Steely Dan

Russia has no room to talk about other countries.

Why not?

The Chechens have come home to roost.

What the report does not add is that the recipients of the 'blood money' were also given U.S visas and are now no doubt playing the tables at Vegas or sipping cocktails by the pool. Unfortunately you can't turn back the clock to before Pakistan had nuclear weapons otherwise I think the U.S would sever all contact with them in a heartbeat. Perhaps the use of drones is the best solution, no point in risking any carbon based lifeforms there.

March 17, 2011

Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle

By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The brutal crackdown in Bahrain poses the greatest Middle East democracy dilemma yet to the Obama administration, deepening a rift with its most important Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, while potentially strengthening the influence of its biggest nemesis, Iran.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have chilled to their coldest since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi officials, still angry that President Obama abandoned President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the face of demonstrations, ignored American requests not to send troops into Bahrain to help crush Shiite-led protests there. A tense telephone call between Mr. Obama and King Abdullah on Wednesday, Arab officials said, failed to ease the tensions.

"King Abdullah has been clear that Saudi Arabia will never allow Shia rule in Bahrain — never," an Arab official who was briefed on the talks said. He said King Abdullah's willingness to listen to the Obama administration had "evaporated" since Mr. Mubarak was forced from office.

The Saudi position is rooted in the royal family's belief that a Shiite uprising next door in Bahrain could spread and embolden Saudi Arabia's own minority Shiite population and increase Iranian influence in the kingdom, a fear that American officials share. But where Mr. Obama and King Abdullah have parted ways, administration officials say, is on how to handle the crisis.

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.c...&ref=middleeast

LaoPo

Could my approved conspiracy crackpots be ahead of the curve? They also flagged the falling out between Obama and Abdullah weeks ago. :jap:

Ok, try this one instead. Of course using Geriatrickid's patented Good Arab Bad Arab test I know which side some of you will be batting for.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/03/drumbeats-of-war-iran-promises-action-against-saudi-invasion-of-bahrain/

disasteremergencysupplies.com/ another alarmist paranoia web nonsense for the tin foil hat faction. Telling you that the apocalypse comes tomorrow.

The domain name suggest that an online shop selling survivalist stuff was/is the original concept behind that website.

And I thought you chaps would appreciate broadening your horizons from sundry left wing crackpots, holocaust deniers and Iranian press TV.

Al-Qaida Commander Calls For Islamic Rule In Libya

Associated Press

A top Libyan al-Qaida commander has urged his countrymen to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi's regime and establish Islamic rule, expanding the terror network's attempts to capitalize on the wave of unrest sweeping the region.

Abu Yahia al-Libi, al-Qaida's Afghanistan commander, said in a video posted on a militant website that after the fall of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, it is now Gadhafi's turn, as rebel fighters there press a nearly monthlong campaign to oust him.

...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134504737

------------

Well knock me down with a feather how many failed states can the region hold?

I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries.

Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally.

He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do?

I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster.

You can't support the attempted prevention of a genocide? By the U.N.?

The mad Colonel is slaughtering his own people it would only be a mad man who would not support the UN decision.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article968437.ece/Iran-warns-against-Libya-intervention

Someones ears must be burning.

Ok, try this one instead. Of course using Geriatrickid's patented Good Arab Bad Arab test I know which side some of you will be batting for.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/03/drumbeats-of-war-iran-promises-action-against-saudi-invasion-of-bahrain/

Drumbeats of War - Iran Promises Action Against Saudi Invasion of Bahrain

Mainstream media is reporting a lot about the crisis in Bahrain, and none of it is good news for the Bahraini protesters.

But the situation it is creating in the Middle East is far more serious than simply another entrenched Arab monarch performing acts of violence on his unruly people.

There is extreme anger in Iran over the Saudi invasion of this tiny kingdom. So much anger, that it may appear to be grossly out of proportion with the admittedly grim situation. But it is the straw that breaks the camels back.

