Kenya – an analysis that is half right
The latest atrocity committed by Muslims occurred in Africa. It is not just the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, but also the Boko Haram attack on 40 sleeping students to take into consideration. There are many other savage attacks where suicide bombing has been used to take lives.
Brendan O’Neill, writing for the Telegraph gets it, but he only gets half of it right. I am not referring to the fact that he left out Saudi Arabia from the equation because I actually think that the funding is coming from other sources, such as Iran. What Brendan leaves out is any kind of analysis of Muslim on Muslim violence and why it happens in the first place. It is Sunni vs. Shia.
Iraq is a very good place to start when it comes to trying to understand this particular issue because Iraq has been riven by Sunni vs. Shia violence, with a twist because they also attack the few Christians that remain in the country. Iraq has not settled since Saddam Hussein was removed from power. He was in fact a violent man who was more of a Marxist than anything else. As far as “religion” is concerned Saddam Hussein was a Sunni minority who was suppressing the rights of the Shia majority in Iraq. Violence begets violence.
The allied forces went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on the Kurds. The UN had demanded that he get rid of his stockpile. He was supposed to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. He did, but then again he did not cooperate. There was some evidence that he had not gotten rid of the weapons. After the attack on the World Trade Centre George Bush, the POTUS at the time demanded that Saddam Hussein comply with the request and when he did not comply or rather he implied that he still had the weapons, action was taken. Thousands of Iraqis actually welcomed the forces that arrived. They offered no resistance at all. Baghdad was taken within a few weeks, and we watched the whole thing play out on T.V. Who can forget Baghdad Bob? He was a real hero :). Once Saddam was gone, and eventually captured, the allied forces had to secure the country so that Iraqi citizens could take over their own governance once again. The war itself had ended at this point, but what did not end was the suicide bombings, and then Al Qaeda came and got involved in the country. The story of Iraq is actually a lot more complex than some media would have us believe.
So, why did Iraq remain a basket case? The real issue in that country, the real reason for the suicide bombings is Sunni vs. Shia. In Islam, there are hundreds of cults and sects. The largest two are Sunni and Shia and in fact those two represent the first split that happened within a generation for Islam. The Sunni ended up in Saudi Arabia and the Shia ended up elsewhere including in Iran. It would be tempting to proclaim that this was a fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia but again that is too simplistic. The Sunni in Iraq have been blowing up Shia mosques, the Shia have been blowing up Sunni mosques. Each group thinks it is ok to use suicide bombers against the other side because each group believes that the other is apostate and therefore it is ok to kill them. In a nutshell, this is the essence of the way that they are thinking and explains why they have no compunction when it comes to killing other Muslims.
At this point I need to mention some of the minor sects within Islam, the chief one of these minor sects that I want to mention is the Ahmahdi (there are others that are in fact more dominant such as the Ishamelists and the Sufi, but they generally do not abide this kind of activity). The Ahmahdi remain a target of both Sunni and Shia because they are seen as apostate by both sides. As a result they remain a target wherever they live, in Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere. Sunni and Shia Muslims have no qualms about attacking and killing Ahmahdi Muslims.
However, this is only the beginning of the story where Islam is concerned. We should not be the slightest bit surprised by the brutality that has been on display. These savages have always been extremely brutal, especially when it comes to Jews and Christians, and what they term as Crusaders. We are the ones who have a problem getting inside the heads of these savages, trying to understand why they are extremely brutal. The truth is, one only has to look to the Koran, and the Sunna or Hadith to find out the truth. The most brutal savagery that we see on display today was present when Mohammed the cattle thief and murderer was busy plundering region after region in the 7th century. On that score nothing has changed at all.
The surge in interest in Islam, and the increase in numbers worldwide has in fact led to an increase in attacks as well as an increase in outright savage brutality. In Syria for example, the extremists have been gaining a foothold, and it has meant that Christians are being massacred. We do not know the exact numbers of the Christians being massacred, but there are stories that are filtering into the wide world – the problem is, the mainstream media will not mention these massacres, whether it is in Syria, Tunis, Pakistan, Libya or some other African nation. I think this is why the press has been reluctant to mention the extreme brutality on display in the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.
