Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Al Baghdadi Makes His Call. By Ghassan Kadi 27 December 2015




Al Baghdadi Makes His Call.  By Ghassan Kadi 27 December 2015

http://thesaker.is/al-baghdadi-makes-his-call/

Al-Baghdadi faz seu "Call": (Translated) Ghassan Kadi 27 dezembro de 2015

Al-Baghdadi faz seu "Call":
Ghassan Kadi 27 dezembro de 2015


Em uma mensagem de áudio (publicado no link abaixo no Assafir diário libanês em 26 de dezembro de 2015), ISIS / ISIL / IS-Chefe, "Califa" Abou Bakr Al-Baghdadi dá um discurso bastante demorado 24 minutos. Metade da mensagem é dirigida aos muçulmanos, todos os muçulmanos, enquanto a outra metade é dirigido ao mundo; especialmente as nações que tomaram para si a lutar contra o Estado islâmico.

A abordagem não é sistêmica e salta de um "meio" para o outro, mas com uma chamada da linha de fundo para todos os muçulmanos a se unir a fim de lutar contra o que ele percebe como os inimigos do Islã.

"O mundo se uniu para lutar contra o Islã", argumenta ele, e isso era de se esperar. De qualquer maneira, os muçulmanos serão os vencedores, porque eles vão ser martirizado na batalha e se elevou ao céu, ou ganhar a batalha no terreno.

E quem são os inimigos do Islã em seu ponto de vista? Todas as nações que estão lutando o Estado Islâmico, incluindo a Arábia Saudita que se formou recentemente uma aliança militar contra o terrorismo. Al Baghdadi diz que a coalizão Arábia proposta se destina apenas a combater o Islã eo Estado Islâmico. Se seus objetivos eram para defender o Islã, ele estaria lutando na Síria ao lado do Estado islâmico e proteger os muçulmanos indefesos na Síria e na Palestina.
Na menção da Palestina, ele se dirige a judeus e diz que eles não foram esquecidos nem perdoado. Eles vão em breve encontrar-se rodeado pelo Estado islâmico e eles vão ter para onde correr e se esconder.

Ele chama para a juventude saudita a se levantar contra seus governantes hereges, e para todos os muçulmanos a se juntar a ele e pegar em armas para a batalha que eles sabiam foi um dia que vem.

Ele faz menção direta da América, Europa e Rússia e promete-lhes retaliação.

O calendário deste discurso é estranho. Está relacionado com o assassinato de Zahran Alloush?

Alloush, o chefe do "Exército do Islã" foi a mão direita de Arábia Saudita, na Síria. Ele é o único que encenou o falso ataque com armas químicas em East Ghouta em julho de 2013. Ele é o filho de Bandar e dançou para músicas de seu mestre, mas ele também era altamente considerado e respeitado dentro do e-arquivo de classificação de todos os islamistas, porque ele era capaz de manter firmemente suas posições muito perto de Damasco e em um estágio não estava muito longe de entrar nela.
Sua morte ao lado de muitos altos comandantes deixaram sua brigada em grande desordem, e mesmo que uma substituição pelo nome de Abou Humam Al-Bouweidani foi nomeado, já houve negociações em curso para limpar os lutadores para fora da área. Agora, é muito possível que Al-Baghdadi está tentando preencher esse vazio e para atrair exército de loyals de Alloush para dar-lhe a sua promessa de fidelidade.

Mas isso por si só não pode explicar totalmente a razão por trás a mensagem de Al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi é claramente aproveitando o tempo dos eventos, a formação de diferentes coligações para lutar com ele, e tentar usá-los para se dar crédito, substância e validade religiosa.

Nas mentes de jovens muçulmanos que subscrevem a teoria de que o Islã é uma combinação de uma "espada e um livro", o conceito de perceber Jihad como uma luta armada não está longe de seus corações. Enquanto este é um enorme equívoco da verdadeira mensagem, não deixa de ser aceito como o que o Islã está destinado a ser. Neste contexto, as palavras de Al-Baghdadi cair sobre ouvidos receptivos. Muitos jovens estarão ouvindo suas palavras e se perguntando por que eles estão sentados em suas costas no conforto e segurança de suas casas quando seus irmãos e irmãs estão sendo abatidos por uma onda de infiéis internacionais?

Eles vão se sentir vergonha de si mesmos se não se levantar e lutar, e se eles não basta fazer isso por conta própria, em seguida, sua pressão dos colegas será tão grande e muitos deles não será capaz de resistir.

A maioria dos recrutamentos são feitos por pressão dos colegas, especialmente daqueles que são um pouco mais velhos e mais versados ​​em retórica islâmica e são capazes de fornecer "prova" do Alcorão para o seu argumento e chamar para pegar em armas.

A chamada de Al-Baghdadi não é muito específico em tudo. Ele está chamando para todos os muçulmanos, onde quer que estejam, para fazer tudo o que podem para lutar pela causa. Isso inclui mini-ataques terroristas auto-planejado aqui e ali em todo o globo? A resposta óbvia é sim ou pelo menos por que não, porque Deus de acordo com ele, ordenou que os muçulmanos a lutar contra seus inimigos onde quer que encontrá-los, e até que o mundo inteiro está unido pelo Islã.