I can't get hold of the article yet, but according to Debkafile Iran has started to escalate matters by inciting Shia protesters to armed rebellion. The stakes are high, there are no moral absolutes but it's time to decide which regime you want to come out on top, Riyadh or Tehran. Apocalypse beckons.

Here today, drone tomorrow.

How do they know the camera was Israeli, did they check it's passport?

Looking at what limited information we have on the French woman, I see a lot of things that make me think that Soraya Vorster and the Frenchwoman are the same person. They both were with a Canadian female friend, same age range (French woman 23 to 33, Soraya 33) and both died in the same time range (French woman Jan 9 to Feb 4 and Soraya became ill on Jan 9 and died on Jan 11) and finally Soraya Vorster although here on a U.S. passport was also a French citizen.

Hmmm, Dying twice would indeed be bad luck. I'm pleasantly surprised if some has resulted from this though I think we need more nations to follow New Zealand's lead for any real investigation to take place.

If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis.

Again, I agree.

I do have sympathy for the U.S, They are almost the sole nation with a military capable of doing the U.N's work for them as budget cuts have left E.U Countries with a pretty depleted military capability. And what thanks do the U.S get? Little or no gratitude or help from those that co-sponsored the action and a derision from left wing liberals happy to sit in the comfort of their living rooms with no missiles pointed at them and the luxury of a comfortable life largely safeguarded by the U.S putting out the worst flare ups.

I do on the other hand think the U.S could have played this better tactically by never clearly stating intervention would need a U.N mandate, ambiguity may have made Gadaffi hesitate in bombing his own people. There is a clear humanitarian argument for intervention which on balance justifies action, though the trouble is, as with Egypt or any other middle eastern state, democracy is not the most likely outcome when the dust settles.

1000 Rockets eh, for 'defense', I bet they're for export.

Another incursion and a clear violation of a soveriegn nation's territory. Infact quite and illegal act, Were is the respect?

Perhaps Israel was concerned about the transport of Iranian rockets to Hizbollah which are fired across the border or incursions into Israel itself on sabotage/kidnapping missions, though no I guess that wouldn't occur to you, it never does and never will.

Long overdue, but better late than never. Let's hear the condemnation and politicing begin.

I don't think he is a lunatic. I think he is very intelligent and dangerous to world peace though. Not sure what difference it makes. His Mullahs also may be apocalyptic (but Bush was kind of like that too); is that insane or just ultra religious?

Insane he may be but clever with it. His strategy seems to be 1)To surround Israel with hostile states. 2) Forment unrest in the Arab world, especially those with a large Shiite population. 3) Remove any internal opposition so he becomes in effect president for life. 4) Divert Arab disaffection towards Israel with the usual lies and propaganda.

He has been remarkably successful in his strategy aided and abetted by Obama's muddled foreign policy and his turning the U.S into a paper tiger.

""The US seeks to save the Zionist regime (Israel) and suppress popular uprisings. So, it supports certain governments," he added, as cited by Press TV."

How on earth did he manage to bring Israel into it? What does Israel have to do with Bahrain or Saudi's going into Bahrain? How does Bahrain unrest saves or does not save Zionist regime?

It would appear Iranian president has totally lost the plot and urgently needs a visit to the nearest doctor.

PS. Was watching Aljazeera just the other night and interview with people. All said they want Bahrain to be a FREE country and a country for all including Jews(not my words but words of the protester)

Perhaps he reads the Thaivisa forum and got the idea from some posters here.

Well if you say so Russia perhaps it's best to do nothing at all and see if Gaddafi can rack up a death toll greater than Syria managed in 1982, which was 40,000 by some estimates. Even the Arab league are giving suppport and the French of all Countries have been quick in recognising the rebels.

Here is Christopher Hitchens' view, forthright as ever.

http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/

Is Barack Obama Secretly Swiss?