Minority groups of Muslims such as Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have been adopting what we consider to be an extreme form of Islam. What Westerners do not understand is that this extreme form of Islam is purely based upon the strictures in the Koran and the Hadith. They do in fact believe that they have the right to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It is all part of what has been preached to them by extremist preachers.
Boko Haram were the perpetrators of the murder of the 40 students who were killed as they lay sleeping in their dormitory. We can cluck and shake our heads but do we understand the justification for these murders. Boko Haram are extremists. They believe that any form of western education is wrong. Such beliefs only leads to the dumbing down of the population, but it goes beyond dumbing down to what I believe is the real issue – if the population embraces western education then they will begin to question this primitive theocracy and they will seek to leave Islam. In their minds this is not allowed to happen, thus they attack those who are trying to become educated.
It is not just Boko Haram, because in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban also uses extremist measures against the population. How soon do we forget the atrocities that had been committed against Afghani women who had been doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professionals? When the Taliban wrested control in Afghanistan the women were treated in an horrendous fashion, enduring beatings, imprisonment and rape because a little bit of flesh was showing around the ankles. Actually they did the same thing in Iran!! Under the Taliban girls were not allowed to go to school. Over the past few years we have heard of girls being gassed in their classrooms, of acid being thrown in the faces of girls at school, and of male teachers being murdered because they dared to teach these girls the basics. Islam, in this extreme form is all about the enslaving of women. It is all about keeping the women and the population as a whole ignorant so that they will not have the desire to explore and to use their intellect.
There is no better case than that of the young girl who was shot as she was riding on a bus from school in Pakistan. This brave young girl, who survived the brutal attack upon herself, had spoken out against those who would deny her an opportunity to get an education. How pathetic that the Pakistan Taliban was willing to kill a 14 year old girl simply because she wants an education.
There is a lot more that can be written about the Muslim way of thinking and why it is that they are in a perpetual state of war against the rest of civilization. It will take time to assemble more information.
Syria – a situation going bad
One must never forget that those who fight for Al Qaeda are in fact the enemy. They will take with one hand, but as soon as there is an opportunity they will kill anyone who refuses to convert to their medieval theocracy. One must never forget that the criminal Muhammed had a life history of killing, theft and an assortment of other crimes. We must never forget that Muhammed and his followers demanded that people either convert or be killed. Times have not changed.
Dictators are a bad thing and they are rarely benign. I can probably name 2 that I believe to have been benign but then again I do not know enough about the history of either Spain or Jugoslavia under their dictators to be assured that I am correct in that statement. The younger Assad in Syria has proved that he is not a benign dictator. He has shown the same ruthlessness as his father. He remains a puppet of Iran and he in turn is the one who sponsors the Hezbollah terror in Lebanon, as well as the Hamas terror in the West Bank. By the same token the criminal Gadhafi was also not benign, and we are yet to learn the full extent of what he did to his own people as well as his activities after he was supposed to be friendly to the West. Gadhafi money has helped to keep a number of African dictatorships going including in Chad and Mali, yet at the same time he was paying the Touareg so that they would remain loyal to him.
The Arab Spring remains a talking point, even though I think that it would be more apt to call it the Arab winter. I think at this point is is important to point out that what we are witnessing is in fact Shia vs Sunni. The fighting that we are witnessing is actually between Shia and Sunni. Muslim Brotherhood is made up of individuals who are Shia, but Al Qaeda is made up of people who follow the Sunni path. This difference is a part of the reason that I had always stated that Libya was a different case – because the majority are Sufi – yet there is a Sunni component to the troubles that remain in Libya, and there is plenty of trouble because Al Qaeda have been getting a foothold especially in Benghazi where it seems the Sunni are strongest. (I will come back to Libya at some future time because I want to deal with the attack at the US consulate in Benghazi and the evidence that points to Al Qaeda as the perpetrators, as well as how it destroys the narrative).
Libya is relevant here because NATO provided support to a country where the people wanted assistance to get rid of their dictator. What Gadhafi did was reprehensible at the time. One can ask “why has NATO remained on the sidelines as the people in Syria have been attacked”? Perhaps it is because in the two situations, the opponents of Gadhafi were able to show a level of co-operation with the west that is missing in Syria. Perhaps there are other reasons as well, such as the fact that Libya had been an ally in the second world war, and this was another return of a favour. Libyans are not Arabs. They are from North Africa and quite frankly that makes a difference. At the same time in Libya it was the Sanusi who were in control up until Gadhafi’s coup. Libya had been the benign country until Gadhafi had come on the scene. In Libya it was never Shia vs Sunni, but it was the people fighting against Communism.
