Tuesday, January 12, 2016

THE MULTI-FACETED AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY AND BEYOND by Ghassan Kadi 11 January 2016



http://thesaker.is/the-multi-faceted-american-bankruptcy-and-beyond/


The Multi-Faceted American Bankruptcy and Beyond24965 Views 77 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

The financial collapse of the United States grows more inevitable, and more obviously so. Thus far during the Obama tenure alone, the formal and declared American debt has doubled, sky-rocketing from 10 trillion to 20 trillion dollars. Estimates of total American debt however, and which include unfunded liabilities, are much higher and range from 150 trillion to 350 trillion dollars. But even at twenty trillion, every American man, woman and child owes something in the vicinity of $60,000, and at the higher estimate, the per capita debt figure balloons to nearly $9 million.

Estimates of America’s total assets also vary from 300 to 550 trillion dollars. But as America has lost much of its manufacturing base as well as much of its resources, a big fraction of those assets are in real estate, bonds, shares and other commodities that are valued in accordance with general economic performance, and when the performance drops, they follow suit. Those estimates do not take this economic fact into account and even the low figure of 300 trillion could well and truly be over optimistic.

It is therefore rather difficult, if not impossible to know the actual totals of either American assets or liabilities. That said, if the liabilities figure is indeed in the vicinity of the high 350 trillion dollars figure and that of assets is in the vicinity of the low 300 trillion (if not less), then America could currently be well and truly literally insolvent.

The truth is that we don’t know, and perhaps we will never know, until a collapse spontaneously eventuates, or until the tsunami of the rising of new economic giants sweeps all what is in its way and make that collapse happen.

What is more sinister about the collapse of America is not only evident in its economic decline, but rather in the multitude of facets that seem to be all concurrently chewing away at the foundations of that nation that has led the world at many levels.

The fallout of an American collapse is not only going to be restricted to the United States itself. It will have global repercussions that will bring upon new challenges to the rising powers at more levels than just merely economical.

However, the economic collapse does not seem to be a haphazard phenomenon. It is the result of failures upon failures at a myriad of levels and aspects.

Throughout its history, the nation that developed in the “New world” and became eventually known as the United States of America has failed on three major counts.

The first historic failure was in America’s failure in accepting and recognising the human rights of indigenous Americans.

Native Americans, made to be known as Indians, were subjected to a systematic genocide that went on for four centuries. Four hundred years of massacres, displacements, broken promises, broken treaties, lies and deception that kept driving the “Indians” further and further West until they had no place to find refuge in.

To refer to this epic mass genocide as a violation of human rights would be a very gentle term to cover up a huge crime with. The systematic ethnic cleansing of indigenous Americans has probably been the most violent state-sponsored and longest in duration in the entire history of humanity. It dwarfs all other similar barbaric acts. But the American brutality did not stop there.

The second historic failure came about when the new and independent entity of the United States of America, a nation that was founded on a revolution that was meant to seek equality and justice for all, a revolution that was supposed to have inspired the French Revolution, a revolution that had the “Bill of Rights” to crown it as the first amendment of its constitution, has in fact allowed this so-called “Bill of Rights” to exclude the black man, endorsed his enslavement and the superiority of the white man over his freedom and destiny.

And even after Lincoln’s monumental thirteenth amendment, laws of segregation continued to rule the land until the 1960’s and the freedom of the black man was paid for by the blood of Dr. King and his brave and gallant comrades.

The third historic failure was in America’s inability to uphold Lincoln’s preamble-like statement about government that is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Successive American governments from both sides of the political divide have proven to be anything but what Lincoln aspired for his nation. The word “people” was replaced by big business, the Israel lobby and the banks.

As a result now, ordinary Americans have little say as to who runs their government and what objectives they seek.

Historically-speaking therefore, and as the American forefathers were building the nation that was meant to represent the “New World” with a flavour of classlessness and freedom, underneath the thin façade, it was indeed built on racial and ethnic inequalities.

When Americans today lament the days of the forefathers, their highly-principled loftiness and achievements, they seem to conveniently ignore that any good that those forefathers stood for was exclusive to the white man.

Then they talk about the “American Dream”, one would ask, what defines this dream? In Hollywood-style, we see Superman defending “Truth, justice and the American Way”. Which “Truth” (with a Capital T), justice and American Way? One wonders if this “dream” of one actually means somebody else’s nightmare. Would one not?

With this question, we step out of history and into present time.

At both international and domestic levels, the so-called “American Dream” is no longer about its touted freedom and justice for Americans. It is no longer about an American Government that claims to conform to due diligence that has the welfare of its own people as the prime and sole objective, but rather one that has no aspirations other than world domination in a manner that keeps big business, the Israel lobby and banks where they belong; on top of the world dominion echelon.

