Tuesday, December 29, 2015

AL BAGHDADI MAKES HIS CALL. By Ghassan Kadi 27 December 2015


Al-Baghdadi Makes His “Call”

by Ghassan Kadi

In an audio message (published in the link below in the Lebanese daily Assafir on the 26th of December 2015), ISIS/ISIL/IS Chief, “Caliph” Abou Bakr Al-Baghdadi gives a rather lengthy 24 minute speech. Half of the message is addressed to Muslims, all Muslims, whilst the other half is addressed to the world; especially the nations that have taken upon themselves to fight the Islamic State.

The approach is not systemic and jumps from one “half” to the other, but with a bottom-line call for all Muslims to band together in order to fight what he perceives as the enemies of Islam.

“The world has united to fight Islam”, he argues, and this was to be expected. Either way, Muslims will be the victors, because they will either be martyred in battle and get elevated to heaven, or win the battle on the ground.

And who are the enemies of Islam in his view? All nations that are fighting the Islamic State, including Saudi Arabia that has recently formed a military alliance against terrorism. Al Baghdadi says that the proposed Saudi coalition is only intended to fight Islam and the Islamic State. If its objectives were to uphold Islam, it would be fighting in Syria alongside the Islamic State and protecting the defenseless Muslims in Syria and in Palestine.

On the mention of Palestine, he addresses Jews and says that they have neither been forgotten nor forgiven. They will soon find themselves surrounded by the Islamic State and they will have nowhere to run and hide.

He calls for Saudi youth to rise against their heretic rulers, and for all Muslims to join him and take up arms in the battle that they knew was one day coming.

He makes direct mention of America, Europe and Russia and promises them retaliation.

The timing of this speech is uncanny. Is it related to the killing of Zahran Alloush?

Alloush, the chief of the “Army of Islam” was Saudi Arabia’s right hand in Syria. He is the one who staged the fake chemical weapons attack in East Ghouta in July 2013. He is Bandar’s boy and danced to his master’s tunes, but he was also highly regarded and respected within the rank-and-file of all Islamists because he was able to steadfastly hold his positions very close to Damascus and at one stage was not very far from entering it.

His death alongside many high commanding officers left his brigade in huge disarray, and even though a replacement by the name of Abou Humam Al-Bouweidani has been appointed, there has already been negotiations taking place for clearing the fighters out of the area. Now, it is highly possible that Al-Baghdadi is trying to fill this void and to lure Alloush’s army of loyals to give him their pledge of allegiance.

But this alone cannot explain fully the reason behind Al-Baghdadi’s message. Al-Baghdadi is clearly taking advantage of the timing of events, the formation of different coalitions to fight him, and trying to use them to give himself credit, substance and religious validity.

In the minds of Muslim youth who subscribe to the theory that Islam is a combination of a “sword and a book”, the concept of perceiving Jihad as an armed struggle is not far from their hearts. Whilst this is a huge misconception of the true message, it is nonetheless accepted as what Islam is meant to be. In this context, the words of Al-Baghdadi fall onto receptive ears. Many youth will be listening to his words and asking themselves why are they sitting on their backs in the comfort and safety of their homes when their brothers and sisters are being slaughtered by a wave of international infidels?

They will feel ashamed of themselves if they do not get up and fight, and if they don’t just do this on their own accord, then their peer pressure will be so enormous and many of them will not be able to resist.

Most recruitments are done by peer pressure, especially from those who are a little older and more versed in Islamic rhetoric and are able to provide “proof” from the Quran to their argument and call for taking up arms.

The call of Al-Baghdadi is not very specific at all. He is calling for all Muslims, wherever they are, to do whatever they can to fight for the cause. Does this include self-planned mini terrorist attacks here and there all over the globe? The obvious answer to this is yes or at least why not, because God according to him, has ordered Muslims to fight their enemies wherever they find them, and until the whole world is united by Islam.

His words were carefully chosen, and theologically-speaking, he did not say anything at all that is against the concept of mainstream Islam. Moderate clerics will find it very difficult to make any arguments against the speech if and when challenged by their followers. Their inability to refute his message will be seen by some would be recruits as an indication that Al-Baghdadi speaks the truth and ought to be followed. To many new recruits, this will sound like the “call” they have been waiting for.

The Al-Baghdadi “call”, whether it gets followed by a huge recruitment drive or not, is a testimony of the fact that even the most determined of those who are poised to fight the Islamic State have not yet woken up to the enormity of its threat.

The Islamic State is much more than an organization of terrorists with an army and stolen oil fields. It is an ideology, an ideology that feeds on a religion, commonly-held misinterpretations of a religion, with more than a billion potential recruits in sight.