Syria is made up of different tribes including the Druze and the Alawites. Whilst the Druze tend to be of Christian origin, they have made the error of backing the minority Alawite tribes, who are associated with the Shia, rather than the Sunni. The politics of Syria as a whole is harder to comprehend, because just like Iraq the Ba’ath Party had been in control. It means that there is more than just Sunni vs Shia factors because the Ba’ath Party are very pro-Communist. I have not been able to get a real handle on the Syrian opposition and I do not know for certain that they are simply all Al Qaeda or not, I think it is too simplistic to tar them with the Al Qaeda brush, yet the Islamists have managed to gain a foothold in the opposition ranks.
The lack of support from NATO, largely due to the fact that no one asked for assistance and the fact that Syria is not a NATO country, has meant that the civil war in Syria has dragged on and on. It has also meant that Al Qaeda has gained a stronger and stronger foothold in that country.
What I find very questionable is the supplying of arms to the “rebels” in Syria. The real issue is that there are Islamists from other countries who have gone to Syria to help. Some of them have come from Chechnya but a lot of them have come from Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. These are not the same as those doctors and dentists who returned to Libya and they have a very different outlook on life. Many of these Islamists (whether they are Al Qaeda or not) are willing to kill anyone who is not a Muslim. The western world should not be giving them arms for their fight because afterwards they will use those arms against the western world.
We need to stay out of this Shia vs Sunni fight. The people of Syria must resolve the conflict on their own. They need to start talking to the other side in the conflict and they need to end the fighting. Giving them arms is only prolonging the conflict.
I am saying this, even though I know that chemical weapons have been used. I have not seen full confirmation that the chemical weapons plant was destroyed by Israel. All the talk about crossing the red line of using chemical weapons turned out to be just talk. A decision to supply weapons to the side that did not use the chemical weapons is definitely a wrong decision in the long term.
Disturbing information regarding Libya
Whilst I remain supportive of the new Libyan government, I cannot help but feel alarm over the continued increase in arms smuggling that is occurring in that region. There is a good reason to believe that the militia’s of former rebels need to be pulled into line, and the Libyan government needs to bring all Islamists under control.
What I want to question is whether it is just the one side that is doing the arms smuggling. Why do I question the source of these arms?
1. Mali – Gadhafi had been giving arms to the Touareg in Mali and it is the Touareg that have acted in a questionable way in Mali. Could it be that the Gadhafi family and their supporters have continued to supply the arms? I throw up this question because I do not believe that there is a simple answer to the question regarding who has been financing the trouble in Mali and with members of the Gadhafi family living in Niger and Algeria I have my own suspicions.
2. Syria – the continued supply of arms to Syria is one of the things that disturbs me the most. Is it just Libya who is smuggling the arms to Syria? Is Libya being used as a conduit of arms being sent from Qatar or some other friendly country? Has the U.S. government been supplying the “rebels” in Syria via Libya?
There are many unanswered questions. I am not 100% ready to accept that it is Libya alone responsible for the supply of arms in the region. I suspect that prior to the rebellion and revolution in Libya that saw the end of the Gadhafi regime, the arms smuggling to the “Islamists” and rebels in Mali was either ignored or undetected by the world at large. There is sufficient evidence to show that Moammar Gadhafi had been supplying arms to the Touareg as a means of keeping them loyal to himself. He very likely supplied arms etc. to Niger and Algeria as well. I have not seen any analysis relating to the African countries that were friendly with Gadhafi with regard to the impact of Gadhafi money in each of those countries. One country really did stand out and that was Mali because the uprising in Mali followed the death of Gadhafi, and on top of that the leaders of the uprising and the damage that took place happened to be the Touareg. I feel that I am only seeing half of the story.
The Islamists in Libya remain a problem. In some areas such as Benghazi they continue to be out of control to the point where they are threatening Christians who live in the region.
