Seeking "Change"
Mubarak especially is often referred to as "Pharaoh" -- from an Islamic perspective, an extremely demeaning epithet, since Pharaoh in the Koran is the ultimate representative of infidelity, idolatry, and tyranny. "Calls in Iran to Topple Egyptian, Saudi Regimes," by Y. Mansharof for MEMRI, December 12:
Iran's attacks and accusations against Egypt and Saudi Arabia have recently intensified. In early December, Iran's leading conservative government dailies Kayhan and Jomhouri-ye Eslami accused the Egyptian and Saudi regimes of treason, and called on their peoples to topple their regimes. Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, who is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, praised Khaled Islambouli, the assassin of the late Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat, and called to follow his example.The remainder of this report contains numerous quotes from various Muslim officials, most of which condemn Mubarak and Abdullah through a jihadist paradigm, such as:At the same time, student demonstrations were held in Tehran, during which protesters called for killing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and threw firebombs at the Egyptian interest office.
Also, on December 10, 2008, an Iranian group called "Brothers of Radhwan" set fire to the offices of Saudi Arabian Airlines in Tehran, to protest against what the group called the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and "the regime occupying Jerusalem."
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry protested to the director of the Iranian interest office in Cairo, Hossein Rajabi, against the attacks in the Iranian press and the anti-Egypt demonstrations in Tehran...
"We renounce evil in all its forms - [including] Mubarak, the head of the Zionist regime, and the filthy Saudi king 'Abdallah... The way to liberate [the Muslims] from the oppressive Zionist regime and from its servants does not pass through the corridors of the U.N., through the seats of the Security Council, through the Arab parliaments or through fancy conferences. The way [to do this is with] trucks loaded with explosives, driven by people like [Hizbullah martyrs] Ahmad Qassir, 'Abd Al-Mun'im Qassir, Safi Al-Din, Salah Ghandour and other holy martyrs."
Read it all.
The rest of the article said:
"In a poll conducted last month by Al-Jazeera TV among wide sectors in Muslim countries, over 95 percent of respondents said that the Arab heads of states - especially Saudi King 'Abdallah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak - bear the greatest responsibility for the disaster in Gaza. The question is - what were the remaining five percent [thinking]?!...Saudi rulers are indifferent to the massacre of Muslims in Gaza and to the catastrophic conditions in which the Palestinian people live...It is amazing - [even] incredible - that the Egyptian people, who are so civilized, have not lifted a finger [to oppose] the closing of the Rafah crossing and the humanitarian disaster it has precipitated in Gaza. If they rose up against [the Egyptian regime], no would dare oppose them. They should learn from the Iranian, Lebanese, and Palestinian people [how to] stand fast and resist…
This is why I hold out hope for Iran. They have a sense of responsibility. They understand that the Arab world, if they care about the Philistines, will take care of them.
The rest was supremacist craziness. They actually called the Gaza situation "genocide." As far as I know, forcing people to take care of themselves and not live as parasites is not "genocide." I've said that Iranians want democracy, not that they're ready for it.
Yes, JW is a "hate site" because it faithfully reports on the hatred rampant throughout the Islamic world.
As my daughter's leftist poly-sigh professor put it: "Why do they have to keep showing the 9/11 tapes, or the Mumbai massacre so much?" Please don't disturb my comfortable illusions!
When it comes to reality, JWatchers eat it raw.
Egypt, tear down this wall. Were tired of tunneling.
Iran has had enough of slumping Oil prices. So it's time to start trash talking hoping to raise prices.
Has anyone ever seen such a big happy family in a funny farm before?
Anyone who thinks that Iran's acquisition of the bomb won't drive the Saudis and the Egyptians into their own programs...is living in a fantasy world.
Iran must be stopped; Israel has a little over 6 weeks before Obama is sworn in. The clock is ticking.
l think with Olmert around Israel will find it difficult to attack iran, they need Bibi.
"Iran calls for the overthrow of Egyptian, Saudi regimes"
I don't doubt for one minute that the Egyptians and Saudis wouild love to see the U.S. or Israelis take out Iran's nuclear facilities.