Suas palavras foram cuidadosamente escolhidos, e teologicamente falando, ele não disse nada em tudo que é contra o conceito de integrar o Islã.

Clérigos moderados vai achar que é muito difícil fazer quaisquer argumentos contra o discurso se e quando desafiado por seus seguidores. Sua incapacidade de refutar a sua mensagem será visto por alguns seriam recrutas como uma indicação de que Al-Baghdadi fala a verdade e deve ser seguido. Para muitos novos recrutas, isso vai soar como a "chamada" que eles estavam esperando.

O Al-Baghdadi "chamada", se ele é seguido por uma campanha de recrutamento enorme ou não, é um testemunho do fato de que mesmo o mais determinado dos que estão preparados para lutar contra o Estado islâmico ainda não despertaram para a enormidade sua ameaça.

O Estado Islâmico é muito mais do que uma organização de terroristas com um exército e campos de petróleo roubados. É uma ideologia, uma ideologia que se alimenta de uma religião, comumente realizada más interpretações de uma religião, com mais de um bilhão de potenciais recrutas em vista.

Ora aqui está a ironia. A Arábia Saudita tem sido baseada em wahhabismo, que por sua vez é fundada sobre essas interpretações erradas violentas do islamismo. Arábia Saudita alimentados com a ideologia que criou Al-Qaeda e, mais tarde, o Estado Islâmico, mas eles têm politicamente colidiu com os dois mais tarde.

O Estado Islâmico tem quebrado solto, e com a ajuda da Turquia, o seu comércio de petróleo está a gerar receitas suficientes por si para ser auto-suporte. O Estado Islâmico também tem quebrado a sua aliança com os EUA, embora os americanos são realmente temerário o suficiente para pensar que eles podem continuar a utilizá-las na luta contra Assad.

Mas mesmo que o exército do Estado Islâmico é derrotado, o seu comércio de petróleo colocar ao fim, Erdogan deu um soco e enviado para o canto impertinente e Arábia Saudita vai à falência e incapaz de financiar quaisquer mais fundos para o aumento dos jihadistas, o conceito de um Estado Islâmico semelhante a Al-Baghdadi de não se vai longe por tanto tempo quanto há muçulmanos que acreditam na versão violenta do Islã. Será somente uma questão de tempo antes que um novo Al-Baghdadi nasce e as tentativas de ressuscitar o sonho.

A visão simplista de que o Estado Islâmico foi suportado pelos sauditas e os norte-americanos e que ambos continuam a controlá-lo é apenas como indicado; simplista. Os jihadistas vai aceitar apoio de ninguém quando eles precisam, mas eles não são fantoches. Eles são muito bem doutrinado pessoas em uma missão. E a menos que eles são compreendidos por aquilo que são, o que eles acreditam e como tencionam atingir os seus objetivos, eles nunca será derrotado.

E enquanto alguns ocidentais sempre a mudar o nome do Estado Islâmico do ISIS para ISIL a IS e / ou o Estado Islâmico anteriormente conhecido como ISIS, o Estado islâmico não mudou seu nome em tudo, e continua a apodrecer ideologicamente sem oposição e pouco notados.

O entendimento mais próximo do Estado Islâmico do lado de fora do mundo muçulmano parece estar presente na Rússia. Se qualquer coisa, a derrubada do Su-24 tem quebrado as barreiras do politicamente correto entre Moscou e Ancara e Moscou agora está falando abertamente sobre e relatar o apoio da Turquia ao Estado islâmico. Moscou tem feito comentários semelhantes, mas muito mais sutis sobre o papel da Arábia Saudita.

O impasse aqui é política, e ninguém pode prever Moscou pedindo pela reforma religiosa muçulmana. Reforma religiosa de qualquer religião é a tarefa de seus seguidores, e, obviamente, no caso do Islã, a responsabilidade recai sobre os muçulmanos.

البغدادي يدعو لانتفاضة في السعودية ويتوعد إسرائيل :: عربي ودولي | جريدة السفير
دعا زعيم "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" - "داعش" أبو بكر البغدادي إلى انتفاضة في ...
assafir.com



    Tuesday, December 15, 2015

    QATAR UNPLUGGED by Ghassan Kadi 14 December 2015

    QATAR UNPLUGGED
    By Ghassan Kadi
    14 December 2015


    http://thesaker.is/qatar-unplugged/


    QATAR UNPLUGGED

    by Ghassan Kadi
    When Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, its population was a meagre 100,000. Fifty years or so later, its population has ballooned to nearly 2.2 million, but only 275,000 are actual Qataris. The rest are not migrants, they are not going to be integrated in the population as fully fledged citizens, they are simply hired expats on contracts, performing different tasks, and when they finish their work, they return to their homes.
    In the few centuries leading up to its independence, successive Qatari emirs have engaged in fierce battles with rulers of Bahrain and the Wahhabis of Najd (to become later on Saudi Arabia). The Al-Thani family took the throne by the mid nineteenth century, and they continue to do so today.
    The peninsula that was marred by regional and tribal conflict was otherwise a quaint pearling centre until oil was discovered in the 1930’s.
    When the British declared Qatar as a protectorate, a reciprocal deal was struck between the Qatari rulers and the British, in which Britain wanted to secure safe trade routes whilst the Qataris needed protection from their neighbours and rivals.
    The new-found oil wealth might have reduced the need of those warring tribes to continue fighting over limited resources, but their rivalries and hatred towards each other did not go away. As a matter of fact, Qatar refused to join the United Arab Emirates and chose independence instead.
    The seemingly united Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in reality a consortium of ancient enemies who were brought together by common fear over their wealth from would-be invaders. Certainly, over and above their fear of each other, they also fear Iran and this fear goes back to the days of the Shah and beyond, and it is much deeper than a sheer sectarian Sunni-Shiite hatred.
    Security has always been a Qatari obsession, and it doesn’t take much research effort to read about the many military conflicts that the Qataris have had with their neighbours. It’s a long story of deception, treachery, distrust, invasions and pillaging. And what is interesting is to note that historically speaking, the Qatari rulers had no qualms seeking protection from friends afar against their local neighbours.
    But why would a country, which has never been a true state in its own right till very recently, a so-called nation that has a population that is no bigger than that of a single district of Damascus, Aleppo or Baghdad, why would such a tiny insignificant entity want to be a regional leader? And why would it be so adamant about using Islamist Jihadists to destroy much older and bigger states like Iraq, Libya and Syria?
    The more one looks into what Qatar is doing, the question of why it is doing so become less significant. The question changes from why is Qatar doing what it is doing to the question of what Qatar really is.
    Qatar is not a nation. It does not have the foundations of a nation. Qatar is not even a state when it has the population of a municipality, and it is definitely not a regional leader.
    Qatar ought to be seen for what it is. Qatar is simply a very big and rich company. It is not any different from Shell Oil or BP, with the single difference that it has a UN-given mandate that gives it a seat as a UN member and the legitimacy that comes with it, something that private corporations do not have.
    This is on the political scene. On the military scene, Qatar is a much more sinister “company”. In this respect, it is not a Western partner, a colony, a vassal state, an agent state or an ally in strategic military alliance.
    Qatar is simply an outpost, a precinct, but not for America as first comes to one’s mind.
    The rise of Blackwater Security Company to prominence, a couple of decades ago, raised some eyebrows about the nature of future reliance of rich states on hired security. Qatar most certainly depends on the USA for its defence, just like historically it has depended on Britain. Strategically, it has reciprocated favours with the American “Big Brother” when it offered its soil as a base to launch the attacks on Saddam.
    Geopolitically, Qatar has played a big role serving the interests of the same “Big Brother” in Syria. It spent billions on munitions to supply Al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations within Syria. Speaking of Syria, one should not forget the huge role that Qatar played in Libya against Gaddafi.
    In both Libya and Syria, the role of Qatar was not restricted to financing revolts, but Qatar has also contributed significantly to the propaganda campaign, using its elaborate Al-Jazeera network to ramp up public anger against both Gaddafi and Assad.
    Al-Jazeera has gone to the extent of staging events in Hollywood style productions, creating backgrounds that are similar to iconic places in major Syrian towns and filming scenes of actors dressed up in Syrian Army uniforms performing massacres against civilians.
    So once again, how and why would such a small “nation” be so adamant on destroying Syria?
    And here’s another big question. America has a major ally in the Arabian Peninsula, and this ally is Saudi Arabia, so why does America need another major ally in the same region? Convenience can be an answer to some situations. For example, when the US needed a base on the ground to attack Iraq, it couldn’t have used Saudi soil (being Muslim holy ground) without angering the Muslim street to an extreme, so Qatar was a handy religiously-neutral ground. By why does the US need Qatar in the fight against Syria? And why would America continue to intimidate its Saudi friends by appeasing their Qatari rivals?
    A closer analysis clearly shows that Saudi and Qatari policies in Syria have had many congruencies, but some stark differences as well. In Egypt, The Qataris supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi and the Saudis did not. In as much that they both sponsored all terrorist organizations, Saudi Arabia primarily backed the “Free Syria Army” (FSA), The Army of Islam and other minor organizations, whilst Qatar was the main backer of Al-Nusra Front and what later became ISIS.
    The polarization of Qatar with Turkey forming an MB-based front against Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi-Salafist front became more obvious when Qatar absconded and refused to attend GCC meetings. Needless to say that the major leadership rival for Saudi Arabia is the Sunni Turkey, not the Shiite Iran.
    What is least obvious behind the Turkish-backed support of Qatar is the silent partner; Israel. Now, after the downing of the Su-24, Erdogan wants to build a military base in Qatar. How odd indeed? Why does Turkey need a base in Qatar? And how would America allow having a non-American base in Qatar?
    Perhaps the question becomes easier to answer if we ask it in a different manner; if we ask who is it that really needs a military base in Qatar? Again, the only non-Qatari party that would love to have a base in Qatar is none but Israel.
    It is easy to allow imagination to fly and go astray, but given the American-Iranian nuclear deal, any Israeli attack on Iran needs a launch pad that is close enough to Tehran, and you cannot get much closer than Qatar. Is the proposed Turkish base in Qatar going to be a disguised Israeli base? This is not a far-fetched speculation.
    The relationship between Qatar and Israel is weird, unique, and perhaps the first of its kind. Qatar is not hiring Israel for a fee per se. Israel is protecting the “company” of Qatar and using its UN state membership status to legitimize actions that can only be sanctioned by states; a new type of warfare that not even Blackwater is capable of doing.
    Qatar is neither a nation nor a state. It is a major corporation like Haliburton. It has a UN-given guise of a state, but it is a corporation that seeks survival and in doing so, it has contracted its security to Israel. Strategically and geopolitically, Qatar is an extension of Israel in the Gulf, an Israeli outpost and precinct. Its aspirations for regional leadership are just a façade created to hide its actual substance and to mislead observers from what it really is.
    A clan with 200,000 subjects who need 2 million foreign expats to look after them, ten expats for each national, in order to make sure that water and hospitals are running, there is food on the supermarket shelves, and teachers are there to teach their children, is not by any measure a regional leader, a self-respecting nation, let alone a nation. A tribe is perhaps a good description of Qatar, but the word “company” hits the nail on the head.
    The Al-Thani clan, the owners of the “company” aka Qatar, have gone the full circle. They are back on the track of their treacherous predecessors who were prepared to sign off to the devil in order to guarantee their security. This is exactly what the current Qatari royals are doing with Israel, and the best protection Qatar can get from Israel is by covertly striking a deal with Israel in which Qatar is rendered a military Israeli outpost.
    Every other action Qatar does that is not directly related to its security, is simply a cover up and a diversion.