Now here’s the irony. Saudi Arabia has been based on Wahhabism, which is in turn founded on those violent misinterpretations of Islam. Saudi Arabia fed the ideology that created Al-Qaeda and later on the Islamic State, but they have politically collided with both of them later on.

The Islamic State has broken loose, and with the help of Turkey, its oil trade is generating enough revenues for itself to be self-supportive. The Islamic State has also broken its allegiance to the US, even though the Americans are indeed foolhardy enough to think that they can continue to wield them in the fight against Assad.

But even if the army of the Islamic State is defeated, its oil trade put to an end, Erdogan given a punch and sent to the naughty corner and Saudi Arabia goes bankrupt and unable to bankroll any more funds for rising Jihadists, the concept of an Islamic State akin to Al-Baghdadi’s will not go away for as long as there are Muslims who believe in the violent version of Islam. It will only be a question of time before a new Al-Baghdadi is born and attempts to resurrect the dream.

The simplistic view that the Islamic State was borne by the Saudis and the Americans and that they both continue to control it is just as stated; simplistic. The Jihadists will accept support from anyone when they need it, but puppets they are not. They are very highly indoctrinated people on a mission. And unless they are understood for what they are, what they believe in, and how they intend to achieve their objectives, they will never be defeated.

And whilst some Westerners keep changing the name of the Islamic State from ISIS to ISIL to IS and/or the Islamic State formerly known as ISIS, the Islamic State did not change its name at all, and continues to fester ideologically unopposed and little noticed.

The closest understanding of the Islamic State outside the Muslim world seems to be present in Russia. If anything, the downing of the Su-24 has broken the barriers of political correctness between Moscow and Ankara and Moscow is now openly talking about and reporting Turkey’s support to the Islamic State. Moscow has made similar but much more subtle remarks about the role of Saudi Arabia.

The impasse here is political, and no one can envisage Moscow urging for Muslim religious reform. Religious reform of any religion is the task of its followers, and obviously in the case of Islam, the onus is on Muslims.

http://assafir.com/Article/1/463823

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



    Sunday, December 20, 2015

    PALESTINE DOES NOT BELONG TO MUSLIMS by Ghassan Kadi 19 December 2015


    Palestine Does Not Belong To Muslims

    by Ghassan Kadi

    The world has heard the Zionist rhetoric about the alleged ownership of Palestine and there is no point in repeating it herein. That said, some argue that God’s promise to Abraham was taken literally and out of context. After all, God is fair and loving, and a fair and loving God would not give unconditional privileges to offspring, regardless of whether they are virtuous or not.

    In any event, with or without the so-called promise to Abraham, Jewish presence in Palestine is more ancient than that of Muslims, but that does not win the Zionist argument and does not justify the displacement of Palestinians even if they have “only” lived there for thirteen centuries in comparison to thirty centuries of Jewish presence.

    As a matter of fact, no matter how one spins the Zionist claim, nothing justifies displacing Palestinians and taking away their homes, land, and dignity.

    To be fair and rational, we must also examine the Muslim claim of the ownership of Palestine from the Muslim vantagepoint that Muslims use to support their argument. Are Muslims the rightful owners of Palestine as they claim to be?

    The Torah and the Quran are Holy Books, and not real estate guidelines and manuals. There is no mention of any land rights in the Quran, least of which to Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic) is not even mentioned in the Quran. There is however a mention of “Al-Masjed Al-Aksa”, which literally means “The Distant Place of Prostration”, and which Muslims believe to be in Jerusalem/Al-Quds.

    This does not make Jerusalem inherently a Muslim city, and even if it did, there is absolutely no reference to any Muslim exclusivity either.

    Furthermore, there has never been a time in history in which there was an Islamic state called Palestine with Al-Quds as its capital. This is a fact and remains to be a fact even when staunch Zionists say it. If anything, Al-Quds perhaps rose to prominence in the Muslim psyche during the reign of Saladin.

    After all, have we forgotten the Christian claim of the ownership of Jerusalem? Even though this claim is not current, but we cannot speak of Jerusalem and Saladin and dismiss a whole century of Crusader Campaigns who were sent by the then Pope(s) to liberate the Christian holy land from the “infidels”.

    Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders in 1099 and a massacre of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants followed. It was recaptured by Saladin in 1187 and when he did, the Christian inhabitants feared a massacre akin to the one that happened against Muslims and Jews nearly a century earlier. But Saladin ordered his troops to spray the city streets with “Rose Water”; a Levantine essence extracted from the petals of the Damascus Rose. Such were those days.

