The Protests And Embassy Assaults Will Proliferate
This morning I suggested that yesterday's deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was an Al Qaeda operation in revenge of the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi by a U.S. drone in Pakistan. The protests in Benghazi and Cairo against an anti-Islam film were used as cover for this operation. Al-Libi's death was confirmed in yesterday's video message by the current Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. That al-Zawahiri message, the attack in Benghazi and the rising of the AQ flag in front of the embassy in Cairo all came on the same 9/11 anniversary day is unlikely to be a coincidence. Recent news seem to confirm my take:U.S. sources told CNN on Wednesday that the Benghazi attack was planned, and the attackers used the protest outside the consulate as a diversion. The sources could not say whether the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it, and they say they don't believe Stevens was specifically targeted.The protests in Cairo and in Benghazi were primarily against an anti-Islam movie. But that was likely just a pretext and a helpful diversion for the attack. The spectrum of Salafists in Egypt and Libya is wide but the few violent ones do have little problem to get some otherwise peaceful ones up for some loud protest against this or that perceived injustice. The U.S. support to the Benghazi radicals against Gaddhafi also brought former militant radical Islamists into official positions in Libya. They may well have helped in the creation of the incident.
That anti-Islam movie, of which a trailer was launched a few days ago, came just in time. That "Sam Bacile", who told the Wall Street Journal that he is a Jew from Israel and that Jews financed his hate-speech movie, does not seem to exist at all. It is not yet known what islamophobic nut is behind this information operation. The movies dubious origin and that it came out just in time for the attack will be the base for many interesting conspiracy theories. I don't want to add one here but will look at the U.S. response to the attack.
The important people in Washington DC will feel the usual urge to "do something" about the death of ambassador Chris Stevens. The ongoing election campaigns will create the necessity for a revenge operation.
The Libyan government is in the hand of U.S. proxies. It has already apologized for the attack and will allow the U.S. to take any necessary action. The preferred tool of the Obama administration's foreign policy is the weaponized drone. I therefore expect that drones will soon start to fly of Cyreanica to look for signs of those who killed the ambassadors. They will find many a "militants", i.e. male person of the age ten and above, and will kill a rather random sample of them. The following outrage and radicalization will later lead to attacks on the Libyan government and the country will go down from there. Another Somalia in the making.
The situation in Egypt is different. President Mursi has yet to condemn the breach of the embassy perimeter and the rising of the al-Qaeda flag on its flagpole. For him and his Muslim Brotherhood the Salafists are the political competition. He has to protect his right flank and is therefore unlikely to punish any of the demonstrators nor will he act forcefully to prevent another attack on the embassy. The Brotherhood has already called for more protests against the film. Further serious trouble in Egypt can thereby be expected.
The U.S. on the other side has no good instrument to make Mursi compliant to its will. If it stops the money flow the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt will be in danger. The Egyptian control of the Suez canal is also an issue the U.S. can not ignore. Any threat to Egypt may end up in a blockade of the canal for U.S. warships. The relation between the U.S. and Egypt is therefore likely to deteriorate.
The protests against that stupid movie and the now established examples of storming U.S. embassies will likely proliferate. By Friday night Beirut, Amman, Kabul, Sanaa and other capitols will have followed the pattern.
The only place where we can expect no protest against that idiotic movie is Syria. No one there has time for such a nonsense. After yesterday's sobering experience in Libya the U.S. support for the radical insurgents in Syria there will likely become smaller or even stop. That would then be the only valuable thing those movie makers, whoever they are, would have achieved.
Posted by b on September 12, 2012 at 19:23 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageare you sure somebody? sounds a tad hollywood scripted for my taste. beside..one might imagine someone who was so 'in the in' w/all the goings on would know how to spell qatar. just sayin'.
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 7:53 utc | 103
Most believed that this was done by the Quatari financed section of the salafi's in a powerplay.
do you have any thinks supporting this theory?
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 8:13 utc | 105
OK I just can't go past " Xtianity from the getgo was a-politcal Maybe the deluded chappie who thought he was the son of god wasn't into politics but the xtian religion has been the most political of any religions.
By about 100ad the roman empire was becoming pretty unmanageable. Not only did they have too many nations, languages, and cultures to effectively rule over with a relatively small population of citizens & greek slaves, the pantheist gods whose various temples advised the political class, had been captured by diverse interested parties. So emperors would receive completely contradictory advice from the 'official' policymakers; the leaders of the temples.
This is what made xtianity so popular among Rome's elite once they picked up on what the 'lower orders' were getting up to. Only one god to placate and obey, a single organisation that had become power hungry and was happy to make the compromises neccessary to get favoured superstition status.
Which is why after a coupla hunnerd years the roles of church leader (pope) and political leader (emperor) became one and the same.
When xtianity suffered a similar schism to the one that caused the division of muslims into shia and sunni, the 'holy roman empire' divided in two with one mob having one religion based in Constatinople ('orthodox') and looked after eastern europe and the ME, and the other mob running the western empire based in Rome (roman catholicism).
tell me that ain't inherently political.
Further islam doesn't have an official religious establishment with the same sort of top down hierachy as xtianity.
The archibisop of canterbury and/or the pope have always held a great deal of political power but in Islam there is no official boss of all the witch doctors the way xtianity has a boss of their witch doctors.