However, decades and centuries of bullish politics have taken their toll on the minds of Americans, even on Americans who were once and continue to be victims of those doctrines. As a consequence, whilst the rise to prominence of African (Black) Americans heralded a hope that they would break out of the ranks of the enduring policies of the white man who enslaved their ancestors, that did not eventuate because they decided to let their comrades and ancestors down and join the white man’s club.

President Obama is not any less of a White-American-style policy zealot than his White House predecessors.

Before him, the rise of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to power was not associated with any shift in American foreign or domestic policies.

Slowly, but gradually and surely, the lie that was dubbed the “American Dream” had to fester, grow, and become seen for the lie that it is. This is not by rule of chance, because every lie has an expiry date, and the expiry date of the big “American Lie” is due.

The more the “American Lie” gets unmasked, the more it manifests itself and what has been putrefying within its core, and what its decays and ferments have produced over the decades and centuries.

Corporate white-collared mega bank robbers make Billy the Kid look like, just a kid. School shootings, eroded family values and many similar “new-age” realities are what underpin the state of despair that lead to such personal traumas that lead to problems such as obesity, suicide, drug abuse and depression.

American scholars including psychologists and sociologists are at a loss not knowing what has gone wrong with America and what is causing all the problems they witness. Whatever techniques they are employing to resolve the mystery, they are failing to see that America has lost spirit, and that the momentum of the lie that kept it going for as long as there was enough wealth to be spread around to mask it all is drying out. Now that this wealth has been dissipated and put in the hands of a few, the majority who were left behind have little left to aspire to. The dreams of a few have turned into a nightmare for the many more left behind.

The dream has fallen apart and builders and achievers have been pushed to stoop to the level of scavengers with each fighting for his/her own survival. Tens of millions desperately try to put food on the table whilst the big bankers and CEO’s hasten to get in on the loot before it is too late and there is nothing left to be looted.

No grandeur is left to make an American feel great about being American. Long gone are the times when everybody wanted to live in America. Long gone is the era when songs were written about wanting to live in America. The reality of what America is currently is only a culmination of what it had always been; an unrealistic promise of perfection and social justice that was founded on a series of hypocrisies.

The pretence of morality that America tried to base its foundations upon is showing its age and use by date, and there is little room left for patch-up jobs to hide behind.

Obama has inadvertently made such a sharp u-turn recently, rendering the legacy of Lincoln as something that is in total contradiction to his own. In a recent interview a few weeks ago, he circumvented the allegedly all-profound foundations of the nation-building forefathers to overtly, and rather shamelessly, say that “the measure of strength internationally is not simply by how many countries we’re occupying, of how many missiles we’re firing, but the strength of our diplomacy and the strength of our commitment to human rights…”. This is a far cry from Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people” slogan that put morality a priori.

The decadent status quo of America is such that its president now felt that he had to ascertain that greatness of a nation is not only measured by its stature as an international thug. If this is not a blatant admission of an erosion of morality and the very foundations of any nation that remotely tries to associate itself with righteousness, then one would wonder what stronger statements would reflect the current lack of proper moral stature of America!

Obama’s statement is an overt admission on behalf of America, by its president, that it has totally lost its moral ground and that there is no need left to pretend otherwise.

Obama’s statement is in principle not any different from that of a corrupt businessman saying that success in business is not only a measure of corporate theft and cheating. In essence, it is not any different from admitting that love is not only about lust. It is not any better than proclaiming that success is not only restricted to money and ego.

This is a blatant admission of moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.

Obama’s statement sums up America’s moral collapse; one that only good Americans can turn around and change and save what is left of America that can be saved. And speaking of good Americans, we must not forget that there are many of them, millions, but they have never been able to either effectively partake in their nation’s governance or were prevented from creating the necessary change. The time has never been more essential for them to unite and rise.

It is vital to examine the morality of all people, one’s own first and foremost, other individuals, groups and nations. But there is a much bigger moral onus on those who proclaim a leadership position. America has taken on board this claim, and therefore becomes accountable. Lack of morality in say Ecuador will perhaps impact only on Ecuador because Ecuador does not assume a global leading role, but when rot hits the alleged global leader nation, the consequences can be dire for the whole world.

Ironically, Jihadi Islamists are now assuming a leadership role and their moral collapse is akin to that of the USA even though at the surface they look very different. Political alliances or the lack of them between America and ISIL set aside, at a moral level, the two parties are pretty much on par.