But they'd also like to sit back and condemn an attack on a fellow Islamis country -- in short, play both sides.
Maybe Obama should come to some accomodation with Iran, making Egypt and the Saudis do someting or get off the pot. They've been playing us for fools fot too long. Let them defend themselves or join us openly in fighting a common enemy.
Is the plot thickening?
Is the plot thickening?
Posted by: pismopal
Definitely. Iran had best be wary of criticizing the Saudis. Saudi Arabia disburses a lot of funding to Pakistan, and Pakistan already has the bomb. It wouldn't take much for the Suadis to start calling in some favors from the Pakis; such as having them re-target some of their nukes at Iranian objectives.
And Egyptian and Saudi clerics have been steadily denouncing the Shi'a, especially for their attempts to convert Sunnis in Syria and, supposedly, Lebanon. What could be better? And what could hasten the progress of this Sunni-Shi'a split more than, in Iraq, a prompt American withdrawal, and an end to these costly and wrong-headed efforts to keep Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'a from each other's throats. That policy makes no sense. Divide et, well not impera, but at least weaken, cause to be preoccupied with its own fissures. And besides the sectarian, there are the ethnic -- Arab and non-Arab -- fissures, and the economic fissures, even within the world of Arab Islam, between the northern, oil-less Arabs, who regard themselves as more civilized and hence more deserving than those coarse, crude, desert Arabs of the Gulf who somehow ended up with all the oil and all the loot.
There's so much that could be done, if we only did a lot less.
"...they need Bibi."
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess
Yep.
About Hugh's long standing call to just step back and let the Sunnis and Shia have at each other...I wonder if this scenario is included in the Pentagon war games? Anyone know?
In trying to construct the connected action/reaction tree associated with the various possibilities and assigning probable risk to each of the nodes, I find it very hard to go more than one or two steps before chaos sets in (e.g., we withdraw from Iraq, a bloody civil war ensues, Iran intervenes in the South; the Kurds revolt, their brethren in SE Turkey decide the time has come to establish an independent Kurdistan and join the revolt, Turkey responds by invading Iraq and occupying Kirkuk; the Shia in Iraq jump into the fray by launching a terror campaign; suitcase nukes go off in Baltimore harbor, we respond with ???; the Russians take advantage of the distraction and invade and occupy Lithuania, thus giving them land access to Kaliningrad, or perhaps occupy the Crimea, regaining them their naval base in Stavoltopol and giving them direct access to the Black Sea - these Russian actions don't necessarily have anything to do with Israel, but they are likely to occur sooner later, and with the U.S. distracted in the ME and the EU toothless and impotent, this would be a good time for them to make these moves; Pakistan goes crazy and invades Kashmir, the Indians respond by nuking Islamabad, the Pakis return the favor by nuking New Delhi; and these are only initial moves. Each of these scenarios would have a following set of possibilities that would flow from the outcome of these individual action/reaction nodes; etc., etc.). It gets complicated.
Just thinking about this makes my head hurt. But there are people who are paid, or should be, to think about it, so I'll repeat my question above. Does anyone know if there is an Islamic Jihad module in the various Pentagon War Game simulations? Clearly there wasn't one that included 9/11 as a possibility, which leads one to wonder about the utility of these games.
Hugh, maybe you'd like to lay out for us what scenarios you think are likely to play out if your advice were to be followed?
Looks like Obama's idea of sitting at the table with Iran may not be such a bad idea after all. If he can talk them into taking their eye off Israel, and instead focusing on destabilizing Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, and make those countries channel their money towards their own defense and counter-destabilization of both Iran and Iraq, it would look like a job well done.
Obama may well be too brilliant by half
Eastview...aren't you glad we elected a rookie as POTUS, with Hillary Clinton soon to be at the helm of the State Department?
I wonder if the Iranians have the nerve to nuke the Saudi Oil Filed areas, given that a huge new discovery just took place. Far larger than anyone had imagined.
How about China invading Taiwan, with North Korean support? How about a Chinese Supercarrier parked off the coast of Hawaii, given that they have hacked our Aegis Naval Integrated Defense System.
