuclear weapons they will never be willing to use. Everything in foreign affairs today boils down to the US vs. China - the rest is details.
Ivan N,
On which rock and how far, from the sun, are you?
The Iranian mullahcracy, subscribers to the particularly fantastical and supremacist 12ver Shiism version of Islam have made it their mission, for 30 years, to export their insanity throughout the mideast and also into South America, and Europe. If you believe that access to oil is important for the world, then the Persian/Arabian Gulf and tensions therein matter to American national security, completely independent of Israel.
On what basis do you believe that they will never be willing to use nuclear weapons?
Followers of 12ver Shiism expect an Armageddon-like end to the world as we know it, followed by an islamic paradise in whatever follows.
Nuclear weapons are their ticket to that paradise.
Why wouldn't they use them?
Posted by: del at March 22, 2010 4:54 pm
On which rock and how far, from the sun, are you?
The Iranian mullahcracy, subscribers to the particularly fantastical and supremacist 12ver Shiism version of Islam have made it their mission, for 30 years, to export their insanity throughout the mideast and also into South America, and Europe. If you believe that access to oil is important for the world, then the Persian/Arabian Gulf and tensions therein matter to American national security, completely independent of Israel.
On what basis do you believe that they will never be willing to use nuclear weapons?
Followers of 12ver Shiism expect an Armageddon-like end to the world as we know it, followed by an islamic paradise in whatever follows.
Nuclear weapons are their ticket to that paradise.
Why wouldn't they use them?
I suspect, like Ivan, that Iran won't actually use nuclear weapons, but I can't prove it, and I'm nowhere near as confident as I am that Britain will not use nuclear weapons.
I am, however, 99 percent certain that a nuclear armed Iran will make the Middle East much more dangerous in general. There is almost no chance at all that a nuclear Iran will be more reasonable than an Iran that is militarily weak.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 22, 2010 5:02 pm
I am, however, 99 percent certain that a nuclear armed Iran will make the Middle East much more dangerous in general. There is almost no chance at all that a nuclear Iran will be more reasonable than an Iran that is militarily weak.
Only if you define "American national security" as "Israel's national security." And even then the premise is questionable.
Yeah, whatever.
This is the meme of those whose aversion to Jews clouds the mind and diverts rational thought.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 22, 2010 5:06 pm
Yeah, whatever.
This is the meme of those whose aversion to Jews clouds the mind and diverts rational thought.
Haaretz reported that Hamas might be open to a two state solution based on something similar to 1967 borders. See the meeting of Ismail Haniyeh with European politicians in late 2008:
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2008/11/change-in-hamas-policy-towards-israel.html
Posted by: anan at March 22, 2010 6:00 pm
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2008/11/change-in-hamas-policy-towards-israel.html
anand,
Hamas plays games to see how gullible other parties are, and how they react to "trial balloons". At most, any "2 state solution" would be intended as a temporary stop on the road to the "1 state solution", also known as the "final solution".
Come to think of it, the games you, anand, play here are similiar.
Anyone curious about Hamas should read their charter to see their goals and plans and errm, idiosyncracies (they really don't like Rotary International for some reason. Or is it the Lions Clubs? Go figure.).
Until you, anand, send that email you said you would write to Hamas, convincing them to rewrite their charter and to completely change their ideology, the world will be a more dangerous place.
Hop to it, anand. The weight of the world rests on your shoulders.
Posted by: del at March 22, 2010 7:36 pm
Hamas plays games to see how gullible other parties are, and how they react to "trial balloons". At most, any "2 state solution" would be intended as a temporary stop on the road to the "1 state solution", also known as the "final solution".
Come to think of it, the games you, anand, play here are similiar.
Anyone curious about Hamas should read their charter to see their goals and plans and errm, idiosyncracies (they really don't like Rotary International for some reason. Or is it the Lions Clubs? Go figure.).
Until you, anand, send that email you said you would write to Hamas, convincing them to rewrite their charter and to completely change their ideology, the world will be a more dangerous place.
Hop to it, anand. The weight of the world rests on your shoulders.
Post a comment