    English King Richard The Lion Heart tried to take it back from Saladin, but never managed to put a foot on its soil.

    If anything, in real terms, and in the nicest way possible, Jerusalem is regarded as a trophy, and it perhaps regarded by Muslims as a city where Muslim religious romance flourishes, and during the days of Saladin, that romance story must have reached its peak.

    Muslims need to admit facts and stop making unfounded historic and religious claims that they own Jerusalem, because they do not.

    When Zionism established the state of Israel, the Zionist aggression was, and continues to be, practised equally against both Arab Muslims and Christians. The anti-Zionist resistance was once called the Arab Resistance, and it was comprised of both Christians and Muslims. When Palestinian Resistance was established, it was meant to be an armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine. George Habash, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was a Christian.

    Last but not least, and unbeknown to most, the state of Israel practiced the same aggression against dissenting Palestinian Jews who refused to join the madness and considered themselves to be Palestinians of Jewish faith, rather than Israelis. Very little is ever heard and said about those unsung heroes; not only shunned by Zionist Jews, but also eyed with suspicion by some distrusting Arabs, mainly Muslim Arabs.

    Zionists regarded all Arabs as inferior to them, and when they were shelling the Church of Nativity some years back, the West stood back and watched. It would be easy to imagine the Western outcry had Al-Qaeda or the Talibans committed a fraction of the Israeli atrocities at any Church.

    As Israel treated both Christian and Muslim Palestinians equally as second grade citizens and considered dissenting Palestinian Jews as traitors, it was only natural for the anti-Israeli resistance to be nationally-based and driven. The slogan of those days was “Al-Quds lil Arab” ie Al-Quds belongs to Arabs. There was even a song with that title. The term “Arabs” back then meant the inhabitants of the land; ie mainly the Muslims, Christians, as well as Jews who refute Zionism.

    Suddenly, rather early in the 1980’s, a huge turn of events took place in Lebanon and Palestine almost concurrently.

    The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was soon followed by a resistance then named the “Lebanese Resistance”. Soon after Hezbollah rose to prominence the name changed to “Islamic Resistance”. In Palestine, Hamas renamed the anti-Israeli resistance and turned into an “Islamic Resistance” as well. All of a sudden, the struggle against Zionism changed course from a national secular Arab struggle against the theocratic state of Israel into a Muslim struggle against Jews!

    Instead of rising above the narrow-minded theocratic bigoted Zionist views of land ownership, fundamental Muslims stooped to those very same levels and became equal partners in bigotry and exclusionism.

    The biggest losers in numbers here are the Palestinian Christians as they are well and truly excluded by both. A Christian Palestinian friend once told me that Zionism took Palestine away from him first, and then Hamas took it away again. That man is a former Palestinian activist who decided to quit after Hamas hijacked the nature of the struggle.

    The truth must be said and heard. It will neither please the Zionist Jews nor the fundamentalist Muslims. Even though Israel is the aggressor and instigator of this whole needless tragic calamity, and even though Hamas is meant to be a freedom-fighting organization, ideologically speaking, and when it comes to the exclusion of Christians, Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism represented by Hamas are equal partners in crime.

    It is of little wonder therefore that when the “War On Syria” broke out, Hamas was quick to turn its back on secular Syria, even though Syria had been its main supporter since its inception, and sided with the Islamists.

    When Islamists make claims of ownership of Palestine in general and of Jerusalem to be specific, they would be using the same false argument of Zionist Jews; only in reverse.

    Rational and open-minded people need to realise that they have to make loud and clear statements to their policy makers that they refuse fanaticism and bigotry irrespective who the culprit is. That said, there is little doubt that as far as the Palestinian-Israeli dilemma is concerned, the Palestinians are the victims, but rationality stipulates that not even victims are entitled to be irrational. After all, two wrongs do not make it right.

    This is neither about vindicating Zionists nor about vilifying Muslims and/or defending Christians. This is about justice and common sense. Justice cannot be selective and wrong cannot be undone by another wrong.

    Palestine is not for Muslims, nor is it for Jews or Christians; not exclusively. It is for all of them combined, together with the myriad of minority ethnic and religious groups and sects, including those who opt not to follow any religion at all. It is for all who want to live there in peace and harmony with the rest of its inhabitants under laws that give equal rights and equal responsibilities without any favouritism and exclusion.

    The proposed Palestinian statehood that was UN-mandated in September 2011 and all other initiatives that are based on two-state resolutions are in reality an admission of failure, a sell-out of Palestine and its people, and an act of condoning apartheid.

    Tuesday, December 15, 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.







    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 AND IRAQ. Sputnik 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