Sure some Islamic officials do hold political power but that is generally a result of the individual's politicking, they aren't holders of official gigs where some imam has the power to tell a political or tribal leader what must go down, in the same way that popes and archbishops have ordered around european kings.
I hate all organised religion because it gives too much power to the superstitious and cunning but Islam stayed pretty apolitical until it became obvious that followers were getting no support out of poverty from anywhere else.
Most of the 20th century political leaders of islamic societies from Iraq to Turkey, Palestine to Egypt were determindly secular, and look where that got the people! Nowhere. Amerika and the soviet union spent most of the second half of the 20th century using the ME for proxy wars, so it is hardly surprising that people have eschewed secularism and gone religious.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 14 2012 9:01 utc | 106
annie, I was following Libyan events closely without inside information and it is what I read from other sources. It is obvious that Younis murder was done by Salafis, it is obvious they were covered up by the Western recognized opposition council, and it was Qatar that was mainly involved in Libya, not Saudi Arabia.
on the uproar about the movie - apart from the reaction being artificially manufactured for various reasons, instrumentalised, used as cover for different agendas, being self defeative as it hands Islamophobia (and the Syrian regime) a victory the way protests play out, protesters do have a valid point, if google (who owns youtube) censures anti-semitism and fascism (as they do) they should be able to censure anti-islamic hate speech, too.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 9:15 utc | 107
somebody,i'm not questioning Younis murder was done by Salafis. i'm not even questioning Younis murder was done by qatar factions. i was just wondering if you or anyone had any supporting links (not thinks!)for most believed this was done by the Qatari financed section of the salafis.
a simple yes or no will suffice. thanks.
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 9:42 utc | 108
annie you will find the links yourself, if you do research. nobody here has to prove anything. If you disagree say so and why. I will take it as your opinion and need no supporting link.
more on what the US embassy break in means - with supporting link.
"The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted."
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 9:58 utc | 109
i guess that would be a no.
some might argue the US administration was facing a 'crisis' in libya prior to this assassination.
Outcome of Libyan elections could spell trouble for US
According to news reports this week, the emir of a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization is edging closer to securing a leadership role in Libya’s new government.For President Obama, this situation stands to severely diminish perceptions of “prudence” bestowed upon his administration’s Arab Spring-related policies — even if the public knows little about this rising Libyan political star or the terror group previously helmed by him.
Abdel Hakim Belhaj is the co-founder and leader of the purportedly moribund Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Today, he is on the short list of candidates whom Libya observers are comfortably forecasting as key political stakeholders in Libya’s next government.
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 10:17 utc | 110
AQ loves coincidences - multiple contemporary attacks, symbolic dates, etc
Posted by: claudio | Sep 13, 2012 7:47:13 PM | 91
thats not convincing....Your knowledge of AQ is seriously defective
Posted by: brian | Sep 14 2012 11:08 utc | 111
"thats not convincing....Your knowledge of AQ is seriously defective"
absolutely, on both counts :-)
just saying that if the coincidence of 911 sounds suspicious, AQ has some precedents at these kind of tricks
Posted by: claudio | Sep 14 2012 11:41 utc | 112
remains the issue on what this video was trying to achieve ...
Annie, the link you quote is Fox News, so their agenda is clear. Belhadj had military power in Tripoli and was clearly - no link - sponsored by Qatar. He lost in the elections though. Belhadj also was renditioned to Gaddafi with his family by the UK and has/had? a court case there because the rendition was clearly illegal all the while Britain/US was presumably sponsoring the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group/Quillam Foundation Belhadj was a member of The treatment of the wife of Belhadj in that rendition was abysmal.
So there are actors involved of all kind of shades of grey stripes and nobody can control the outcome in their favor. I doubt US right wing/Romney will profit as Obama now can make this an issue of national defense and shut him up as disputing will appear unpatriotic and he can't very well argue for more wars than Obama got involved in - US citizens sure would not buy that.
Yes, they fund the extremism they then fight.
In other news, German secret services are linked to fascist murderers and it is historic fact that Hitler was payed by the German secret service to spy on the right wing group he took over to found the Nationalist Socialist Party ...
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 11:51 utc | 113
it is very similar to the people who design and fight computer viruses, same time of people often switching sides and contractors ...
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 12:04 utc | 114
'The murder of US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats at the hands of rioters probably wasn’t just another case of Islamists-gone-wild. The circumstances surrounding this horrific incident — the riot was in reaction to a “film” supposedly made by a mysterious Israeli-American director under what is probably a pseudonym — point to a carefully staged and well-thought out event. The question is: staged by whom?'
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/13/blowback-in-benghazi/
Posted by: brian | Sep 14 2012 14:01 utc | 115
just saying that if the coincidence of 911 sounds suspicious, AQ has some precedents at these kind of tricks
Posted by: claudio | Sep 14, 2012 7:41:41 AM | 112
tricks are what zionists are good at
Posted by: brian | Sep 14 2012 14:34 utc | 116
aren't we all, Brian.
By the way, Germany seems to have ennemies in Sudan, how did our foreign minister manage to do that?
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 14:48 utc | 117
Sounds like things are getting worse and worse. Now in Tunisia, another US embassy burns. hmmm. maybe we should send the liberators, John Mccain and Joe Lieberman to see what they liberated !!!!
Posted by: ana souri | Sep 14 2012 14:50 utc | 118
I think it's no longer about the film anymore..It's now a bout people venting their frustration with US policies in the Arab world...