Even though I am supportive of the new Libyan regime, I remain critical of their lack of action over certain matters. I want them to do more in relation to the attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi. I want to hear that there have been arrests and that people are being charged and even facing the death penalty over that attack. I have not seen enough in the way of positive action. In this respect the new regime has remained moribund. Yet, I do not believe that they are supporting the terrorists.
In the future I will be continuing to watch developments in Syria and Libya. I remain concerned about the strengthening of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the way in which that group have formed an alliance with “rebels” in Syria. I continue to remain neutral and not support either side in the Syrian conflict because I do not know enough about the “rebels”. On the other hand I cannot support Assad because he is backed by Iran.
The reason that I am not against the No-Fly Zone
Whilst there is a good reason to exercise caution with regard to the rebels in Libya, there is another side that causes me to throw good sense and caution to the wind, and support those who want to get rid of Moammar Gaddhafi. It is the manner in which people have disappeared.
In the past few weeks I have been reading of some of the stories that go back in time, where anyone who opposed Daffy Duck, even when residing in another country, could be arrested and taken away from their families. One such story involves a Libyan-American cardiologist, whose father was taken when he was 6 years old.
Another story, that of Eman al Obaidi has been told in part. The Daffy goons claimed that she was released but her family have stated that this is not the case, so now Eman is amongst those who have disappeared.
The New York Slimes takes up the story of the people who are looking for their relatives who have been taken during the fighting against Daffy goons. You can read the story here.
It has to be remembered that some of the rebel fighters are in fact Islamists. They have their own motivations for fighting; and some of them fought in Iraq too. However, these are not the majority of the rebels. The numbers are simply too big to believe that all of these people are Islamists and AQ associated individuals. These rebel fighters have been brave and I have seen few critical reports (I did see one in Der Spiegel, where it was claimed that the rebels were killing the Daffy loyalists, but who knows if the story was accurate… it could be…). The journalists who have been with the rebels have observed the humane treatment given to the wounded government soldiers. For some there has been an opening of the eyes, as these people finally realize that the Daffy goons in charge have lied to them.
Since Daffy seized control in Libya thousands of people have disappeared, never to be heard from again. This is the same thing that happened under Saddam Hussein. The people were thrown into prison and tortured, before they were killed. So it is no surprise to hear that Daffy troops have captured these rebel fighters and then sent them to Daffy prison.
Some of the people who have been captured have been journalists. One team of 4 worked for the NY Slimes. They were missing for up to a week. The woman in the team has mentioned that she was abused, and that the whole team was terrorised when they were captured. She did not mention if she had faced being raped. Other teams of journalists have also gone missing. At the same time I heard that Daffy had captured the 70 members of an Italian tugboat. I have seen no reports about this incident and have no idea if they have been released. Neither have I heard that he actually released the Dutch SAS team that were captured. On the other hand, the rebels released the British SAS team as soon as their identities were verified. It shows the difference between the two sides, and this is one of the reasons that I have thrown my lot with the rebels.
The Lockerbie bombing is another reason for despising Daffy Duck and wanting to see him removed from power. Daffy ordered that bombing. On top of that there is the murder of the British policewoman outside of the Libyan Embassy in the 1990s. A staff member of the embassy was taking pot shots at the demonstrators who were there, and he deliberately shot and killed the policewoman. The man, who was covered by diplomatic immunity at the time was identified, but there was insufficient proof. He has been captured by the rebels, and the story has been brought up again. This time, a man who was a student in London at the time, has also fingered this man as being a Daffy spy who spied on the students and wrote reports about their activities. The man claimed that he was in the hands of the police when the policewoman was killed. However, that has not been confirmed. The man’s fingerprints were found on the window sill where the gun had been situated and fired on the protesters.
Therefore, I am scanning the stories coming out of Libya. I remain alert with regard to the signs of Islamism. From what I have been reading I have seen no evidence to support the idea that the coalition has been working with people who are Islamists and associated with Al Qaeda. Instead, I hear of people who are praising David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. To my mind it is a case of wait and see if they are on the level when they say that they are not associated with AQ.
Daffy regime lies about Emani al Obaidi
Could this story be the equivalent of the story and lies about the death of Neda in Iran? Although Eman has not been killed like Neda, she burst upon the scene in a way that has provided a window into the lying and scheming of the Gadhaffi regime. This is the story of a woman who was detained at a checkpoint, handcuffed, abused and raped by at least 15 men over a period of 48 hours. Emani was helped to escape by people who lived near the checkpoint. Her friends are apparently still in custody.