This seems to be the age of disclosure and exposure, the era of coming out, an era in which no one is any longer able to hide what lurks within; both light and dark, good and bad.

It seems that the time of the big “American Dream” turned the big “American Lie” is coming to full exposure.

The rot of America and that of fundamentalist Islam are coming to a head. It does not seem that it is by accident that both dipoles are showing their ugly faces at the same time.

It would be unjust for anyone to see one of those dipoles in total independence of the other; the two are intertwined strategically, philosophically, and existentially.

America’s moral collapse, which in essence is not recent, is no longer one that can be hidden. It is the culmination of at least two centuries of what started as false pretences and ended up as blatant lies.

The moral collapse of ISIL is arguably more ancient in its roots, but as fate invariably dictates, evil always finds itself coming of age alongside a similar but yet very different evil.

The multi-faceted bankruptcy of America is bringing out to the open a multitude of hidden ghosts; both internal and external; but the common underlying factor to all is the moral collapse. When a nation loses its moral base it loses everything it holds near and dear.

With in-fighting within the Muslim World, none of which is truly addressing the core of the ISIL syndrome, a similar infighting is brewing within the West and particularly within the USA.

Europe will eventually have to take an independent stand; one that is not affected by the decision-making of the USA. If Europe does not break loose and take such a stand, it will have to suffer consequences.

The rest of the world, especially the rising powers, will have to make brave new decisions.

It was brave and honourable of Russia to step in to fight ISIL in Syria. It was a responsible decision to make in order to curb its spread. But the war against dogmatism does not stop at fighting militarily, neither does leading the world into a new era.

The multi-faceted bankruptcy of America, that was once leading the world, dictates that humanity needs new preambles that can lead it into new and better directions.

The BRICS nations have thus far produced humble economic benchmarks to give the brave new world a platform on which it may be able to fall back on in the case of a sudden American economic collapse. The platform is still in the making and the establishment of the China-based AIIB is one of the biggest steps in this direction. It will take some time before the BRICS nations can cushion the full impact of a Western economic collapse.

What is more pertinent however is for the world to have new moral and philosophical stewardship and direction. The onus of taking this task on board is now moving into the direction of the BRICS nations.

After all, if the corporate giants of the west are replaced by those of BRICS, and if the existing rot, corruption and injustices of the world wear a new mask and take new names, humanity would stagnate and the changes would mean nothing.

In times of change, opportunities rise, and with the geo-cultural change in global leadership, humanity now has an opportunity to aim for a better future. This is an opportunity that should not be missed.

Given that it is the collapse of morality that has culminated into the multi-faceted collapse of the USA, will the BRICS nations stand up to the task? Time will tell, and history will be very unforgiving if they don’t.

Saturday, January 9, 2016

THE VOLGA FLOWS INTO BARADA by Ghassan Kadi 4 January 2016



http://thesaker.is/the-volga-flows-into-barada/

The Volga flows into Barada

by Ghassan Kadi

Syria has never been a perfect place, and probably she never will be. Yet, those who truly love Syria, do not love her because they perceive her as of some fantasy, a Shangrila, a utopia or a paradise-lost. They simply love her because they know the wonderful aspects that the Syrian culture has.

Syrians are humans. Inherently, they are not any different from those who are Portuguese, Chinese or Canadian. If they are different at all, it is because of their acquired cultural inheritance; an inheritance that can have a significant bearing on their thought process, perceiving and evaluating events, and decision-making among other things.

To this effect, ancient cultures have much in common. Syria has been one of the cornerstones of ancient cultures. Long before pragmatism and obsession with economic growth, humans interacted at deeper levels, with valued virtues such as care, hospitality, gallantry, duty, accountability, honour and the like. Some of those virtues, especially in the West, look now somehow archaic and “primitive”, and they can become so when honour gets reduced to something that can be settled in a duel, but such misconceptions do not take from such virtues their true substance.

Those virtues exist in all cultures, even within the most modern of them, the most materialistic of them all, because people will always be by-and-large virtuous beings. However, in ancient cultures, those values are still alive and well and highly regarded.

What makes Syria stand out in the Middle East is the fact that those so-called “old-fashioned values” were well and alive within Syria before the “War On Syria” was launched. The polarization of the rest of the world that followed is still taking shape nearly five years later, and those who are standing against Syria, are giving clear statements about the nature of their own cultures and belief systems.

The reverse can be said about those who are standing up in defence of Syria.

The Russian culture, not quite as ancient as the Syrian culture, stems from the same “old-fashioned values” and remains to be a culture in which those virtues are alive and well. Whilst it is true that Russia has strategic interests in Syria, it is not however by accident that Russia came to Syria’s help and defence.