It was bound to happen sooner or later..All it needed was a spark...
Posted by: Zico | Sep 14 2012 15:02 utc | 119
tunisis??
more blowback:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/protesters-enter-us-embassies-in-tunisia-sudan.aspx?pageID=238&nID=30145&NewsCatID=359
now did th perpetrators of the film think theyd have this much success!?
Posted by: brian | Sep 14 2012 15:11 utc | 120
Agree Zico, everybody seems to enjoy attacking US (and other) embassies. As politics are local however I guess somebody also tries to embarrass ruling Muslim brothers. And as people are doing it for a very abstract reason I still consider this manufactured.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 15:32 utc | 121
At this stage, the US government can only wish they were allies with Syria or even had any real ally in the Muslim world..
US foreign policy is based on a heavy does of deceit and short-sighted opportunism. Their embassies are always planning the next regime change - even in their so-called friendly allied countries.
How could it be that an embassy will have 15000 "diplomats" working there, like the one they have in Baghdad, if it's not for something sinister??
Looking at the protest going on, no-one's burning Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, Indian etc flag..Why's that??? Could it be that these countries pursue a policy of non-interference in their host country's internal affairs???
Posted by: Zico | Sep 14 2012 16:21 utc | 122
There is strong anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries which considerably facilitates any effort to get local support for demonstrations and embassy raids.
According to a recent Pew global poll, only 15 percent of people in Muslim countries have a favorable view of the U.S. and it's trending downward. Favorable ratings are 48% in Lebanon, Tunisia 45%, Egypt 19%, Turkey 15%, Jordan 12%, Pakistan 12%.
Regarding drone strikes, disapproval is:
Tunisia 72%, Turkey 81%, Egypt 89%, Jordan 85%.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/
Afraid I'm like "somebody" - following closely but haven't been keeping links.
Regarding Abdul Fattah Younis's murder, Pepe Escobar goes into some of the circumstances here:-
Libya: The real war starts now
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MI07Ak01.html
Younis was killed in the same week that international recognition was given to the rebels as the legitimate authority in Libya...
Another article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/07/29/are-libyan-rebels-in-cris_n_913085.html
Regarding Quatari special forces on the ground, & previous support:
Qatari chief-of-staff reveals extent of involvment, saying troops were responsible for training, communications and strategy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/qatar-troops-libya-rebels-support
There was also a bunch of articles shortly after on how some of the rebel groups were getting seriously p*ssed off about the Quatari's attempting to push their weight around in setting up the new government, if someone wants to do some digging.
And if you want to check out a little about the Crown Prince Mohammed El-Senussi, here is his personal site:
http://mohammedelsenussi.org/home/speeches.html
Posted by: KenM | Sep 14 2012 16:29 utc | 125
Benghazi attack: The guard, interviewed Thursday in the hospital ...said that the consulate area was quiet – “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.
The men lobbed grenades into the compound, wounding the guard and knocking him to the ground, then stormed through the facility’s main gate, shouting “God is great” and moving to one of the many villas that make up the consulate compound. He said there had been no warning that an attack was imminent.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 14 2012 16:44 utc | 127
PS. regarding spelling Qatar wrong, afraid it's automatic - public school education won't seemingly let me put in a "Q" without following it with a "U".
Regarding the post, I just wanted to make the point that there are so many players overlapping each other these days in such a combustible situation that trying to pin it down to a single point is often futile, & many of the flare-ups are likely to happen for quite petty reasons.
According to reports that I read at the time, the blow-up in Lebanon with Fatah al-Islam was initially sparked off by them not recieving their regular monthly payments by the Welch Group, & so went on the warpath.
http://www.badil.org/ar/article74/item/426-lebanon-a-proxy-war-in-nahr-el-bared-refugee-camp/426-lebanon-a-proxy-war-in-nahr-el-bared-refugee-camp
Libya looks to be a similar situation multiplied, & probably the only thing keeping many of these groups on a leash is the Syrian "Jihad"...
Posted by: KenM | Sep 14 2012 16:46 utc | 128
But the Islamists are hard to like. - ruralito.
ruralito means violent, ‘terrorist’ Islamists, I presume?
One can’t compare them to past ‘terrorist’ entities of the separatist type from the West, such as the IRA or Basque separatists, who garnered a lot of sympathy (e.g. in the US re. Ireland). The scope and contexts are so different, so there isn’t a clear issue one can easily have sympathy with.
Islamists is a broad, senseless category that comprises all kinds of groups / ppl - from the Taliban in Afgh. (they seem to have their own brand name) to the -mostly- non-terrorist ‘modern’ Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Including bands of manipulated young men who handle their no-future with violence coupled with hopes of status (Syria), many perhaps paid mercenaries.
Plus some pious imams who dream of their past influence in a stable world ruled by patriarchy.. Sharia law that can sort out family quarrels..
Add in AlQ, a sort of imaginary horror org. with no existence except that falsely conferred on it by the media.
>Not a complete list.
All these contexts (country, group, etc.) are different, and it is the West, USuk+isr in first place, EU follows on, and the media, who lump it all together.
The focus on tribal belonging defined by race, nominal religion / cultural roots / geographical / place serves to cover up, well, pretty much everything of any importance.
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 14 2012 16:48 utc | 129
Debs is dead @106
A few remarks that I thought perhaps are worth mentioning:
1) Islam has a hierarchical structure (be it Sunni or Shiite). In Shiites for example you have hierarchy from the lowest ranking Talabeh (student of seminary) all the way to the top authority of Ayatollah Ozma. Also there is a hierarchical trend in among sunni muslims.
2) Islam was very much political from day 1 (in fact I would argue that religion –be it Islam or any other- is NOTHING but politics. It’s divine message is just a mere appearence beneath with there lies its actual “worldly” and “secular” content.) Islam’s prophet became the head of state, signed treaties and declared war with his neighbours. So did pretty much all Khalifa who succeeded him.
3) In case of Iran at least, I can say that starting from the time of Safavis, clerics had a great deal of power. All affairs of judiciary, education and medicine belonged to them.
4) In Iran from Qajar’s time onward clerics were an extremely powerful –AND ALSO VERY REACTIONARY-centre of power rivaling the king himself. In fact there are theories as to Bahaism being a British invention to reduce some of the power of the clergy in Iran. The clergy were usually bribed by different actors to do their bidding sometimes various princes and kings and at times various foreign powers (both the Russians and the British) and almost always (with very few exceptions) they held extremely reactionary positions and pretty much antagonistic to any aspect of modernity (from being against the establishment of modern schools to educate children, to modern medicine to even the usage of press for printing written text).
Posted by: pirouz_2 | Sep 14 2012 17:16 utc | 130
somebody, yes i was well aware it was a fox news link from 2 days prior to the election. perhaps you missed my meaning when i wrote 'some might argue the US administration was facing a 'crisis' in libya prior to this assassination. some (like myself) might even argue that crisis didn't go away after an election in which rules provided jibril's guaranteed victory. if the US was planning a large deployment of troops to libya (we were) some might even consider it advantageous to step up that deployment in the run up to the elections.
at a time when obama is likely to get pounded for being 'weak' wrt iran and if he not going to pursue syria what will make him look strong and powerful going into an election? what area of the globe have we made the most impact on during his presidency? not necessarily image wise, but in terms of geostrategic goals? africom.
for reasons other than your assumptions, i would still very much appreciate any current links about 'Qatari financed section of the salafi's in a powerplay'.
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 17:47 utc | 131
sorry, the end of my last comment was a little garbled. i just mean attempting to solidify control over libya and the africom 'achievement' could work in his favor while at the same time divert criticism away from inaction wrt iran.
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 18:10 utc | 132
Religion and politics are natural bedfellows since they both seek to control people birth to death. It's the same everywhere.
ken, thanks for the links. i'm familiar with abram's welch club. not sure if you read b's Nahr al-Bared and a New U.S. Air Base
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 18:19 utc | 134
oh, annie, just google "qatar and belhadj "it is impossible to link to all the stuff you get, below is one example. If you think Qatar made a huge investment into liberal democracy just say so.
Like this article here - I am too lazy to google the WSJ original source. It is unlikely to tell you Quatar is a progressive country with unprecedented freedom.
"As Libya's new interim government accepts international funds to search for and destroy weapons, it has alleged that Qatar is involved in shipping unauthorized weapons to Tripoli's military commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.
International governments are sending millions of dollars to Libya’s National Transitional Council to assist with efforts to find and destroy weapons. At the same time it is has been alleged that extremist factions within the NTC fighters are receiving unauthorized arms shipments from abroad. Tripoli’s NTC military commander, Abdel Hakim Belhadj is the alleged recipient, an accusation he denies.
On Tuesday the deputy leader of the NTC, oil and finance minister Ali Tarhouni, warned that illegal arms shipments of weapons and money must stop. He announced
“It’s time we publicly declare that anyone who wants to come to our house has to knock on the front door first” the Wall Street Journal reported. “I hope this message will be received by all our friends, both our Arab brothers and Western powers.”
Although Tarhouni fell short of naming the suspected culprit the WSJ reported that an NTC official confirmed that Qatar was “without any doubt” the guilty party."
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 18:34 utc | 135
ken, one more thing and here is what i wonder about. w/the independent reporting "missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans....other documents are said to relate to oil contracts." and the US State Dept had "credible information 48 hours" before the attack..assuming this has qatar written all over it (which is a big assumption) why wouldn't qatar be acting in what they perceived to be working in the best interests of the administration? is it conceivable are any big actors (states) would be operating impervious to their impact on the american elections? what would be the purpose of a qatar financed attack that weakened the current administration? it would have to be they'd prefer a likud presidency.
i don't mean to sound so election centric as if everything revolves around us because i know it doesn't. but what if causing actions that stimulate as US reaction was partly the aim of the attack? isn't the US an ally of qatar?
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 18:48 utc | 136
If you think Qatar made a huge investment into liberal democracy just say so.
somebody, you'll have to excuse me for not responding further to your comments. as if..the intent of the US has been a liberal democracy in libya? please!
Posted by: annie | Sep 14 2012 18:57 utc | 137
re 130 Pirouz_2
2) Islam was very much political from day 1 (in fact I would argue that religion –be it Islam or any other- is NOTHING but politics. It’s divine message is just a mere appearence beneath with there lies its actual “worldly” and “secular” content.) Islam’s prophet became the head of state, signed treaties and declared war with his neighbours. So did pretty much all Khalifa who succeeded him.