This story has been covered by every news outlet including the New York Times and the BBC, as well as the various Reuters outlets. The New York Slimes used language in the story that indicates that the journalists writing the story are fed up with the Gadhaffi regime. In the words of the NYT:
For the members of the foreign news media here at the invitation of the government of Colonel Qaddafi — andlargely confined to the Rixos Hotel except for official outings — the episode was a reminder of the brutality of the Libyan government and the presence of its security forces even among the hotel staff. People in hotel uniforms, who just hours before had been serving coffee and clearing plates, grabbed table knives and rushed to restrain the woman and to hold back the journalists.
Ms. Obeidy said she was a native of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi who had been stopped by Qaddafi militia on the outskirts of Tripoli. After being held for about two days, she said, she had managed to escape. Wearing a black robe, a veil and slippers, she ran into the Rixos Hotel here, asking specifically to speak to the news service Reuters and The New York Times. “There is no media coverage outside,” she yelled at one point.
“They swore at me and they filmed me. I was alone. There was whiskey. I was tied up,” she told Michael Georgy of Reuters, who was able to speak with her briefly. “I am not scared of anything. I will be locked up immediately after this.” She added: “Look at my face. Look at my back.” Her other comments were captured by television cameras.
A wild scuffle began as journalists tried to interview, photograph and protect her. Several journalists were punched, kicked and knocked down by the security forces, working in tandem with people who until then had appeared to be hotel staff members. Security officials destroyed a CNN video camera and seized a device that a Financial Times reporter had used to record her testimony. A plainclothes security officer pulled out a revolver.
Two members of the hotel staff grabbed table knives to threaten Ms. Obeidy and the journalists.
One journalist, who clashed with the Daffy officials has been escorted out of Lebanon. It started when Emani sneaked into the Rixos hotel where the world wide journalists are being kept in Tripoli by the Daffy Duck regime. She came to tell her story of being raped. There were scuffles, and a waitress pulled a knife on her, another tried to put a bag over her head, whilst a man pulled a gun on her and the journalists. A close up of the footage shows that the woman was not lying about her ordeal because she had scratches on her face, and evidence that her hands had been bound and there were bruises and blood on her legs.
The woman struggled with the Daffy goons, and she was moved outside, where she managed to raise her dress to show the injuries on her legs. One of the minders put his hand over her mouth in an attempt to stop her from talking. One of the waitresses had screamed at her “traitor”. She was shoved into a waiting car and then taken away. The newsmen on the scene managed to get pictures and to smuggle out film footage of the struggle that took place.
The Daffy spokesman then got up and told the journalists that the woman was drunk and that she was mentally incapacitated. When that story did not work, he made up another one claiming that the woman was a prostitute, that she was divorced and had 3 children and liked to have parties with men. Well, it turns out that Eman al Obaidi is a 26 year old law student in Tripoli, but who is a resident of Benghazi. She has never been married and she does not have children.
As part of the ever-changing story, Daffy goons claim that 4 men have been arrested in connection with her ordeal. They claimed that the woman is in the custody of her family and that they refuse to allow her to speak to the journalists. They claim that the case is very serious, and is an honour case. However, Emani’s parents who are in Tobruk tell another story. They say that the Daffy goons attempted to bribe them to get their daughter to change her story. In fact they attempted to bribe Emani to change her story.
Let’s see if the journalists who were a witness to this young woman’s attempt to tell the world what had happened to her, will continue to follow up on the story. Since one journalist has been forced to leave Tripoli, I wonder what will happen to the rest. Already they have been threatened via email regarding the stories that they are writing. Will there be other threats?
Emani’s story seems to be one that has brought out the cynicism of the journalists, not against her, but against the Daffy regime. The lies that have been told by the Daffy goons about the woman’s case has meant that they are even less likely to believe Daffy when he continues to claim that civilians are being killed in what have been precision hits upon specified targets in Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya.
An Australian news site has more information that was posted from the Washington Post regarding the woman and her parents. Likewise the language of the report is more than a little unusual with regard to the way in which the story has been reported:
The Washington Post spoke to Aisha Ahmed, from the rebel-held eastern city of Tobruk, in a phone interview in which she said she was proud of her courageous daughter Eman al Obaidi.