    Sunday, December 13, 2015

    'Moderate' Islamism? Washington and Brussels Playing with Fire in Syria, Iraq. Interview Ghassan Kadi 12 Dec 2015

    GHASSAN KADI "Moderate" Islamism? Washington and Brussels Playing with Fire in Syria, Iraq Sputnik interviews Ghassan Kadi 12 December 2015

    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151212/1031656451/daesh-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-moderate-islamists-syria-iraq.html

    Ekaterina Blinova


    The EU and the US still refuse to see a direct connection between the ideology of Islam and its military Daesh and al-Qaeda wings; neither the US, nor the EU has taken serious steps to prevent new Paris/San Bernardino-style attacks, Ghassan Kadi, The Vineyard of The Saker's columnist and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, told Sputnik.

    A de-classified US Defense Intelligence Agency's 2012 document stated clearly that the Syrian uprising of 2011 was orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Salafists and al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is not the first time when the Muslim Brotherhood has taken part in a regime change attempt: after the Egyptian revolution of January 2011 the Muslim Brothers had even come to power in Egypt.
    Why has the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Sunni Islamist organization, become the headliner of the Arab Revolt in North Africa and the Levant?
    "It's hard to give this question enough justice because it encompasses a multitude of areas and topics. Mubarak had been in power for over three decades and there was a huge level of dissatisfaction with his presidency at most levels of society; and not with the MB's alone. The secular youth, known then as the '25th of January movement' played the most substantial role in the initial revolt, and at that time, the MB's were nowhere to be seen. I continue to believe that up till that point in time, the revolt in Egypt was a genuine popular uprising. All of a sudden the MB's came in at a later stage and capitalized on an existing unrest and hijacked it to their advantage. They were organized, and they had been preparing for such an opportunity for decades," Ghassan Kadi, Syrian political analyst and expert on Middle Eastern affairs told Sputnik.  
    "The precedent that was created in Egypt became later on known as the 'Arab Spring' with the intention of using Islamists to destroy Syria," Kadi continued.
    According to the expert, in the 1950s and 60s, Arab youth became very affected by Marxism and Maoism. Many Arab states were adopting socialist agendas and doctrines and going under the Soviet sphere of influence.

    "The battle for the hearts and minds of Arab youth in general, and Muslim youth in specific, was first launched between the then secular pro-Soviet Egyptian President Nasser and the Islamist pro-American Saudi King Faisal," the Syrian expert emphasized.
    Up until 1967 Nasser was extremely popular and Islamist ideology had no chance at all. However, Egypt's defeat in the 1967 June war with Israel was detrimental for Nasser's popularity.
    Kadi pointed out that it was the time when Islamists came onto stage promising a "new direction" to restore the Levant's "former glory."
    "The rise of the economic power of Saudi Arabia facilitated that process, and the West was very happy to see Arab/Muslim youth diverting away from Communism, until they realized that they can in fact be brethren in arms fighting together against the 'Infidel' Soviets in Afghanistan," the Syrian expert narrated.

    Remarkably, the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood go back to the late 1920s, when the Brotherhood was founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna in Egypt. Incredible as it may seem, al-Banna and his followers had been enchanted by Western Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Brotherhood closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the World War II. Why did Muslim Brothers embrace Western fascism in the 1930s?

    "In the 1930s, and for fairness to al-Banna, no one in the Arab and Muslim worlds cared much about finding out about the true nature of Fascism. Hitler presented himself via Nazi propaganda to Arabs as a liberator and an enemy of the traditional British and French usurpers and colonialists. After all, propaganda was running high and the introduction of the radio at that time made it easy for different parties to put their messages across, and there was an Arabic radio station transmitting from Berlin to the Arab World. By then, Arabs had all the reasons not to believe anything the allies told them, after all, it was France and Britain who lied to the Arabs and did not grant them independence as they promised that they would be provided when they joined the fight against the Ottoman Turks," Kadi elaborated in the interview with Sputnik.