I would agree with you that all religions become political. But Islam itself is no more political than any other religion. Muhammad had to face political problems in his lifetime - in fact defence, as he was attacked militarily by the Meccans. As it happens, he was successful, and politics and war took their course much earlier than for other religions. In fact most of his time was consumed with making alliances, not making war.
The real religion of Islam developed later, as in most religions. Most is quite peaceful, as Sufism.
Iranians, as I imagine you are, by your handle and your post, have a particular point of view. The élite were always resentful of the Islamicisation of Iran, because they didn't pay taxes before Islam, but they lost out later.
But the masses were quite happy. Today they continue to support Ahmedinejad. The élite, having come back to power under the Shah, then fled at the time of the revolution. I presume you're an exiled Iranian. All exiled Iranians are members of the élite, resentful of the present regime, which is demagogic under Ahmedinejad and the Ayatullahs in general. A direct relationship between government and the masses, excluding the élite.
So I take your remarks with a grain of salt.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 14 2012 18:59 utc | 138
Debs is Dead #106
The split between the Eastern and Western branches of the Roman Empire began in the 3rd Century; the final partition was in the 4th century; and the last Roman Emperor in the West abdicated in the 5th century; while the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity was not until the 11th century.
Off topic, perhaps, but it casts light on your interpretation of history.
Posted by: winston smith | Sep 14 2012 19:02 utc | 139
annie you do not have to answer, but no one me included said this was planned in Quatar. All that was said was that the people supported by Qatar, France and Saudi Arabia in Libya (not the same group) were losing out politically against the people supported by the US (I guess it has changed). So the actions on the ground taken by those people are not necessarily decided in Qatar (though Qatar could refuse to fund this type of people). Another twist is that the potential threat of Salafis does not just apply to US embassies but Saudi Arabian, Qatari, Kuweiti government buildings, too, if they decide these countries act against their religion. So part of Saudi Arabian and Qatar funding Salafis is insurance to have them go play somewhere else (and preferably annoy the enemy). Humans are complicated and not one dimensional.
My definition of ally would be sharing the same interest. No, the US and Qatar do not share the same interest.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 19:19 utc | 140
re 106 DiD
I sort of agree with the interpretation of the Roman Empire, but not entirely. My impression is that after the turn of the era, nobody really believed in the gods any more, and certainly not in the apotheosis of the Roman Emperors. There were all sorts of cults in the first centuries AD. Monotheism, however, had great appeal, and hit the Roman world like a bomb, probably because of the notion of a personal relationship to god.
A century after the declaration of Christianity by Constantine, there were mobs in Egypt tearing down pagan temples, and forcing people to convert (sounds like what Muslims are accused of today, doesn't it?).
You could argue that it was monotheism with its personal relationship to God which defined the medieval period (either Christianity or Islam). One's personal relationship to God was more important than that with the state.
Of course, if the Muslims had had any sense, they would have forced everyone to convert to Islam at the time, like the Christians did. But they were too nice. The Copts and Israel would not have existed, to be a nuisance today.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 14 2012 19:57 utc | 141
@Alexno 138:
I wish that instead of just mentioning that you take my remarks with a grain of salt and then making "guesses" without any basis, you could tell me which one of my remarks you took with a grain of salt and based on what historical evidence you did so. I presume that you just didn't like the over-all nonreligious tone of my arguement and since I am Iranian (you guessed that one correctly)you immediately attributed to me some stereotypical nonreligious Iranian personality? :)
No harms done, I really don't care.
"I would agree with you that all religions become political."
Well then there isn't much to argue, since I made a general claim about ALL religions and not Islam in particular. However, I must say that I dont think that all religions become political, they all are political from the beginning.
"In fact most of his time was consumed with making alliances, not making war."
I am not sure where I said that Mohammad was a warmonger?? Which part of what I wrote made you think that?
Look, somehow you seem to have been put off by my nonreligious tone, if that is the case just to make you feel at ease and to assure you that I am not an Islamophobe: I think that Mohammad was a great revolutionary leader, quite progressive for his own time!
One piece of advice though, you really shouldnt try to cast people into profiles because of their nationalities or try to force a religion or any other belief on them just because they are from a certain country. The vast majority of Iranians are devoutly religious it is true, but there is a significant minority which is not. And no they are not necessarily nonreligious because of their position as a privileged "elite".(incidentally how big a proportion of the society in USA is nonreligious? Are we to accuse every nonreligious person in USA as a part of an privileged "elite"?).
If we go by that then *ALMOST* all intelligentsia of Iran, all of its modern day authors, poets, artists and thinkers are part of a spoiled, corrupt and self-centered elite which includes luminaries
such as: Sadegh Hedayat, Omar Khayyam, Houshang Golshiri, Ahmad Shamloo, Samad Behrangi,gholam hossein saedi
etc. etc.
"The élite were always resentful of the Islamicisation of Iran, because they didn't pay taxes before Islam, but they lost out later."
Now this part I can say is pure NONSENSE.
"Today they continue to support Ahmedinejad."
That is true. He is a poppular figure in Iran, and the elections in 2009 are a testimony to that, though it beats the hell out of me that what on earth the topic of popularity of Ahmadinejad has to do with what I said in my earlier post? Are Iranians supposed to start in the name of the god and pay tribute Ahmadinejad and Mr. Khamenei before they can make remarks which you wouldnt take "with a grain of salt"???