“I am very happy, very proud,” Ahmed said.
Ahmed told The Post that her daughter, 26, was a law student in Tripoli.
A rebel activist who was with Ahmed at the time of the interview said a government official had urged Ahmed to persuade her daughter to change her story.
“They said they will give her a new house and a lot of money and anything she wanted,” Hasan Modeer said. The message was passed on to Obaidi who refused, he said.
Revolution comes to the Middle East
It started in Tunisia when a shopkeeper set himself alight. From Tunisia it spread to Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Oman, Syria, Jordan and to Libya. The starting point in at least 2 countries seems to be convenient for the “revolutionaries”, rather than being started by those plotting behind the scenes.
From what I understand, the revolution in Tunisia began with a man setting himself alight in protest over demands to pay protection money. According to his family he was not involved in any groups demanding change. His was a one man protest. However, people behind the scenes seized the opportunity to start the protests that led to the demise of the Tunisian President. (when I have time I really should look up reports about the events that led to the overthrow of the Tunisian President).
In Egypt, it was a day of rage organized by young people that set the ball rolling. Now wait a minute… look at that language… “a day of rage”. Why does that remind me of Communists, Weather Underground, SDS, Code Pink and followers of Che Guevera from Cuba? ( I will touch on this again at some point). Yet Egypt is a lot more complex than these Communist plotters. The reason for the complexity is the Muslim Brotherhood, and El Baradei who was endorsed by Muslim Brotherhood (I will also touch on this point in another post). What started as a trickle became a stream and Hosni Muburak was pushed from power.
At the same time protests began in Jordan, Morocco, Syria and Yemen, but one thing stood out to me, and that was the reaction from Libya when the protests began. Let me explain it this way, buried in the middle of one news report was information that a Daffy Duck official who was in Africa at the time, heard about the protests elsewhere and rushed home. I was not sure what way Daffy was leaning, but the world was soon to find out what Daffy had in mind. The first thing he did was release 100 prisoners who had been held because they had links to Al Qaeda. He intended to use them as an excuse for a crackdown.
The protests in Libya deserve a post of their own so I will deal with what I have learned since the first early protest. It started out small, a protest because of the arrest of a man who had links to the families of the 1000 plus political prisoners who had been killed in prison back in 1996. The Daffy goons fired shots at this small group of protesters and at least one was killed during the first protest. Just like in Egypt this was the root cause for the swelling of the crowds who were protesting. Daffy decided to take the route of a brutal crackdown. The protesters managed to take out the fort in Benghazi. At the same time the justice minister and an army unit arrived in Benghazi. Instead of fighting with the protesters they joined them. Protests broke out in other cities, all the way to Tripoli. The crackdown has been brutal. Despite the calls by the protesters for a no-fly zone to be implemented the world dithered. The push has come from Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, with the great Duh Won having to be dragged into making a decision to back the UN resolution that put in place the no fly zone. This was at the 11th hour when Daffy’s thugs were on the outskirts of Benghazi and Daffy was threatening to show no mercy. (The full story will be given in later posts). Finally, the French began the action, with French aircraft swooping in and hitting the Daffy tanks.
Now, everything is not as it seems. Whilst I continue to back the “rebels” in Libya, I am well aware that the rebels are made up of a very intriguing mix of individuals. It appears that the people who have formed the National Transitional Council are professionals who have had no experience in government, yet they have pulled this coalition together to present a front to the world that says “we are pro-West”, but amongst those who are fighting, there are Islamists, and yes some who are associated with AQ, they have even gone to Iraq to fight. One thing that should be considered here is that these young men went to Iraq as mercenaries for AQ. Yes, they are even Islamists, but are they the majority? Or are they just a small group? The potential is there for AQ or other Islamists to try and gain a foothold in Iraq. Time will tell about what will happen next. In the meantime, the people in Benghazi have made a deal with Qatar to market the oil that is being produced.