Shall we say...nuclear submarine exchange.
Maybe the movie "On the Beach" was right on the money.
How about Israel sending over 100 Neutron bombs into Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.
By the way, google "Cohen - Inventor of the Neutron Bomb, and see what he has to say about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain "Red Murcury".
Where are all the "Yellowcake" naysayers? Where is that chick Olbermann on this one?
I am sorry you are forced to have these endgame/nuclear brinksmanship scenarios in your life. I am a little behing you in my thinking, but not by much.
I would also very much like to know what Professor Fitzgerald has to say, and of course the Honorable Mr. Spencer.
When are these guys and gals not disgruntled. lol.
On hajj day? Walking counterclockwise, for Gods sake, around the sandy mile, throwing stones at the invisible devil - disgruntled.
On friday? Prostrating themselves in unison and hearing the dour sermon on the mount, er in the hall - disgruntled.
On ramadan day? Fasting for a month and partying all night - ok grouchy.
On Moonday? alright nobody likes moonday.
Maybe the old saying is right - The blessed, bless you. The cursed, curse you. I think that's right.
While I was recovering from Eastview's scenario, I looked up Gaza's population in Wikipedia, in view of jdamn's statement that the article called the Gaza situation "genocide." Here's what I found: In 1997 the population of Gaza and a nearby refugee camp was 353,115; in 2006 it was 409,680. That's some genocide.
Could it be that the increasingly bellicose statements coming out of Tehran are primarily for domestic consumption? Yes, I know some of the signs held by the demonstrators were in English, which means they were aimed at the outside world; that's why I said "primarily."
Ahmadinejad's rule has been getting very shaky, what with the economy on the rocks, income from oil plummeting, and disaffection in the cities intensifying. An old rule of tyrannical regimes is that, when the subjects become restless, the ruler should try to unify the populace by whipping up enmity against foreigners. What percentage of Iran's people do those photographed demonstrators represent?
Eastview's scenario sounds plausible; I'm not dissenting, just asking.
I am OFFENDED by Iran's threats, I tell ya.
Please get me the nuclear j-dams while your up......
Great comments Eastview.
I've repeatedly suggested to Hugh that his Shia-Sunni civil war could produce many outcomes, some much, much worse than having a quasi-democratic Iraq allied closely with America. He seems set in his Machiavellian vision that the confessional divide is there for the exploiting....and refuses to acknowledge other possibilities, such as...
1) one side (most likely Iran) defeating the other and being significantly empowered
2) extremists from both sides uniting to Talibanize Iraq and squeezing out any hope for a democratic evolution
3) the Kurds of Iraq - faithful and moderate allies of America where the head-scarf is optional and where women serve in the militia - could and probably would be sacrificed in his scheme
Here we go.... this is the answer to our problems
Let them start fighting between them.keep the fire going and meanwhile ,we can breathe.
Cornelius
In all of Hugh's scenarios, he's allowed for Kurdistan to be protected by US troops, provided they provide a haven to Iraqi Christians.
Sounds pretty loyal to the Kurds, to me. Besides, as long as Kurds are Muslim, there are limits to the extent to which they can be trusted. Let them become Christian, or Zoroastrian (which they were before the Arab conquest of Persia), and it would be worth putting more at stake to support them.
And the world of possibilities opens up.
The area is armed and unstable. Anything can happen and probably will.
What has been predicted as possibilities may happen or may not happen.
With Allah running the show, expect the unexpected.
Of course the Prophet President Obama (PBUH), has promised to 'talk' to Mohmaddans from a major Islamic city...Probably Dearborne. There he will lay his golden throat tunes on them, and they will melt into compliance.
What we are seeing now are residual Bush spasms.
These will diminish when the Prophet Obama (PBUH)
takes office and begins speaking...
Let the speaker speak and all will be well...Allah willing...
As with the drug problem, there is no great and sane solution which could be invoked that would solve the problem of Islamic supremacism once and for all. Cornelius is right to point out deleterious outcomes (from a Western perspective) if Hugh's strategy is followed. And, yes, it's also possible Hugh's approach could prove the most efficacious. Hard to say from this vantage point. Islam is a mess of a religion, it's a problem for all mankind, it could very well be the cause of more millions of deaths unnecessarily than even WWII was and determining which of all the solutions out there is the least bad among the bunch is as much guesswork and art as it is statesmanship and ratiocination of the finest kind.
