Great Theater and not bad politics.
Barack Disappoints Alhamdulillah! President Barack Obama is finally withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.Except he's not – only those extras that he deployed in the "surge" of 2009; 68,000 will remain, double the number sent by his predecessor, George Bush.Obama keeps doing this. Sounding marvelous, then, in retrospect, disappointing. After eight long and bloody years of Bush, everyone outside America, especially Muslims, welcomed this voice of reason, sobriety and perhaps even empathy. Scribbled on a bullet-punctured wall in Gaza was "Obama Inshallah!". Even in Pakistan, the only ally of the US, which the US regularly bombs, people came out on the streets – any excuse, admittedly – to celebrate his election victory.Search the news archive for more storiesThere was not a burning effigy in sight because here was an American president who had a Muslim middle name, a Muslim father and a daughter called Malia, named after, no, not a Hawaiian family friend but, as everyone now knows, the daughter of the Caliph Othman. Obviously. Even if he wasn't actually a secret Muslim, despite all the wishful whispering over chai that rivaled any Tea Party tittle tattle, at least he understood Muslim culture, having grown up (OK, spent some of his childhood) in Indonesia regularly attending Friday prayers at the mosque (or maybe just once) with his devout (non-observant) Muslim stepfather.During his election campaign, he promised to "end the war in Iraq" and "finish the job against al-Qa'ida". No one thought "how's he going to do that?" because all everyone had been waiting to hear were the words "end" and "finish". For a short spell, al-Qa'ida's recruiting agents must have been scratching their beards. But before they had time to say "war on Islam", the anti-war, Islamophile President Obama had tripled the size of the American force in Afghanistan, approved military action in four other Muslim countries – Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and more recently Libya – and drastically increased the use of predator drones. Independent
Time to greet the birds with coffee.
The "Surge" in Afghanistan netted Osama, the object of a ten year, trillion dollar hunt.A good thing, that the hunt is over.Since the troops in Afghanistan are there, to impact Pakistan, and the Pakis still represent a viable threat, little wonder that Mr Obama is stuck living a fiction. The Pakistani have never been our allies, much like the Israeli, in that regard, only more so.
Jesus, Rat, you're calling forth the debil. Let us have one Saturday devoid of that nonsense.
I wonder if the same guy did the costumes, and choreography for both skits?
The Zulu were an interesting story.
Zulu is a 1964 historical war film depicting the Battle of Rorke's Drift between the British Army and the Zulus in January 1879, during the Anglo-Zulu War( Christ, who didn't the British have a war with? There must be someon they forgot about)…In 1879, a communiqué to the government in London, narrated by Richard Burton, details the crushing defeat of a British force at the hands of the Zulus at the Battle of Isandlwana. At a mass Zulu marriage ceremony witnessed by missionary Otto Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his daughter (Ulla Jacobsson), Zulu King Cetewayo (Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi) is also informed of the great victory earlier in the day.A company of the British Army's 24th Regiment of Foot, depicted as a Welsh regiment, is using the missionary station of Rorke's Drift in Natal as a supply depot and hospital for their invasion force across the border in Zululand. Upon receiving news of Isandhlwana from the Witts and that a large enemy force is advancing their way, Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker) of the Royal Engineers assumes command of the small British detachment, being senior to Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead (Michael Caine), who, as an infantry officer, is rather put out to find himself subordinate to an engineer. Realising that they cannot outrun the Zulu army, especially with wounded soldiers, Chard decides to fortify the station and make a stand, using wagons, sacks of mealie, and crates of ship's biscuit. When Witt becomes drunk and starts demoralising the men with his dire predictions, causing the soldiers of the Natal Native Contingent to desert, Chard orders him and his daughter to leave...
…As the Zulu impis approach, a contingent of Boer horsemen arrives. They advise Chard that defending the station is hopeless before they flee, despite Chard's desperate pleas for them to stay. Zulu riflemen open fire on the station from a neighbouring hill. Over the next few hours, wave after wave of Zulu attackers are repelled. The Zulus do succeed in setting fire to the hospital, leading to intense fighting between British patients and Zulu warriors as the former try to escape the flames. Malingering Private Henry Hook (James Booth) surprises everyone by taking charge in the successful breakout. Attacks continue into the night.The next morning, at dawn, the Zulus approach to within several hundred yards and begin singing a war chant; the British respond by singing "Men of Harlech". In the last assault, just as it seems the Zulus will finally overwhelm the tired defenders, the British soldiers fall back to a tiny redoubt that Chard had earlier ordered constructed out of mealie bags. With a reserve of soldiers hidden within the redoubt, they form into three ranks, and pour volley after volley into the stunned natives, who withdraw after sustaining heavy casualties. Later, the Zulus sing a song to honour the bravery of the defenders and leave.The film ends with a narration by Richard Burton, listing the defenders who received the Victoria Cross, including Private Hook. Eleven were awarded for the actual fighting at Rorke's Drift, the most ever for a regiment in a single battle in British military history....
I read a book about the Zulu. It's been years, so most (all) of the details escape me, but they were quite a "force." a massive organization, at their peak. Kind of a cross between the Mongols, and the Nazis. High degree of organization, and blood-thirsty as hell.
Despite public opinion the Zulu was not displaced by the Europeans. They both arrived there about the same time.The Zulu are descendents from the Congo area, and in the 16th century migrated south. The Dutch East India Company sent Jan van Riebeeck to establish a vegetable garden in Africa for ships stopping off en route to Indonesia, in 1652.I have never been there but have known many South Africans, all of them white. They loved the country and felt that they were screwed by the US and Europe for politivally correct reasons. When the whites were forced to surrender, the real crimes and murder began. The media silence aboout that has been almost total. It is ignored as it is in Chicago where In Chicago, blacks, 35 percent of the population, commit 76 percent of all homicides; whites, about 28 percent of the population, commit 4 percent, and Hispanics, 30 percent of the population, commit 19 percent.Diversity is our strength.
No father head, drugs, paternalism and free stuff from the government takes its toll, but pleasse don't mention it.
Someday those mile-high glaciers will come back, and we will all head south. It'll be quite a war.
It is unimaginable the depths humans beings are capable of decending: The Rape of Jewish Woman during WWII
You can't forgive that, but the question is: "Who do you hate?" Probably most everybody except your own tribe.
The history of man is nothing but war, rape, and pillage. We're a bloodthirsty species. A particularly nasty piece of work.
I don't think we so much hate other tribes, as we just don't see much value in them.
In an ironic way, that could only happen when you put all your faith in government to take care and protect you. People forget that the first job of a man is to protect his own family, his woman , childrenand kin. All real great crimes are conducted by a government. Thank the wisdom of our founders for the Second Amendment.
When you're in "Indian Country" there ain't no "good Indians."
The family is too samll to be a defensible unit. The Tribe is large enough to provide protection, and still not be unwieldy. Plus, most members of a tribe are "kin" to an extent that can be determined. Not some nebulous "we are all children of God," type thing.Anything beyond tribe is "them."
"Tribe" is why our Professional Warfighters are continually taken aback in the middle east. Ghaddafi, looked to them, like an Individual Tyrant w/o apparent deep-rooted support. They didn't consider the Khaddafi Clan being the largest, most powerful tribe in Libya.
desert rat said...The "Surge" in Afghanistan netted Osama, the object of a ten year, trillion dollar hunt.A good thing, that the hunt is over.Since the troops in Afghanistan are there, to impact Pakistan, and the Pakis still represent a viable threat, little wonder that Mr Obama is stuck living a fiction. The Pakistani have never been our allies, much like the Israeli, in that regard, only more so.as predictable as the sun rising the resident israel hating, self confessed ranger who murdered civilians must drag Israel into the fray....congrats Elephant Bar, your thread has been pissed on by your own Bartender, the Rat.As everyone knows, the Rat is Israel, Jew and Zionist obsessed.He needs professional help. But no, the Bar elevates this so called "vet"..How disgusting...Israel is an ally of the USA.Like it or NOT, America gets it, Congress GETS it and yes even that poor excuse of a President GETS it.To compare Pakistan and Israel as "allies" is typical of the RatBut Rat could not see truth if if was plastered in his own wikipedia section....
The Cherokee didn't draw much distinction between the Man, and the Tribe. If a Man from another Tribe wronged your Tribe it was not necessary to hunt down the Man that did the foul deed. Any member of the other Tribe was fair game.If a Man from your Tribe harmed your family, it was not necessary to retaliate against the Man. Any member of his family was a legal target.
Any time, rufus.The truth does get him going, doesn't it.As predictable as sunrise.Both Pakistan and Israel allow terrorist organizations to operate out of their countries.Both of the governments fund those terrorists.Both publicly bemoan the fact that the terrorists are there, but do not remove them, militarily.Those terrorist organizations being instruments of a grand strategic policy for each of the governments.
Both take US money, while telling US where to "get off".
Many of the white European settlers never quite got that subtlety.________________No serious person would equate Israel with Pakistan.
Good Shooting BoysTripoli, Libya (CNN) -- NATO airstrikes in the Libyan city of al-Brega Saturday killed 15 civilians and wounded several others, a Libyan government official told CNN.The official said NATO planes struck a bakery and a restaurant. NATO said it had struck key command-and-control centers and there was "no indication of civilian causalities in connection with these strikes."
While in South Africa, not all the indigs were Zulu.Today they are still a minority group, in South Africa.
Both are "democracies"Both are recipients of US military aid.Both are described as allies of the US. Both fund Islamic organizations.They are quite comparable.
Ahh, Shit. Here we go. :)It was a nice, quiet Saturday morning for a while, there.
There is no doubt that Israel controls Gaza, to the same degree that Pakistan controls the Tribal Areas, maybe more so.There is no doubt that Israeli funds elements of Hamas, through the auspices of the Palestinian Authority.While the Israeli helped to establish Hamas in Gaza, just as the ISI helped to establish the Taliban.The Israeli and Pakistani worked together, covertly, under the auspices of the US back in the Reagan era.One can assume that the relationship continued, after we left the region. Exemplified by the fact that the Saudis remained involved with both Israel and Pakistan.
Birds of a feather, flocking together.
The Israeli using Hamas to undermine Arabfat, back in the day.While the Pakistani used the Taliban to create "Strategic Depth" in Afghanistan.
.No serious person would equate Israel with Pakistan.Who ever accused the rat of being serious. He brings every discussion back to Israel. It has gone beyond irritating to tedious.His meaningless comparisons are just plain stupid.Both are "democracies"Both are recipients of US military aid.Both are described as allies of the US. Both fund Islamic organizations.They are quite comparable.You might as well say both countries are primarily non-vegans or they don't eat much pork there.Fucking nitwit..
The Pakistani use the Taliban to continue receiving US funding, while the Israeli use Hamas as an excuse to keep the "Peace Process" on ice.
The comparisons are valid.There is no one disputing them, not even the Q.He just tells us that Israel funding Hamas is irrelevant.I disagree.It is part of Israel's strategic planning, to continue the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. Just as the Taliban are part of Pakistan's "Strategic Depth", against India.
.The Pakistani use the Taliban to continue receiving US funding, while the Israeli use Hamas as an excuse to keep the "Peace Process" on ice.Even if it where true, the two are different and hardly a basis for comparison between Israel and Pakistan..
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pakistan and Israel are both nuclear powers, operating outside the auspices of the NPT.
.The comparisons are valid.The comparisons are meaningless. Just bullshit you dredge up and recycle. You have been doing it almost everyday I've been coming to the blog and that has been almost two years.Do you have an anti-Israel app you picked up somewhere or is the "I" about worn off your keyboard because that is the first place you go to google each day?.
Both sell military technology to the highest bidder.The Israeli selling UAV technology to the Russians, the Pakis selling nuclear technology to the NorKs.The UAV technologies making their way to Iran, just as the nuclear technologies did.Quite comparable.
.Pakistan and Israel are both nuclear powers, operating outside the auspices of the NPT.Once again a stupid comparison.Under the NPT there are only five nations in the "nuclear club". Were Pakistan or Israel to sign on to the NPT they would be obligated to give up their nuclear weapons, pretty much a suicide pact given the former's relationship with India and Israel's with the other ME states..
.Both sell military technology to the highest bidder.They sell military technology but why don't you include the US in that group? We sell more than the rest of the world combined.Or how about Russia or China?No, that wouldn't fit your anti-Israeli scree.You are so blatantly obvious it is pathetic..
None of the countries in the ME have nuclear capability, other than Israel.You can excuse the reasons and motives for the similarities, but the comparisons are valid. They just do not fit the popular view of Israel, as propagated by Israeli propaganda.But each comparison is valid.
I would certainly compare Israel with Russia, have many times.The largest Europeon minority in Israel, Russians.I'd not deny the US is the largest arms proliferater in the world. I bemoan that reality.I advocate that the US should pull back from Empire. Part of that is, obviously, arms sales to Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
.I laugh when I see others here who disagree with Israel on specific issues defend you as being 'reasonable'.Your not.You throw general info out there and then draw wild conclusions from it. The logical fallacies you employ, pure propaganda tactics. The fact that people let you get away with it without question, unbelievable..
The amount of aid that the US supplies to both Israel and Pakistan, to buy US weapons, in and of itself makes the comparison valid.
.You can excuse the reasons and motives for the similarities, but the comparisons are valid.So is the fact that a good portion of both countries don't eat pork. That's a valid comarison but what importance does it carry?The same with your initial comparisons. So the question becomes why did you even bring them up?Well, that was a rhetorical question. I think we all know why..
The conclusions are not "wild", in fact they are quite tame and reasonable.They just do not jive with your predispositions.It was the same back at the BC, back in the day. Drawing the obvious conclusions from publicly known data sets did not fit the commonly held view, there, either.Even Buddy Larson came to see the truth, after the realities of the whirled could no longer be denied.
.The amount of aid that the US supplies to both Israel and Pakistan, to buy US weapons, in and of itself makes the comparison valid.No it doesn't.The thread was about Obama and the steps he took to get OBL and to the military pressure he was applying in various countries. You quickly diverted the conversation to Israel as you usually do..
.The largest Europeon minority in Israel, Russians.Who really gives a flying fuck except you?.
The Pakistani have never been our allies, much like the Israeli, in that regard, only more so.Where have the Israeli backed the US play, but in selling weapons Pakistan, during the Reagan years?Where have the Pakistani backed the US, but in Afghanistan during the Reagan years?Both are false allies of the US.That the fact.How many Israeli troops deployed outside of Israel to assist US?Same question regarding the Pakistani?Were they there in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq?How about Libya?
.Even Buddy Larson came to see the truth, after the realities of the whirled could no longer be denied.Aw please.Fuck you and your Buddy Larsen stories. How many times do we have to hear that one?Any idiot that read the news would have know that going into Iraq was a mistake not supported by any evidence. It was a ginned up story to support an already made decison by the neocons..
In both cases the "alliance" is US giving, the allies taking.To a degree that makes the Europeons look like equal partners, with US.Which if one listens to Mr Gates, is laughable, too.
.How many Israeli troops deployed outside of Israel to assist US?Again a naive statement. The decision not to have the Israeli's involved was a strategic one with regard to Muslim countries. The Israeli's weren't there because the US didn't want them there given the politics of the ME..
You should have participated, back in the, at the BC then, Q.We'd have been in agreement and the minority.
.Were they there in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq?How about Libya?I've already talked about the ME. And it seems to me the Israelis were a little busy with problems of their own during the earlier years.By the way how many US battalions did the US deploy to help Israel?.
Where have the Israeli or Pakistani been on the side of the US, with blood or treasure, rather than rhetoric?Even in Afghanistan, during Charlie Wilson's time, the Pakistani were merely a conduit. Contributing nothing to the effort, themselves.
In 2003, a battalion strength US detachment was in IsraelUS soldiers pack up Patriot batteries in IsraelJerusalem Post US military troops were packing up Patriot anti-missile batteries in Israel on Monday, a day after Israeli officials said there was no longer a threat of an Iraqi missile attack.Before the war in Iraq, the US military stationed Patriot batteries near Israeli population centers, to boost Israel's air defenses in the event of an Iraqi missile attack. Israel's defense ministry lowered the state of alert in the country on Sunday, noting that the US military was in control of areas of Iraq closest to Israel.On Monday, US troops stationed in Jaffa, next to Tel Aviv, were seen lowering the portable missile batteries into position for transport on trucks. Soldiers wiped caked-on dirt and sand off windows of vehicles that had been standing for more than a month along the Mediterranean shore....US military sources have said there are about 600 US troops in Israel, most from units based in Germany.
How many Israeli were with US, in Iraq?
Not a one.
Because with Israel it is a one sided alliance, much like our alliance with Pakistan.
I have a buddy (ex Ranger) that had to "walk out" of the Sinai when he woke up one morning behind Egyptian lines.We had troops there.
Israel is much more a protectorate of the US than an ally.Pakistan is neither.
The Germans, at least they went to Afghanistan, with US.To little effect, to be sure, but they made a showing.Same with the French.Where are the Israeli?The Pakistani are with the "other side", in Afghanistan.
Both Israel and Pakistan are religious States, which is the antithesis of US values.
.How many Israeli were with US, in Iraq?The Germans, at least they went to Afghanistan, with US.Where are the Israeli?Are you that damn naive. To many muslims, the US is the "Great Satan". Part of that is because of support for Israel.How stupid would the US be marching into a muslim country to take it over with the Israeli army at its side?Geez..
.Both Israel and Pakistan are religious States, which is the antithesis of US values.Pleas, grow up rat. Haven't you heard, the US is a Christian nation.Besides 'US values' have resulted in turning formally secular states into religious states, Iraq, Egypt, soon to be Libya.Your talk of "values' is starting to sound like that of that nitwit McCain..
.Nick Sarkozy says France and Britian are bearing the major burden in Libya and that the US should be doing more.He also indicated that Gates' criticism of the allies not doing their fair share in NATO is mistaken. He says that Gates recent speech betrays a "bit of bitterness". He offers no reason for the bitterness.Perhaps Gates is bitter over the fact that the allies aren't doing their share in NATO..
No, the US is not a Christian Nation, excepting for Mr Bush and his 1,000 points of light, which I found repulsive in funding religious charities with Federal monies."Christianity", not being an organized religion, anyway.There are Muslim Chaplains in the US Army, there are none in the IDF, nor Priests in the Pakistani Army.Not a one.
Why was any spit trying to "talk" to an anti-semite like rat?He distorts, he lies and he misdirects.The simple truth?The overwhelming majority of Americans "get it'Rat shows the current "delegitimation" strategy trend that the Jew hating, israel hating and zionist hating person attempt in every forum.The good news? The world is waking up.Rat, acorn, answer coalition and others are losing support on a daily basis. Rat is on a sinking ship, he (and others) side with support for islamic "democracy" at all costs.He tries to stir up the scapegoat of israel (and jews) for all ills in the world..It's an old screech...He's just a tired, old mean spirited bully that hates Israel and Jews...No reason to "argue" or have rational discussions with him.No reason or logic could apply.He is infected with the age old "jew hatred" that has been around for thousands of years.His end will not be pretty, but it will be predictable...Watch, his screeds will continue..He has 100 "anti-israel/antijew/anti-zionism" factoids that he will roll out at any opportunity and if you notice he poisons almost every thread with his crap...predictable as the sun rising...
No hate, just reality poking it's nose through the fog of Story's propaganda.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-the-murder-of-iraqi-jews-in-1941-tells-us-about-the-middle-east-today/2/a great read into understanding our own Rat's mentality.His roots are from Ishmael and that explains it allWhat the Murder of Iraqi Jews in 1941 Tells us About the Middle East TodayThe pogrom known as the Farhud contained many elements that we can recognize in the Arab world in the 21st century.Seventy years ago during the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, June 1st and 2nd, 1941, Iraqis rampaged through the Jewish sections of Baghdad, killing between 100 and 600 individuals, injuring countless more, and looting whatever they could. This was the turning point in the history of Iraqi Jews, who had resided in Mesopotamia for over 2,500 years. In the decade that followed, the community was systematically disenfranchised, robbed, and largely expelled. What lessons does this hold for understanding the Middle East of today?The pogrom known as the Farhud (“violent dispossession”) was conducted by Iraqis. On the first day the perpetrators were soldiers, policemen, and Baghdadis, and on the second, Bedouin from outside the city eager to claim their toll of Jews and share of loot. But the Farhud also came at the point at which the Nazi-inspired and supported coup against the pro-British Iraqi monarchy was destroyed. Like the Holocaust, it is an opportunity to examine the nature of hatred in past and present.The question of the Nazi relationship with the Muslim and Arab worlds is far from new. Indeed, even before World War II, British and Zionist officials took note of the relationship between the “grand mufti of Jerusalem,” Haj Amin al-Husseini, and the Nazis. Long a thorn in the side of both, the mufti had been foolishly appointed by the British as the chief Muslim religious official in Jerusalem. In return, he schemed against them, the Jews, and Arab rivals from Palestine to Iraq, fomenting hatred and terrorism. Central to his ideology, and personality, was rabid hatred of Jews. Within days of Hitler’s ascent to power the mufti reached out to Nazi officials. His later record of Nazi collaboration is exceptional: conspiring against the British in Iraq after his flight from Palestine; broadcasting to the Arab world from Berlin; and raising Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans. Only by escaping to Egypt after the war with French help did he avoid a war crimes trial.But how much were he and his minions actually inspired by Nazism? And, to the extent that he was the central Muslim figure railing against Jews and Zionism before and after World War II, how much was Palestinian and Arab opposition ‘”Nazi-inspired” or even a local manifestation of Nazism? Did this contribute to today’s “Islamo-fascism”?Direct Nazi support for the mufti and for local fascists in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran was late, but when war came it was deep and pervasive. Money and arms flowed, and German forces entered Iraq from Vichy Syria in May 1941 to support the Sunni military officers who had launched the coup, with the encouragement of the German ambassador, Fritz Grobba. Incitement against the Jews of Iraq had been heightened by years of classroom propaganda by Palestinian Arab and Syrian teachers facilitated by the Minister of Education and Nazi enthusiast Sami Shawkat, propaganda broadcasts from Germany, and by semi-military fascist societies.In return, there was extensive Muslim support for the Nazis, as subversives in the Middle East, SS troops in the Balkans, and through the mufti’s direct support for the Holocaust. It was he who went relentlessly from office to office urging Nazi officials not to barter Jews, including children, in exchange for goods but to send them to their deaths in Poland.