The administration's pathetic, dithering response to the Arab uprisings has been both cynical and naive.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Friday, Feb. 25, 2011, at 11:41 AM ET

President Obama makes a statement on Libya, Feb. 23, 2011However meanly and grudgingly, even the new Republican speaker has now conceded that the president is Hawaiian-born and some kind of Christian. So let's hope that's the end of all that. A more pressing question now obtrudes itself: Is Barack Obama secretly Swiss?

PRINT

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

RSS

RECOMMEND...

REPRINTS

SINGLE PAGE

FacebookDiggRedditStumbleUponCLOSELet me explain what I mean. A Middle Eastern despot now knows for sure when his time in power is well and truly up. He knows it when his bankers in Zurich or Geneva cease accepting his transfers and responding to his confidential communications and instead begin the process of "freezing" his assets and disclosing their extent and their whereabouts to investigators in his long-exploited country. And, at precisely that moment, the U.S. government also announces that it no longer recognizes the said depositor as the duly constituted head of state. Occasionally, there is a little bit of "raggedness" in the coordination. CIA Director Leon Panetta testified to Congress that Hosni Mubarak would "step down" a day before he actually did so. But the whole charm of the CIA is that its intelligence-gathering is always a few beats off when compared with widespread general knowledge. Generally, though, the White House and the State Department have their timepieces and reactions set to Swiss coordinates.

This is not merely a matter of the synchronizing of announcements. The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned "violence" in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi's remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi's membership.

Advertisement

By the time of Obama's empty speech, even the notoriously lenient Arab League had suspended Libya's participation, and several of Qaddafi's senior diplomatic envoys had bravely defected. One of them, based in New York, had warned of the use of warplanes against civilians and called for a "no-fly zone." Others have pointed out the planes that are bringing fresh mercenaries to Qaddafi's side. In the Mediterranean, the United States maintains its Sixth Fleet, which could ground Qaddafi's air force without breaking a sweat. But wait! We have not yet heard from the Swiss admiralty, without whose input it would surely be imprudent to proceed.

Evidently a little sensitive to the related charges of being a) taken yet again completely by surprise, apparently without a policy of its own, and c) morally neuter, the Obama administration contrived to come up with an argument that maximized every form of feebleness. Were we to have taken a more robust or discernible position, it was argued, our diplomatic staff in Libya might have been endangered. In other words, we decided to behave as if they were already hostages! The governments of much less powerful nations, many with large expatriate populations as well as embassies in Libya, had already condemned Qaddafi's criminal behavior, and the European Union had considered sanctions, but the United States (which didn't even charter a boat for the removal of staff until Tuesday) felt obliged to act as if it were the colonel's unwilling prisoner. I can't immediately think of any precedent for this pathetic "doctrine," but I can easily see what a useful precedent it sets for any future rogue regime attempting to buy time. Leave us alone—don't even raise your voice against us—or we cannot guarantee the security of your embassy. (It wouldn't be too soon, even now, for the NATO alliance to make it plain to Qaddafi that if he even tried such a thing, he would lose his throne, and his ramshackle armed forces, and perhaps his worthless life, all in the course of one afternoon.)

Unless the administration seriously envisages a future that includes the continued private ownership of Libya and its people by Qaddafi and his terrible offspring, it's a sheer matter of prudence and realpolitik, to say nothing of principle, to adopt a policy that makes the opposite assumption. Libya is—in point of population and geography—mainly a coastline. The United States, with or without allies, has unchallengeable power in the air and on the adjacent waters. It can produce great air lifts and sea lifts of humanitarian and medical aid, which will soon be needed anyway along the Egyptian and Tunisian borders, and which would purchase undreamed-of goodwill. It has the chance to make up for its pointless, discredited tardiness with respect to events in Cairo and Tunis. It also has a president who has shown at least the capacity to deliver great speeches on grand themes. Instead, and in the crucial and formative days in which revolutions are decided, we have had to endure the futile squawkings of a cuckoo clock.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/32888

Just in case anyone strains their back bending over to sympathise with the Pakistani position on this tawdry affair.

Hitchens: Raymond Davis, