Why, of course. It's patently obvious, isn't it? Come on, admit it: you suspected all along.
More paranoid conspiracy-mongering. From MEMRI:
While the Arab League is supporting Mahmoud Abbas and the new Palestinian government, the Iranian, Syrian and Qatari press have been publishing articles and statements supporting the Hamas takeover of Gaza. These articles and statements claimed that the internal Palestinian conflict results from a deliberate plot by the U.S., Israel and elements within Fatah, which left Hamas with no choice but to carry out a coup.The following are excerpts:
Iranian Officials: America and Israel Are Behind the Internal Strife in Gaza
Ali Akbar Velayati, a member of Iran's Foreign Relations Steering Council and international affairs advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said in an interview with the conservative Iranian daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami: "Israel and America are behind the conflicts [in Gaza]. They wanted the Palestinians to be preoccupied with their own [problems], instead of with the struggle against Israel. The Palestinians must understand that resistance and [internal] stability are the only way to rescue Palestine... The Palestinian people elected Hamas, and now it is standing firmly by Hamas..."(1)
Majlis Deputy Chairman Mohammad Reza Bahonar said in a June 19 Majlis session: "The Zionists are the enemies of Palestine and the Islamic world, and the conflict among the Palestinians, which was undoubtedly planned by America and Israel, is completely unacceptable..."(2)
So it goes. Read it all.
Looks like Arabs vs Persians on the horizon...we need to step off and let the radicals kill each other.
Everything that happens in the Middle East is done by American design. Thats wy Israel is facing a three front War this summer. Christian comunities are getting wiped out. We worked along time to get to this point.
Olmert is also a black belt in karate, a chess grandmaster, is ambidextrous, reads Braille with his tongue and can whip up a mean daquiri with one hand.
I wish.
He better BE!
Reading these Syrian and Qatari assessments of what President Bush has been plotting and scheming to do (create conflict among the factions, divide and cause civil wars, inflict chaos, etc) you'd almost think that George has been taking advice from our esteemed and respected Hugh Fitzgerald!
You don't think .......
I was just thinking about Olmert! If I was him I would of held those prisoners and said not till we get our soldiers BACK NOW! point blank.
Sounds like it leaves us with a choice to take out
Isn't it kinda like DECLARING WAR on America by repeatedly and publicy declaring they will soon disapear from the Earth and now saying that America is somehow responsible for good Muslims doing exactly what their murdering Prophet demanded? yup ,it really will take a Nuke in America or Britain for us in the West to take feal action won't it? words and deeds just don't seem to be convincing enough for us. I guess maybe words , deeds, and a million dead is what it will take.
Feels good to be proteced by Dhimmies don't it?
"Iranian, Syrian, and Qatari Press..."
-- from the article above
Iran can be semaphored: Persians constitute scarcely 50% of the population. The Kurds, the Baluchis, the Arabs, even the Azeris, can be encouraged, through broadcasts, through money and arms, through the example of an autonomous Kurdistan created in northern Iraq, to cause all kinds of trouble, permanent trouble, for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Syria can be signalled: the Alawite regime can stay, but the particular Alawite leader, Bashir al-Assad, will have to go if he continues to think that he can curry favor with the local Sunni Muslims by allowing them to go off to fight the Jihad in Iraq, and curry favor with the Shi'a Muslims of Iran by serving as a conduit for Iranian weapons and money and agents transferred to Hezbollah and Lebanon.
Even Qatar can be read the riot act: the Al-Thani family, one of whose members managed to warn a member of Al Qaeda to flee just before the Americans were about to seize him three years ago, supports the Ikhwan-dominated Al-Jazeera, a station that has encouraged the misreporting about Iraq that is partly responsible for attacks on American soldiers. The only reason the government of Qatar has given the Americans a base is in order to secure Qatar against enemies foreign (the three bulies of the region being Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) and domestic (any local subversion). But the United States should not think for one minute that Qatar, or the Al-Thani family (not even that supposedly "westernized" and "advanced" wife of the current ruler) is our ally or can ever be. Qatar is showing itself to be what it is: one more statelet, intent on using American power to protect the ruling family, and taking that protection so much for granted that it aligns itself with the most currently menacing of our enemies. We don't need Qatar, we don't need bases in the Middle East. We can allow the natural fissures to do their work, and to destroy, from afar, the Iranian nuclear project, and where necessary, to continue, at intervals, to attack whatever truly menacing arms projects need to be attacked.