But do historical data show a widespread grassroots Arab desire to exterminate Middle Eastern Jews? This is impossible to quantify. On the one hand, as Robert Satloff documents in his book Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands, there were many cases of North African Muslims sheltering Jewish neighbors from the Nazis. But on the other, far more soaked up Nazi propaganda broadcasts, Islamified by the mufti and others.Many real and potential collaborators were spread throughout Arab countries. Most ominously, the Nazi Einsatzgruppe that would have followed Rommel into Egypt in 1942 planned to have local Arabs do most of the dirty work. Local collaborators in Europe had demonstrated an enthusiasm for slaughtering Jews that sometimes even shocked the Nazis, and there is every reason to think that this would have been the case in the Middle East. Indeed, the sheer bestiality of the Farhud (like the Hebron massacre of 1929), replete with senseless mutilation, shows that deep-seated hatreds were being played out, not simply to kill but to degrade Jews in the act of killing and in death itself. This can only be attributed to religion.Numerous Nazis found shelter in the Middle East, especially Egypt and Syria, after the war, as well as employment in their security services and propaganda ministries. Some even converted to Islam, finding in it the fullest expression of their fascism. In this sense Nazism played a direct role in shaping the modern Middle East.Three elements drew Arab and Muslim leaders to the Nazis. First was Muslim theological antisemitism, which meshed well with Nazi racist antisemitism. Muslims needed no lessons regarding Jew hatred. The Koran and other Islamic sources are filled with verses reviling Jews as filthy schemers and betrayers of the prophet and calling for their mistreatment and murder. The lengthy history of pogroms against Jews in the Arab and Muslim worlds shows these theological exhortations were taken seriously. New, however, was the language of Jews as vermin and the fantasy of a single global Jewish conspiracy. Treatment of Jews in Germany also emboldened Muslim anti-Semites who were encouraged to prepare their own attacks.
In the second place was local hatred of British and French imperialism, which for most Muslims had theological dimensions, since it entailed being ruled by infidels. Finally, there were local concepts of nationalism, which outside of Egypt were still mostly held by ambitious intellectuals, civic notables, and military officers. The ultimate prize of self-determination was power over others. All three elements remain in play today, sometimes masquerading as one another.The Farhud shows that, despite Western desires, in the Middle East religion and politics have always inextricably linked. As the veneer of a secular, democratic “Arab Spring” peels it is revealing widespread support for theocracy in both Egypt and Tunisia. With elections in the fall, the Muslim Brotherhood will likely have a parliamentary majority and the opportunity to implement its project of Islamifying Egypt and repudiating the treaty with Israel. Theological antisemitism, fundamental and undisguised in the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, as well as in Iran and its offshoot Hezbollah, will become a basic part of the Egyptian political program. The events of the Farhud show that antisemitism must be taken seriously. Rising persecution of Christians from Egypt to Pakistan shows that no one is immune to theological hatred.But another veneer is peeling, that of the nation-state itself. The American encounter with Iraq precipitated internecine warfare that showed how ethnic and religious ties are far stronger than loyalties to invented nation-states. Berbers and others are in rebellion against Gaddafi’s “Libya,” while Sunnis, Kurds, and others battle the minority Alawite Assad regime in Syria. Saudi forces occupy Bahrain to suppress the Iranian backed Shiite uprising. Bedouin tribes in Jordan rail against the Hashemite king over the issue of the Palestinians. Many Middle Eastern states survive today only because the spoils reaped by minorities controlling the whole is greater than that of the parts. Ideologies of hatred and conspiracy are key tools of control. This is not nationalism but another form of warfare.Finally, there is the matter of “Islamo-fascism.” There are indisputable points of contact between Islam and Nazism, but whether or not these constituted a discernable synthesis, perhaps in the person of the mufti, is a question for historians. But dismissing such observations as “Islamophobic” is both an act of historical denial and a way to label critics of modern Islamist movements as haters. This defers a true reckoning, especially in the Middle East itself. The act of remembering demands better.read this article from pajamas media...it explains the rat, his hatreds
desert rat said...No hate, just reality poking it's nose through the fog of Story's propaganda.Passive–aggressive behaviorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicted by four (or more) of the following:passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational taskscomplains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by othersis sullen and argumentativeunreasonably criticizes and scorns authorityexpresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunatevoices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortunealternates between hostile defiance and contrition
."Christianity", not being an organized religion, anyway.A little sarcasm rat. And about as meaningful as your comment about Isreal and Pakistan.Israel is one of the only secular states in the ME these days what with Turkey shifting and our turning Iraq into a religious state. Even Egypt could soon turn into a 'religious' state unless the secularist street is able to put off elections."Christianity", not being an organized religion, anyway.By your definition, Islam isn't an organized religion either. There are a dozen major versions and sects all at each others throats.So much for comparisons..
The Constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan claim those countries are Islamic Republics.As for Israel, that it is a Jewish State was established upon its foundingCCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAELMay 14, 1948Please reference the passage in the US Constitution that proclaims the US is a Christian Nation.
Pakistan, too, is an Islamic Republic.Set up as such by the British, as they were dismantling their Empire.
The British not big upon separating Church and State.One of the reasons we were revolted, by the English Crown.
Please reference the passage in the US Constitution that proclaims the US is a Christian Nation.
The US Constitution is not that wordy. The Christian Nation reference should be easy to find and post.If it is there. :)
.Can't you read either, rat.I said the commnent on the US being a Christian nation was sarcasm.Pakistan, Iraq. Hey, you forgot Iran. All Islamic Republics, all built on Sharia Law.You look at words and accept them as truth. You need to expand your your vision a little rat. I don't believe there are any laws in Israel that allow a woman to be beheaded for adultery. I'm not real familiar with the Israeli judicial system, but I also doubt there are any that make it illegal for her to change her religion...
.I said the commnent on the US being a Christian nation was sarcasm.Try going back about six posts and actually reading my comment..
I understand sarcasm, Q.I use it extensively.As for Israel being a secular State, that idea is false, as their Declaration exemplifies. Israel is a sectarian State.What the laws of these various sectarian States are, not my affair. I do not reside in any of them. I oppose the US providing weapons and/or financial aid to any and all of them that proclaim a State religion, or the religion of the State.Equality, that's the ticket.
.When you are losing and argument you will grab at any single comment that you can exploit and hope by emphasizing it you can blow away all the rest.It's the rat way.Unfortunately, I explained the comment before you could start on your Please reference the passage in the US Constitution that proclaims the US is a Christian NationandIf it is there. :).
My apologies, Q, if I missed one of your posts.The truth will out.
Losing what argument, Q?That there are comparisons between Israel and Pakistan that are both serious and relevant?I'm winning that one.
.Israel is a sectarian State.Irrelevant to the whole point that started this argument.That point was my comment that you bring Israel into every subject on every stream here whether it has the least relevance or not.In this case, because Obama and Pakistan were mentioned you brought comparisons between Israel and Pakistan that were in all cases irrelevant to the subject at hand.It was obvious you wanted to start another tedious assault on Israel. It's your modus operendi. When it's questioned or doesn't quite work out, you switch to some other subject, today ending up with a discussion on whether Israel and Pakistan are secular states.What the fuck does that have to do with Obama and Pakistan?Zip.It was merely another opportunity for you to try to stick it to Israel.You are so blatently obvious it's a joke..
Israel is at the center of the Middle East. At the core of the Islamic Arc.It is the largest cumulative receiver of US foreign military aid, over the past forty years.That puts Israel at the center of any discussion of US foreign policy.That is not my doing.It is worthy of continued, on going discussion.
It was Deuce who said that the two, Israel and Pakistan, could not be compared, seriously.I disagree and stated the case why I do.
.That puts Israel at the center of any discussion of US foreign policy.Or abortion, or any other subject you can think of. .
.It was Deuce who said that the two, Israel and Pakistan, could not be compared, seriously.Or you can blame Deuce even though he was responding to your comment bringing up Israel in the first place the same as I did.Rationalization anyone?.