    Al-Banna (third from left) with Aziz Ali al-Misri (fourth from right) and Egyptian, Palestinian and Algerian political and religious figures at a reception in Cairo, 1947.
    Al-Banna (third from left) with Aziz Ali al-Misri (fourth from right) and Egyptian, Palestinian and Algerian political and religious figures at a reception in Cairo, 1947.
    Hitler's Nazi Germany had not been the only dubious ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. The transnational organization has certain ties with the infamous al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Experts note that the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood's leading member and the so-called father of modern Islamist fundamentalism had had an influence on Osama Bin Laden. After Sayyid Qutb was executed in Egypt in 1966, his brother and follower Muhammad, fled to Saudi Arabia and taught as a professor of Islamic Studies at Jeddah's King Abdel-Aziz University. Reportedly, Osama bin Laden was one of his "star" students. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the architects of 9/11 terrorist attacks was also believed to be one of the Brotherhood's "pupils."
    Do al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideologies have much in common?
    "The ideologies of the MB's and Al-Qaeda are identical. In this same basket, you can include the Wahhabis, the Salafis, and all other Islamist groups. And even though the Egyptian MB's did not have a history of violence like their say Syrian counterparts, members walk in and out of these organizations all the time, and in effect, there is no difference between them at all. After all, Ayman Zawahiri himself, the current leader of al-Qaeda, is a former Egyptian MB member," Kadi emphasized.
    "All of those organizations are based on a distorted form of Islam that believes in coercion and enforcing the rule of Sharia over the entire globe. They may hate one another at times, they may fight over loots and political alliances to different sponsors, but ideologically-speaking, they are identical, although disagreeing at times on very insignificant theological and practice issues," the Syrian expert explained.

    Why are European and American policymakers still in denial and refuse to recognize the threat posed by Islamists' ideology? The Muslim Brotherhood has not yet been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. Many Muslim Brothers are working in European reputable foundations and lecturing in Europe's numerous Mosques.
    It was US Senator Ted Cruz who has eventually introduced a bill aimed at designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in November 2015. The legislation is currently being considered by American lawmakers.
    Interestingly enough, back in 2007 America's influential Council of Foreign Relations' media outlet argued that the Muslim Brotherhood was"the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization" had rejected global jihad and embraced "democracy."
    "In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim moderates, policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood presents a notable opportunity," Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke wrote in their article entitled "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" for Foreign Affairs.

    Ayman al-Zawahri, left, holds a press conference with Osama bin Laden in Khost, Afghanistan in 1998.
    Ayman al-Zawahri, left, holds a press conference with Osama bin Laden in Khost, Afghanistan in 1998.
    "The EU and the US are either refusing to see the ideological link between the religious wing (i.e. the MB's) and military wing (i.e. the terrorists), or they are trying to distance themselves from the terrorist organizations in the hope to use the MB's in the future," Kadi told Sputnik.
    "However, the EU and the US do not see further than their noses and they have proven this time after time. For them to even imagine that they can have another go at harnessing Islamic fundamentalism is a proof of their short-sightedness and lack of ability to learn from previous mistakes," he added.
    While playing with Islamism Europe and the United States make a big mistake. They do not take into consideration the possible outcomes of their socio-engineering experiments.
    "Is America foolish enough to forget 9/11, and not clever enough to understand the underlying foundations needed to launch an attack like the San Bernardino attack?" the Syrian expert asked.
    "I cannot see that the West has planned its interactions and the outcome of its support of different Islamic organizations and the states that support them in an intelligent manner at all. It has always been known that the state of Saudi Arabia has been right behind the rise of Islamist fundamentalism with the blessing of the United States. Turkey is finally emerging to be another such supporter and irrespective of how much Erdogan rejects the Russian accusations regarding his illegal oil trade with Daesh [IS/ISIL], the satellite photos are here for all to see and people are not stupid," Kadi told Sputnik.
    "Apart from a few outcries from ultra-right wing European politicians, the Europeans have not yet taken any serious steps of preventing repeats of the Paris attacks, and if they continue to opt to play with fire, they will have to be prepared for the fruit of their action," the expert warned.    


    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151212/1031656451/daesh-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-moderate-islamists-syria-iraq.html#ixzz3uAUiA0mc

    Tuesday, November 17, 2015

    The Edge of the Abyss is at the Elysee. Summary from Assafir Daily By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi


    THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS IS AT THE ELYSEE

    Summary and Analysis of Today’s Assafir  Article on the Paris Attacks.
    Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

    17 November 2015

    Another brilliant article from Assafir’s Mohommed Ballout.  This time he is analysing the political fallout from the Paris attacks.    Assafir is the leading daily in Lebanon and at the forefront of supporting the Axis of Resistance.

    Contrary to many current conspiracy theories that are running rampant, each trying to give an interpretation that coincides with their own political framework, fears, prejudices or paranoia, Ballout’s analysis of the causes and the aftermath of the Friday the 13th attacks are measured, objective and well informed.

    Summary: The repercussions start right at the top and at the Elysee to be specific. Once France is back in business its politicians from both sides of the divide, together with journalists, scholars and so on, will have to painfully re-evaluate everything that France has been doing.



    Hollande is hoping to get the same unanimous support he received after the Charlie Hebdo massacre back in January.  However, the circumstances back then were very different. The Charlie Hebdo attack was a result of the magazine’s depictions of Prophet Muhammad, but the Black Friday attacks were the direct result of failed French politics in the Middle East.



    The French President will be facing a major uphill battle trying to prove the public and opposition alike that it was not him who was personally responsible in putting the public at risk.


    Former President Sarkozy, who initiated the current French policy in the Middle East, a policy that the incumbent Hollande followed to the letter, is now turning around and demanding that France review its foreign policies and side with Moscow as there should be only one coalition fighting ISIS in Syria.

    It has also become very clear to many analysts and politicians within France that the manner in which France has dealt with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has failed and has in fact exacerbated it. There are also serious concerns about France’s stand in weakening the Syrian Army which has been at the forefront of fighting ISIS.  The concerns are further enhanced by the fact that whilst some Islamic organisations continue to be under the control of states such as Qatar and Turkey, ISIS has totally broken loose.



    The major area in this concern lies in the inability to understand what ISIS is really all about, how it is rallying and recruiting from all over the globe and how to reach an effective strategy  in order to defeat it.


     

     

    Thursday, November 5, 2015

    THE FALLACY OF WESTERN STYLE DEMOCRACY. 2 Nov 2015 By Ghassan Kadi


    THE FALLACY OF WESTERN STYLE DEMOCRACY
    By Ghassan Kadi 2 November 2015

    * This article was updated from the one written on 12 June 2011

    http://thesaker.is/the-fallacy-of-western-style-democracy/


    Until China takes over the USA as the world’s strongest economic and military power, the West continues to lead the world in many different aspects; least of which is its arrogance.

    Despite its failing family values, drug problems, corruption, growing divide between the haves and have nots, the West has the audacity to tell the rest of the world that it should model itself on the West.

    The West had great foundations. They go back to ancient Greece and Christianity. Had the West really and truly followed the ancient Greek wisdom and proper Christianity, it would not have succumbed to the level of moral bankruptcy that it has reached now.

    But the Western civilization was overtaken by human greed and by ancient royal regimes that regarded its citizens as serfs and property. The glorious French revolution was a great moment in time, when the power of the people stood up against tyranny.

    The objective here is not a historic narrative. Rather, it is about today’s Western style democracy.

    Democracy in essence means the rule of people. In theory, it is a great concept; if and when applied properly.

    The objective here is not to have a philosophical discussion either, but we have to go back to the philosophical background of the concept.

    The ancient Greek philosophers promoted the idea of dictatorship of the wise. A dictatorship in which the ruler is one who is not seeking to be the head of the state, and if anything, one who would very reluctantly accept this enormously responsible position.

    The concept is well explained in Plato’s Republic, but in fact was put into practice by Plato’s supreme teacher, Pythagoras. The school of Pythagoras was a small group of people headed by the great wise man Pythagoras. He was a just and fair ruler who did not want any personal gain for himself. His ultimate objective was to lead his people to better life and to better philosophical/spiritual understanding of life.

    His “political” rivals accused him of totalitarian dictatorship. They were simply unable to understand what he was trying to do, and also jealous of the state of esteem by which he was regarded amongst his people. His school was attacked and demolished. That was one of the saddest moments in human history. Humanity has not yet woken up to the enormity of that moment.

    The concept of democracy developed as the anti-thesis of the better known Plato’s Republic model.

    Let us jump from ancient Greece to the post-French revolution West. The West regarded democracy as the epitome of civil law. The word became synonymous with freedom, justice, equality, and many virtues that do not necessarily relate to democracy at all.

    Once again, in essence, if democracy is practised properly, then it can mean some of those virtues. There is however a big provisor. The majority will have to make the right judgement.

    Some would argue that if the majority wants a demon to rule them, then they should get a demon. This is how democracy works. In reality, a demon cannot and will not rule with justice and his/her rule will create many innocent victims.

    So even if democracy is practised properly, there is always a major concern about the majority of people choosing the right person for the top job. What if they don’t? What if a country is overtaken by fear goes and elects a ruler who is dangerous? After all, Adolf Hitler was elected. Those who would dispute that Hitler rigged his rise to power can look further West to the USA and remember that George W. Bush was not elected only once, but twice!

    Who could imagine that a person with very low intelligence and dogmatic fanatic views of the world would get elected to become the strongest man on earth? But it did happen. Who could guarantee that Sarah Palin will not one day become President? The democratic process allows it. All she needs is enough morons to vote her in.

    Furthermore, the good attributes of democracy have been hijacked by the conniving dictators who found a loophole in the system. That biggest loophole is the so-called two-party system.

    When a Western voter goes to the polls, he/she is choosing between two people that the party machines have picked for him/her to choose. How is this a representation of the will of the people? This is dictatorship under the guise of freedom.

    The sad reality is that in the West one can criticise everything and every one, but democracy cannot be touched. People utter ugly words of blasphemy, they ridicule their political rivals and drag them into the gutters, they make fun of the Queen and Prince Charles’ ears, they make fun of religion and all that is holy and of prominence, but no one would dare say a single word against democracy.

    The real difference between the democracy that the West promotes and dictatorship that it fights is that the former is under the rule of one and the latter is under the rule of one of two.

    Countries like the UK have a very developed and fair judicial system. It would be great if some rich person who is interested in human justice would sue the major parties for hijacking democracy. There is no reason why donations cannot be collected by some enthusiast to list such a hearing in court and set a precedent. Would it not be great if say the UK bans the two-party system and its monopoly of power?

    The East has its own rules of governess. They don’t always work, but they are not archaic and barbaric as the West would like to portray them to be.

    Politics in the Middle East is primarily in the hands of tribal leaders and/or community leaders. Those leaders act like a council for the supreme leader (ie president). The president has to liaise with them to make sure that they are happy with his leadership and that their own subjects are not going to revolt against him.

    There is a form of democracy in action; not one that is based on Western criteria, but it exists.

    No one is claiming that the Middle East system always works effectively. Dictators will always find ways to rise to power. They always manage to find ways to suppress the masses and capitalize on public fortunes. The point to be made here is that in this system, the two-party system has no place at all. And why would the Middle East need to import the two-party system any way?

    How often does an elected Western leader keep his/her election promises? When they break them, they become cheats, do they not? If the West brands a Middle Eastern leader as dictator, why does it not brand its own leaders as cheats? What is worse, being a dictator or being a cheat?

    Among the spate of weapons used against Bashar Al Assad in the West is that he is allegedly a dictator. This description has the propensity to brand him as an evil un-democratic man, and a guarantee to stir up hatred towards him. This is an easy word to use to incite hatred, just like the use of the word heretic, Jew and communist did in the past of the West.

    Assad is not Pythagoras and he may not be the perfect benevolent dictator. But the vicious Western attack on the politics of the Arab world is disgusting and as it attempts to humiliate political systems of other nations.

    Not every one in the Middle East wants a Western style democracy. China is developing in leaps and bounds without it. When Bush, the love child of this kind of democracy, was trying to shove it down our throats, he sounded like a prostitute giving sermons about celibacy. The West should realize that it should keep its democracy to itself. Let the people choose what they want.

    The gallant Egyptian youths who won against all odds and kicked Mubarak in the guts are seeking democracy in the sense that they are seeking freedom and partnership in the governess of their beloved Egypt. They want to make contributions to nation-building. They want to be counted. They are not at all seeking the two-party western style version. Listen well to this Hillary and do not look to gleeful and victorious. It makes you look rather silly.

    Western democracy reeks with the stench of the invasion of Iraq and the Haliburton contracts and has the ugly face of Rumsfeld.

    If the USA really cared about justice, it would first and foremost feed and house its own homeless who are the victims of the greed of those in power. Before it sends its fighter jets killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it can send food packages to the residents of Central Park in NYC; those thousands who camp there in subfreezing winter temperatures.

    When your house is built of glass, you do not throw rocks at people. But the West has learnt this lesson. It throws bombs; not rocks.



    THE FALLACY OF ERDOGAN STYLE DEMOCRACY By Ghassan Kadi

    THE FALLACY OF ERDOGAN STYLE DEMOCRACY
    By Ghassan Kadi
    4 November 2015

    http://thesaker.is/the-fallacy-of-erdogan-style-democracy/

    Wednesday, October 7, 2015

    PUTIN; THE INCREDIBLE ABOU ALI: By Ghassan Kadi

    PUTIN; THE INCREDIBLE ABOU ALI:
    By Ghassan Kadi
    6 October 2015

    http://thesaker.is/putin-the-incredible-abou-ali/


    As the news of the Russian military action in Syria intensifies and takes more rather affirmative steps, the rest of the world cannot help but to look with a mixed bag of emotions all the way from awe to gratitude, anxiety, disappointment, frustration or fear and many others in between. Diverse as they may be in their outlooks, all observers are united in their gasps of disbelief.

    It may look daunting to ascertain what best represents the major point of view of each stakeholder concerned, let alone to bundle the whole lot together in a manner that makes a comprehensive sense. However, if the main punch lines are considered simultaneously, the picture becomes much clearer.

    One can almost conclusively say that the Russian strikes of one single week have been at least much more effective than those of the US-led coalition conducted over the whole last year or so. The actual news of Russian missions are not very detailed. They come in dribs and drabs without the American Hollywood-style razzmatazz that we have got used to ever since the 1991 Operation Desert Storm in Iraq. However, the fact that enemies of the legitimate government of Syria are upset, to say the least, is a clear indication that the Russian strikes are achieving their objectives.

    Why else would Saudi Arabia be formally asking for Russia to stop its strikes? (1). The Saudis have had quite an intensive dialogue with the Russians in the last two years or so. Ever since Prince Bandar returned from Moscow empty handed in the middle of 2013, the Saudis realized that as far as Russia was concerned, Syria was a redline. Perhaps they didn’t realize how red that redline was; not even after the Russians brokered a peace initiative between the Saudis and the Syrian government, an initiative that only resulted in one formal meeting between government officials. The Saudis remained obstinate, and imagined that they could push Russia further and/or coerce it into submission; not knowing to what extent Russia was prepared to go after it had exhausted all avenues of diplomacy.

    As for Turkey, according to M. Nour-Eddin’s article in the Lebanese daily, Assafir, published on the 3rd of October 2015 under the title of “Russia in Syria; Mass Turkish Losses” (2), Russia has tried very hard at different levels to bring Turkey into a brokered peace deal that would see the end of the “War On Syria”. The Russians have also tried to include Turkey in an anti-terror axis alongside Russia and Iran, but to no avail. Russia had gone further earlier when it used economic incentives for Turkey using the “South Stream” pipe line. But President Putin was getting quite annoyed with Erdogan who would promise one thing and then do exactly the opposite.

    Now the Turks are also pleading for the cessation of Russian strikes on Syrian soil. The recent incursions of Russian fighters into Turkish air space are leaving them extremely concerned, huffing and puffing that they would affect the rules of engagement, but, for anyone to fathom that Turkey would dare shoot down a Russian fighter/bomber they would have to wait and see this eventuate.

    For the first time in nearly five years, and in a bizarre twist of fate, the table has turned and the Turks are now worried about their own sovereignty and about the events to the south of the border after they have opened the flood gates for jihadists, looters, and arm supplies. From masters of the scene, the Turks have been reduced to beggars, and from Sultans to serfs.

    With a war that he created and spinning out of control, a new war with the Kurds and growing animosity with Russia, Erdogan is going to find it very difficult to score the election win he dreams of next month. Perhaps out of all of elements of the Anti-Syrian Cocktail, none is angrier with the Russian intervention in Syria than the Turks and no individual is a bigger loser than Erdogan himself.

    Russia has gone too far, and much further than anyone’s expectations. But perhaps we have seen nothing yet. Retired American General Michael Flynn told RT that he is not surprised to see Russia’s reaction because Russia had redlines that were crossed (4). He diplomatically stopped a bit short of blaming the US itself for deliberately crossing those redlines, but according to him, when a superpower gets pushed to a certain limit, reactions of this caliber are to be expected.

    In going too far, Russia has in reality imposed its own no-fly-zone over Syria after America and its allies failed to do this at least twice in the UNSC (5). In reality, all that Russia needed to make this imposition was the consent and approval of the Syrian government. But with this Russian no-fly-zone, all nations are excluded; except for Russia and Syria. What is of interest here is that Israel is also excluded, and the news of a heavy air defense system within Syria is a huge concern for the Israelis.

    The Israelis suspect that this is not an interim measure that will be suspended once the Russian mission is accomplished. The Russians have built themselves a base in Lattakia, and it is their first and only base outside the soil of the Russian Federation, and they are not going to dilute that 300-400 km radius of air-defense zone around that base for as long as the base is operative, and operative it shall remain.

    Firas Al-Shoufi of the Lebanese online daily, Al-Akhbar, has put it very bluntly when he stated that Russia is making it clear to the USA that the Mediterranean is not a part of the Atlantic (6). In other words, the Russians are now saying to their American counterparts that the Mediterranean, or at least the Eastern Mediterranean, is under Russian domain; not American, and that Israel will have to live with this reality and accept it because it has no other choice.

    The Americans themselves are perhaps more shocked by Russia than most, and they are at total loss. Ever since the demise of the USSR, the Americans have been employing highly sophisticated military hardware designed to fight other super powers in their little-big wars against unmatched, much weaker and poorer armies. Now, they realize that if they venture into Syria and take a stand against the Russians, they will have to be prepared to face their match; something they are not prepared to do. America will not confront Russia because it is a bully and a bully only picks on those weaker.

    And even though the Americans have admitted that the “moderate rebels” training program has failed abysmally, they remain adamant that Russia should avoid bombing moderate rebels. In a gesture that is partly diplomatic and partly sarcastic, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov asked the Americans to identify for him who are those moderate rebels. Yet, his request did not receive a response because no response could be found. In another rather sarcastic yet humorous statement, Lavrov clearly stated that if a fighter looked, walked and fought like a terrorist, then he is a terrorist (7). But it wasn’t until he said that the FSA is in reality a “phantom structure” that he openly and clearly said that there are no such rebels in Syria as moderate rebels (8).

    All the while, America still claims that it wants to aid moderate rebels (9) and some reports indicate that it is prepared to arm them and train them. Keeping in mind that USD 500 mn training project has produced just five fighters, that ambitious American dream coming to fruition remains to be seen.

    It is perhaps good enough to see that enemies of Syria, different members of the Anti-Syrian Cocktail, squirm, each in his own way. More pleasing to the ears perhaps is news of terrorist fighters fleeing. An estimated 3000 of them have apparently abandoned their positions in Southern Syria and have been spotted heading towards Jordan (10). Another 600 or so were seen fleeing towards Iraq.

    And finally, in as far as the supporters of Syria are concerned, it is suffice to look at the position of Hezbollah via the eyes of Nabil Haytham of the Lebanese daily, Assafir, on the 5th of October 2015. According to his analysis and interviews of Hezbollah officials, he argues that the official Hezbollah position sees in the full coordination between the Syrian Army, Russia and Hezbollah the pretext of nothing short of “winning together” (11).

    As all have heard the news of the first Russian airstrikes in Syria in disbelief, we look out for what will happen next with more disbelief. There are now talks about expanding the Russian bombardments to include terrorist bases in Iraq. There are even unconfirmed reports about preparations for a Russian land assault.

    President Putin is taking everyone by surprise. He is already at the forefront leading Western leaders by leaps and bounds. In every step forward, he is pushing his unmatched opponents many steps backward. In Syria, Putin is endearingly nicknamed Abou Ali; a term given to someone who is tough and, the world is learning that when he talks business, he means business. The credibility of his resolve and action makes him well and truly the incredible Putin, and an incredible Abou Ali.