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Sep 14 2012 20:01 utc | 142
re 142 Pirouz_2
Well, I made that general statement that most of the Iranian élite is abroad, and is likely to be to be opposed to the present regime, but it does not necessarily apply to you personally. Of your ideas evidently I have no idea.
A lively intellectual world exists today in Iran, with which I am in contact. I am also impressed by the economic development in spite of the sanctions. When I was in Turkmenistan this spring, the local route was being pounded by Iranian 40-tonners, exporting to the north.
Otherwise
Posted by: alexno | Sep 14 2012 20:51 utc | 143
In the end, what I wanted to say on this thread, is that the release of the Arabic version of the video, and the consequent attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi, is an important event. Intended by someone to produce an effect.
I had the impression at the time that the event was similar to the bombing of the Golden Dome in Samarra. Intended to enrage. I had the same feeling as then.
The video seems to have had success, as everyone is enraged.
I take by this that it was a planned operation, but it is not at all evident what is the target.
I think it is the US, and particularly Obama, who would thereby be proved to be weak. However the risk of backfire is considerable.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 14 2012 21:31 utc | 144
Looks like I'm getting grief for quoting the foundation doc of Xtianity. Xtians say they believe, but of course, only when it suits them. In this they are no different from most who refuse to accept the collective yoke and promote their own agendas. I know all about the popes selling remittances for sin. Yaddada, yaddida...Christian soldiers marching up the Nile etc etc...Southern baptists lynching negroes, blah, blah, blah...
Posted by: ruralito | Sep 14 2012 21:52 utc | 145
@Pirouz_2
Looks as though most of us are on a similar track with small divergences according to our personal view of the importance of various historical events. I don't disagree with your assertion that Shiites had a more solid hierarchy than Sunni islam, in part because it has served as a mechanism for opposition in most locales (Iran excepted) and has been the religion for the oppressed.
Sunni attempts at formal structure have been less successful and are likely to remain so as long as the societies Sunni islam services remain disparate.
Once established after they have effected whatever radical change in society the original exponent aspired to, all religions get into what is called in this part of the world, 'catch up footy'. That is they become reactive rather than proactive, which is why it is unlikely moves by western liberal imperialists to modernise Islam will have any effect at all until the societies that Islam is established within undergo significant change.
This was how it happened in the 'west' why should islam be different? For example as long as agrarian economies that depend on agricultural land having a minimum economic size, remain important to Islam societies, the attitudes towards marriage will remain.
I guess I get angry about the way muslims are characterised in the west because most westerners have their guards down and don't recognise when they are being stoked full of ethno-centric culturist hatred disguised as xtian 'tolerance'.
Yep all organised religions are political just as all media outlets are political. By that I mean the personal material reward from organising a religion or establishing or having a proprietary interest in a media outlet is generally small in relation to the huge amount of effort and demand on intellectual and social skills, so why does anyone do it?
After working that closely with herds of humans imams, bishops & newspaper editors can't have much faith in the product that has been dumbed down for universal consumption, so idealism n altruism are unlikely. I reckon the real reason is most often to be found in the rewards to be gained from influencing peeps' point of view to suit another's particular point of view.
Murdoch is an easy target, and most people think his agenda is about enlarging his empire; yet he still devotes huge resources to the London Times and the Wall St Journal, both of which are money losers hidden behind a pay wall. A couple of years ago I thought that was a silly call an indication NewsCorp didn't understand new media. But by hiding them behind a pay wall an elite group of opinion makers can be influenced without as much likelihood of 'leakage' out to the masses. The subscriptions never come close to covering costs but that doesn't matter cause Murdoch sells column inches off in much the same way as modern retailers rent shelf space to manufacturers and distributors. You have a project to get off the ground that is gonna run into problems with the masses because of environmental, labour or heritage issues, don't worry slip Rupert's major shareholders some stock options on the new enterprise, maybe let Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud or Ivesco appoint an independent director onto the board to act as a cut out or go-between for the enterprise and the fishwraps. Pretty soon the decision leaders will be thinking how you want them to without the masses being aware of the issues - until it is too late. Then the mass circulation TV and tabloids swing in with their outrageous and unsubstantiated lies. Which is gotten away with cause unbeknownst to the masses the opinion leaders have already been primed.
Not a conspiracy - just the free market and the power of self-interest.
This is exactly the role that organised religion has fulfilled up until the birth of mass media.
Nowadays religion is confined to either the micro stuff i.e. getting a loony amerikan godbotherer to shout about burning korans, 'have ya seen this video' or the really big more ephemeral things such as the way the catholic xtian bishops used to hammer on and on about 'godless communism'.
The direct interventions where the real money and power is to be gathered, are pretty much the bailiwick of the media. Hence a qatari princeling being nice to egyptian imams but investing most time & energy into Al Jazeera.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 15 2012 0:53 utc | 146
Thanks for the link on the base, "annie" - interesting background, & imagine the idea's about the base are still floating around in some think-tanks in the US.
Also, strikes me that the groups like the Welch club look like big winners in the current goings on - longstanding contacts with the various jihadi groups, government "NGO's", the experience in moving large sums of money around, along with arranging clandestine shipping. Expect them to be making out like bandits...
Another twist is that the potential threat of Salafis does not just apply to US embassies but Saudi Arabian, Qatari, Kuweiti government buildings, too, if they decide these countries act against their religion. So part of Saudi Arabian and Qatar funding Salafis is insurance to have them go play somewhere else (and preferably annoy the enemy).
Good point on it also applying to the GCC embassies as well, "somebody" - suspect many of the GCC hierarchy would literally go into hysterics if that happens. This seems to be the ultimate fear, especially for the Saudi's - that the forces unleashed will eventually turn - & many in the royals/saudi power structure seem to go to great lengths to avoid thinking about.
ome of the more experienced "realists" have been aware & managed it reasonably well in the past - the Ikhwan after helping Ibn Saud into power ended up turning on him after he tried to reign them in, & that hadn't been forgotten by the core of the royals. After the recent power struggles over succession, are they still as aware?
And as for the Qatari's, my estimate is that don't even realise what they are playing with, & when things start to unravel they will start coming apart at the seams very quickly..
PS. annie, never meant that I thought that the order for embassy attack came from some kind of central headquaters in Qatar, but suspect that elements in Qatar are keeping some groups in Libya riled up & as heavily armed as possible (& "somebody's" points seem to agree).
I would also be very interested in reports of media content in Libya, as the Qatari's seem to be a big player, if not the big player in the "islamic" media circuit over there, & the content coming from their reqular channels in Qatar (from the few clips I have seen) look absolutely toxic - like some kind of blend between the 80's US extreme-right evangelical channels that used to feature central-american death squad members as special guest champions in the fight against communism, crossed with almost caricture-like raving mullah's, although with very good production values...
Have their stations in Libya & pet imam's been increasingly anti-american of late, & screaming about secret US/Zionist machinations in the new government? Would be curious to find out if anyone has some pointers...
Posted by: KenM | Sep 15 2012 12:16 utc | 147
"annie you do not have to answer, but no one me included said this was planned in Quatar." Posted by: somebody | Sep 14, 2012 3:19:58 PM | 140Completely dishonest (as usual) from you, "somebody"
It is in fact pretty much EXACTLY what you implied, so why you would deny it is curious, unless dishonesty is intentional on your part - which I happen to believe it is, as you have a habit of behaving like this at MOA
What you actually said is written on this page for all to see
Most believed that this was done by the Quatari financed section of the salafi's in a powerplay.
and it's pretty clear to anyone that what you meant to imply was definitely a Quatari Powerplay - and it's par for the course with you that you would later deny it - you are an extremely untrustworthy and dishonest individual who is quite clearly operating to some Anti-Muslim agenda here
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 15 2012 13:28 utc | 148
annie - somebody, you'll have to excuse me for not responding further to your comments. as if..the intent of the US has been a liberal democracy in libya? please!
Annie, the dishonest individual you are addressing has been behaving like this since day one of the Libyan attack by NATO and it's mercenary armies.
Don't expect logic or honesty from this person as he has repeatedly proven his dishonesty here, mostly in the form of providing 'evidence' for his assertions, which upon closer examination usually turn out to say the exact opposite of what he claims.
He did the same above when he attempted to hide the fact that he was unable to provided evidence for his Qatar assertions - instead he waffled on about something else (his usual M.O. in these situations), namely "British support for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group/Quillam Foundation," of which Belhadj was a member.
By his own words he describes Belhadj as 'British Funded' but then immediately ditches that description (because it's not suitable for laying the blame at Arabs) to morph Belhadj into "Quatari" funded - because that still manages to place the blame for the creation and financing of people like Belhadj at the feet of those perfidious ARABS rather than where it rightfully belongs - at the feet of the British (and other 'Western) Secret Service(s)
The man is obviously operating to some agenda, one which seems to always include denigration of some ARABS somewhere
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 15 2012 13:41 utc | 149
annie - somebody, you'll have to excuse me for not responding further to your comments. as if..the intent of the US has been a liberal democracy in libya? please!
Annie, the dishonest individual you are addressing has been behaving like this since day one of the Libyan attack by NATO and it's mercenary armies.
Don't expect logic or honesty from this person as he has repeatedly proven his dishonesty here, mostly in the form of providing 'evidence' for his assertions, which upon closer examination usually turn out to say the exact opposite of what he claims.
He did the same above when he attempted to hide the fact that he was unable to provided evidence for his Qatar assertions - instead he waffled on about something else (his usual M.O. in these situations), namely "British support for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group/Quillam Foundation," of which Belhadj was a member.
By his own words he describes Belhadj as 'British Funded' but then immediately ditches that description (because it's not suitable for laying the blame at Arabs) to morph Belhadj into "Quatari" funded - because that still manages to place the blame for the creation and financing of people like Belhadj at the feet of those perfidious ARABS rather than where it rightfully belongs - at the feet of the British (and other 'Western) Secret Service(s)
The man is obviously operating to some agenda, one which seems to always include denigration of some ARABS somewhere
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 15 2012 13:41 utc | 150
@debs is dead 146
I enjoyed reading your post very much. Looking forward to read more from you.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Sep 15 2012 16:50 utc | 151
all religions become political
They are political to begin with, as they lay down some kind obeisance, moral code, legal code, and a step-ladder in society, with ‘priests / instituted officials and hangers on’ holding some kind of authoritarian or dominant role, and the ‘economy’ being regulated by them. E.g. Catholic Church in the past.
A contemporary ex. is the Orthodox church in Greece, with its high unquestioned Gvmt. paid salaries, huge property ownership and control of the land, influence, untouchability, etc. rarely described or dissed... Iran is another ex. of a different nature, as there the religious authorities are top of the roost, economicaly.
It is only under the modern idea of separation between Church and State that religions became considered a minor personal choice, equivalent to preference for certain flowers or flavors of ice cream, to bring it really low.
For ex. in the US one can be a Buddhist, a Scientologist, Muslim or Jewish, and vote Democrat. The two are unconnected. Say.
Fundamentalist US Christians (Evangelicals etc.) implement ‘religion’ - as a tribal belonging, just like the Islamists - for furthering an agenda that is socially conservative, classist, racist, controlling, and attempts to return economic power and advantage to some strata of the previously dominant. The Taliban attempted exactly the same...
None of this has much to do with believing in the nether world, the abstract realm of a True God(s), or adhering to a moral code laid down (mostly) in times far past.
kicking in an open door, yup...
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 15 2012 18:14 utc | 152
It is only under the modern idea of separation between Church and State that religions became considered a minor personal choice, equivalent to preference for certain flowers or flavors of ice cream, to bring it really low.
No. The state uses religion to foster the "united we stand" gathering of the sheep to make them(us) more manageable. " Let us renew our sense of common purpose."
Sep 7, 2012
Presidential Proclamation -- National Days of Prayer and Remembrance, 2012
NATIONAL DAYS OF PRAYER AND REMEMBRANCE, 2012
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
. . .
On September 11, 2001, in our hour of grief, a Nation came together. No matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family. This weekend, as we honor the memory of those we have lost, let us summon that spirit once more. Let us renew our sense of common purpose. And let us reaffirm the bond we share as a people: that out of many, we are one.
. . .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.
BARACK OBAMA
http://tinyurl.com/9qn22p2
--and don't miss ". . .in the year of our Lord" in case there's a question of whom to pray to.
"annie you do not have to answer, but no one me included said this was planned in Quatar." Posted by: somebody | Sep 14, 2012 3:19:58 PM | 140Completely dishonest (as usual) from you, "somebody"
It is in fact pretty much EXACTLY what you implied, so why you would deny it is curious, unless dishonesty is intentional on your part - which I happen to believe it is, as you have a habit of behaving like this at MOA
What you actually said is written on this page for all to see
This was written in reference the the assasination of NTC head Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, not the embassy attacks. Actually read what is written before mouthing off with wild accusations.
Posted by: KenM | Sep 17 2012 5:09 utc | 154
Apparently the U.S. position on Benghazi has changed.
U.S. official says Benghazi consulate was "terrorist attack"
(Reuters) - The assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which four Americans died was a "terrorist attack" that may have had an al Qaeda connection, a top U.S. counterterrorism official told Congress on Wednesday.
over in France:
10:38 GMT: France announced it would close embassies and schools in around 20 countries, fearing backlash triggered by the cartoon that satirize the Prophet Mohammed.
Earlier the French PM Jean-Marc Ayrault spoke out in support of the publication of the caricatures, saying that France “is a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed.”
“If people really feel that their sensibilities have been offended and think there is enough evidence, they can refer the matter to the courts,” said Ayrault, adding that France is a “secular state.”
07:31 GMT: Protests against the film Innocence of Muslims will be forbidden in the center of Paris. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault announced on Wednesday that “We received an official request to hold a demonstration and it was denied. There is no reason to allow conflicts to occur in our country that have no relationship to France.” The announcement coincides with the publication of the latest edition of the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”, which has promised to run caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in its Wednesday release. Any representation of Mohammed is forbidden under Islamic law and considered offensive. Security has been increased at the magazine’s offices.
etc
http://rt.com/news/anti-american-protests-live-updates-053/
meanwhile:
In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
So France allows freedom of speech except in regard to israel. And prevents protests against the very racists images that incite against a people.
Meanwhile, German law has this:
§ 130 Public incitement
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in (although is not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as the Swastika and the SS runes.
Posted by: brian | Sep 20 2012 7:09 utc | 156
During the last 24 hours more than 80 of #FSA terrorists were killed in the military operations in Bab Hood #Homs #Syria
L
9 terrorists who were trying to enter #Homs from #Lebanon were killed, among them Farooq Battalion leader in #Qusair Wardan Zahran. #Syria
L
2day Syrians in Nibol & Elzhra #Aleppo didn't get bread, the flour they got through the Red Crescent has finished & FSA still besieging them
L
4 cars mounted with Dshk machine guns & one bus carrying terrorists were destroyed in ElRastan #Homs #Syria
L
5 of #FSA terrorists were killed when the bomb they were making exploded in Juber #Homs #Syria
[the expendables]
L
While planting a 100kg bomb on Bab ElHawa road in Maaret Musren #Idleb, it exploded killing 3 terrorists & severing the leg & hand of a 4th.
L
Seven of #FSA hostages were freed by the Syrian authorities in the area between Sbineh & ElAssaly #RifDimashq #Syria
P
Another video has emerged of the #FSA #Syria burning the american flag. Best tax dollars you ever spent ? http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-video-shows-obama-backed-syrian-rebels-burning-u-s-flag.html …
Posted by: brian | Sep 20 2012 8:12 utc | 157
The comments to this entry are closed.
thanks KenM, that sums it up, b. you should post his post on front, that is a description of the essence of retro colonialism.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 7:13 utc | 101