Syria and Russia are very different at the surface. They have virtually no common ethnicities, and very little in common when it comes to religion, despite Antioch (a Syrian city now in Turkey) being a cradle for Orthodoxy. The cuisine, the language, music, traditional attire, folklore, are all so different, yet at deeper levels, the cultures are very similar.

Syria is having a very tough time at present, and during tough times, one sees the best and the worst; from teen-aged Syrian girls taking up arms to resist invaders, to healthy young Syrian men fleeing to Europe to evade military service. Even worse, we see Syrian young men taking up arms to join ISIS and other organizations against Syria and her national army.

But Syria is still standing, and if she gets defeated, she will be defeated standing. She is still standing because the majority of Syrians opted to stand and to take the fight for better and for worse.

Russia has also had her share of misfortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The monumental turn around that Russia made in two decades, a turn around that brought her back from the doldrums of the worst nadir she had for centuries to that of world leadership; and almost overnight. At many levels, the “miracle” is attributed to the genius of President Putin. There is little doubt that without the wise and strong leadership of President Putin, Russia wouldn’t have been able to rise like she did, and as quickly as she did.

Having said that, President Putin couldn’t have performed his “miracle” without the Russian people and the culture that underpins their hearts and minds. Most Russians see him as the embodiment of their best qualities, and reciprocally, he brought the best out of them.

The Syrians who are standing up in defence of Syria are not at all different from the Russians who walked the talk with President Putin and put Russia back in the fore front of world leadership.

The West has become bent on destruction; including self-destruction. The level of citizen happiness and satisfaction is receding to unprecedented lows. Police shootings and public shootings in America are becoming daily events. Europe on the other hand is fostering foreign policies that have clearly encouraged terrorism and which only lead to the rise of ultra-right-wing policies. The sense of national and personal pride in the West is being eroded and there seems nothing on the horizon that can reverse this situation. After all, the “Yes We Can” Obama slogan failed to define who “we” are! The moment he gained residence of the Whitehouse, he and the people were no longer one, and “we” turned into me and you and him.

In contrast, in Russia and in Syria, Presidents are loved and respected. Westerners find it hard to believe this, but they do not know any better. They have lost their confidence in their own leaders decades ago. In Syria and in Russia, the army and the police are highly regarded, the elderly are treasured, and the ceremonies that honour those who have fallen are not mere ceremonial acts performed by officials, they are actions that involve heartfelt work and passion of each and every citizen.

Moreover, when Westerners take to the streets, they often do this in protest against their own governments. They know that their governments do not really represent them, and they therefore regard authority just like a prisoner perceives his warden. However, when Westerners see Russians and/or Syrians parading in the streets carrying posters of their leaders, they think it is government propaganda. They truly do not know any better.

Public property is sacrilegious (correction) sacrosanct in Russia and Syria; a stark difference from the graffiti-ridden West.

Morally, the West is unequipped to fight ISIS because it does not have its own moral anti-thesis to fight it with. In saying this, we must always remember that the fight against ISIS is not only military. If anything, it will have to be more ideological than military, but the West does not have what it takes to fight either war.

The fight for Syria is not simply a fight for a piece of land. It is a fight for decency and for cultures that uphold the good old-fashioned virtues that have almost totally disappeared in the West.

It is a war that can only be fought by Syrians who uphold the virtues of their culture, by non-Syrian supporters who have similar values, and by other nations who share those values.

It is a war of freedom of thought versus oppression, secularism versus sectarianism, duty versus laziness, respect versus disrespect, standing tall versus begging, enlisting versus desertion, knowing the difference between might and bullying, standing up against bullies, disallowing acts of injustice against those who are meeker, patience, resolve, steadfastness, dignity, pride and a huge dose of humility to cloak all of the above with the necessary human touch that does not allow those virtues to give rise to personal self-importance and egocentricism.

Some non-Syrians have risen to the support of Syria without having the slightest clue who and what they are supporting. Some have done this for reasons of vested interests, but unless those individuals and nations share those very same Syrian cultural ideals and virtues, they will either find out that they had deluded themselves, or others will find out that they have been deluded by them.

It is not by accident that Russia came to the defence of Syria. The similarities in qualities of the cultures are uncanny, and the role that Russia is playing now in trying to keep the West honest stipulated that she needed to make a loud and clear presence in Syria.

“The Orontes flows into the Tiber” was an ancient Roman proverb used to elaborate the then strong ties between the Levant and Rome. In today’s age, the Volga flows into Barada.

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

A TRANSLATION
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.