To me, it seems that there is a good reason to treat each of these “revolutions” with suspicion. Who is behind them? In Bahrain, where there has been a somewhat brutal crackdown, it appears that the hand behind the curtain belongs to Iran. I suspect that perhaps an Iranian puppet master is hiding in Egypt (even though there has been one set back to the puppet master’s plans) and that perhaps either Iran or Muslim Brotherhood have been active in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and a few other countries. The only difference is Libya, and this is due to the fact that the events happening right now are tied to events that occurred in 1995-1996. It is somehow tied to the shooting of the British policewoman outside of the Libyan embassy in London. I will try to elaborate on this hunch in a future post.
Should we be concerned about these revolutions in the ME? I think that we should be concerned, rather than welcoming with regard to the revolutions. I admit to my own unease when I see that even in Libya there are photos of Che Guevera being posted around the place. It could be that these people are totally ignorant about Che Guevera’s brutality which is matched by the brutality of Daffy Duck, even so the photo disturbs me. Yet, for now I will put this down to the fact that the rebels are indeed a very disparate group of individuals who have different aims.
Just in case the Youtube copy disappears again
Youtube is owned by Google, and Google is run by people who are not only left-wing but are dhimi, as they do the bidding of CAIR and other Muslim organizations. They have been busy pulling “We Con the World”. I came across this alternate site:
http://wejew.com/media/8629/Flotilla_Choir_Parody:_We_Con_The_World/
The latest con job from Hamas
Nine people died when the Israeli Defense Force boarded one of the ships in the flotilla that came via Turkey. The world immediately blamed Israel claiming that these people were “humanitarian aid workers” but is that the truth? In this series of posts, I will attempt to research the history behind the Gaza blockade, looking more closely at who was behind the flotilla. In my mind Israel did not deserve the condemnation because those “peaceful” humanitarian folks were armed with knives and other weapons, and the IDF soldiers were attacked as the propelled down from the helicopters.
In the meantime please enjoy the following video:
Who killed Roger Rabbit? er no…. Hariri?
The never ending case of Mr. Hariri continues to be an unsolved crime. I am not sure what kind of game that Nasrallah is playing because the assassination his Hezbollah and Syria fingerprints all over it. However, Mr. Nasrallah in a very cocky way claims that he and Hezbollah has nothing to hide, despite the fact that 12 members of Hezbollah have been summoned to answer questions into the death of Hariri.
What this news story brings to light is that Mr. Hariri was a Sunni Arab with close ties to Saudi Arabia. Nasrallah on the other hand is a Shia Muslim with ties to both Syria and Iran… Do you smell a rat?
Powered by ScribeFire.
More on the Al Dura Hoax
Power Line – Al Dura Hoax Exposed?
The Al Dura Hoax is also known as a blood libel. In this case the boy in the photograph who is with his father was supposed to have been killed. The video footage that I have seen to date indicates that the boy and man were not in fact in any danger, that the Israelis could not possibly have hit that particular spot, and now it turns out that there is really no evidence that the boy actually died.
When the actual incident occurred the new footage was seen all around the world, and this alleged killing of a young boy became the cause for the Intifada against Israel. It has also been the reason why a lot of people around the world literally turned their backs on Israel. However, the whole thing has been a fraud – a hoax. It was set up by the Palestinian factions who wanted to get even with the Israelis and provide what is known as blood libel.
A few years ago, I followed a case in the French courts regarding the exposure of this blood libel via the case of Phillipe Karsenty. The original verdict had gone against Karsenty, that is the verdict had stated that there was no hoax or fraud, but the French appellate court overturned that verdict in May 2008, and France 2 was ordered to release raw video footage of the incident.
On March 4 German public TV ARD have broadcast a documentary that confirms that the news report submitted by Charles Enderlin and broadcast by France 2 on September 30, 2000, is a fraud.
The evidence provided in the documentary is:
- via biometric analysis of the faces it has been proven that the boy who was filmed by France 2 was not the boy presented at the Gaza morgue. The eyebrows and lips are different.
- using lip-reading technique the German TV read the father’s lips. They discovered that Jamal al Dura gave instructions to the people who were behind France 2’s cameraman during the filming of the scene.
- the boy whose funeral took place, as though it was Mohammed al Dura arrived at the hospital before 10.00 am, whereas the France 2 news report was filmed after 2.30 pm.
The deception of the al Dura hoax has caused irremediable damage to Israel. This is the problem with blood libel. It goes to show the depths to which the Palestinians will sink in order to lay false charges against Israel.
Beat of the war drum 