IP,
My understanding is that Hugh wants to remove all troops from Iraq. His support for the Kurds is based on air-drops and such.
Even if it was his intent to have US troops remain in Iraqi Kurdistan, how would we access the region? Iraq would be in flames and the Turks are vehemently opposed to Iraqi Kurdish independence (another aspect of his fantasyland is that the Turks can be prevailed upon - based on promises of good behavior - that an independent Kurdistan in Iraq would not impact Turkey's own restive Kurdish secessionist movement in the southeast of that country.
We've been through this a million times. It's Hugh that insists on beating a dead horse.
Iraq has been pacified; Al Qaeda has been defeated there, Iran's principle agent, Muqtada Al Sadr, is at least momentarily marginalized, the country is no longer an exporter of terrorism, nor is it pursuing WMD programs like it was under Saddam.
Working to unravel that success is...for lack of a better word, absurd.
just let these people kill each other
Looks like fallout shelters should be coming back into fashion.
http://www.radshelters4u.com/
With all those psychopathic players (and potential players) going nuclear, it's only a matter of time before Mohammed-somebody opens up a can of atomic whoop-ass on Abdullah-somebody, and sprays fallout all over the globe.
And I was saving for a new roof. HAH!
RSI
RedStateInfidel
There may be a market for lead lined fashion clothing.
Chemical and radiation suits, to go dancing, even to church. A C/R suit for every occasion. Formal or casual. Protect yourself from bio-chemical-radiation poisons while having a good time.
Hmm...I will have to run that idea by the resident seamstress...
I agree with Peguy. Let them kill each other. The Kurd angle is one aspect of Hugh's doctrine that I never agreed with. What makes those terrorist Mohammedans any better than any other ones? Nothing. If anything, they're more into fgm, so I have, if anything, less sympathy for them. In a Sunni/Shiite war one side or the other will take them on as allies. They have to. They're too big of a bloc to not exploit, and besides, they're right in the thick of it all, geographically. If Turkey gets pulled in, awesome. No EU membership for them.
Forget the Christians. Get them out. That will be an excuse to roll back Mohammedan immigration -- they're lgitimate refugees, unlike every Mohammedan refugee, who rarely achieves legitimate refugee status and still clings to that which victimized him. That's called suicide, and we shoul dencourage it by keeping them out of our countries. Christians will never have a safe-haven in the Middles East. Lebanon is the best they can hope for and they don't have the numbers or the history to achieve that.
Plus, if Iran/the Shiites won, which they would, the jihad would just spread outward -- like into Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A more powerful Shi'ite bloc in the Middle East is what's best for free-world interests. That would take care of all the jihad directed at Israel because the Muslim world would just have bigger fish to fry. All we would have to do at that point would be to keep the Pakis out of our countries, keep up on intelligence, and if anyone started to acquire nukes, bomb them. If they're already at war, which they would be indefinitely, they couldn't retaliate, not that they really could at peacetime either. But we need the water vapor car first! I also don't see China getting behind anyone in this kind of war except us, if anyone. Russia would have to pick sides. If they got pulled into it that would be cool too.
Does this mean that the "True" muslims will now attack Mecca and Medina for flush out the Apostates.
Lets see if these Jihadist will hijack Planes and fly them into the Kabar cube during Haaj to slaughter as many apostates as possible, except we all know that Iran will blame "The Jooooo's" for doing it and no matter how much evidence links it to Muslims, Iran will call it a Zionist plot to dress as Muslims .
JDAMN: "A more powerful Shi'ite bloc in the Middle East is what's best for free-world interests. That would take care of all the jihad directed at Israel because the Muslim world would just have bigger fish to fry."
On the contrary, Israelis rightly perceive Shia Iran as the greatest existential threat they face. Should Iran become more empowered via a proxy takeover in Iraq, Israel's security will be even more imperiled.