Spell out for all three countries what can happen to them that they think cannot happen. Iranian rulers must be made aware that the country of Iran may not continue to exist; the Alawites understand how threatened they are, but that we are not part of that threat if they give up their dreams of continuing to dominate and milking Lebanon, or of continuing to scheme and dream about getting the Golan Heights again. But on the other hand, if America shows it doesn't mind a continued Alawite dictatorship, because that is the best way to guarantee some safety for the local Christians, there may be Alawite generals who will see the wisdom of ridding themselves of Bashir al-Assad, and being more cooperative outside Syria, so as to remain in control inside Syria. Finally, the Al-Thani have to be made aware that we don't think of Qatar as an ally but as a hostile statelet, the future of which is a matter of indiffrence to us, and that if they think they have a guarantee of American protection even if they behave as they are behaving, they are wrong.
Hugh,
It would seem American policy has come full circle. We are back to supporting dictators who promise "stability". But that's what the Democrats and many Euros seem to want. At least until the next "summer spectacular".
No mention of Ariel Sharon in this article. Surely his stroke was also an American plot.
Is Bush really an evil genius or is it Cheney?
The Syrian minister says that Western aid to [Fatah] is questionable: Isn't every Arab entitled to ask himself why Israel and the West are supporting [one] of the sides in Palestine against the other? Will [this support] not create problems for the side that receives it, [forcing it] into political commitments that run counter to the interests of the Palestinian people?
There's one solution: take no aid from the West. Let every Arab and Muslim country in the world come through with whatever is needed in Palestine. The oil sheikhs can afford it.
"American-Israeli plot"????
DAMN...they caught us!
(sarcasm)
"American-Israeli plot"????
........sure, it was the Israeli intelligence agencies who rounded up the Fatah members and exectuted them, and it was the American intelligence agencies who rounded up the Hamas members and exectued them...
...it does make Bush and Olmert look like geniuses who actually have studied Islam and now know that allowing the Muslims to kill each other is actually the best plan...and besides it is such an easy plan to put into motion....the Muslims are willing participants.....and eager to see body parts flying about...and if those body parts are Muslim ...so what...
...yep, Bush and Olmert...like foxes on the prowl...pretty clever, these two....
Islam is for losers...
"It would seem American policy has come full circle. We are back to supporting dictators who promise 'stability.'"
-- from a posting above
This does not describe current American policy. The Americans still are in Iraq, pouring money down the drain to achieve the wrong goals, the goal of bringing "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" whose state, since 60-65% of them are Shi'a, is by the Americans somehow expected to serve as a model for Sunni Arab regimes.
Nor does it describe what I urged above. The American government does not need to "support" the "stability" of the Middle East and needs to stop being fooled by the local Arabs and Muslims (it's now apparently the turn of the Sunnis to be listened to, since the Shi'a-in-exile helped to inveigle the Bush Administration into deposing Saddam Hussein for them it needs to stop accepting) into thinking that we have a stake in suppoorting, through money (as with Mubarak, which money only allows for greater corruption and further fury, or as with the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, ditto), or through assurances of their own security (as with the malevolent and menacing Al-Saud, or as with the ruling families such as the Al-Thani in Qatar).
The only exception is Syria, and that only because of its Christian population. And there the regime of Bashir Al-Assad should and could be told that its essential nature, as an Alawite dictatorship, is understood, but that, because the Alawites, for their own purposes, protect the Christian population (swollen by Iraqi Christians who have fled Iraq, where Islam has, following the retret of Ba'athism, in so many areas come fully into its own), an Alawite regime under new management would be acceptable. But it has to be new management -- a management no longer connected to Iran (where a ruling declared the Alawites to be "Shi'a" a few years ago, thus greatly relieving them, for Sunni Muslim groups in Syria made war on the Alawites not least because, with their syncretistic cult of Mary, those Alawites could be regarded as Infidels)not to be Muslim). The Alawites can continue to rule (and if they don't rule, they will sooner or later be destroyed by the Sunni Muslims of Syria), but only within certain limits. It's their choice.
Hugh, I totally agree. A new regime with no connections to the old one. Do the people in Syria not have a voice in who runs their government? Is there a candidate or "tribe" which would be less hostile towards Israel and U.S.?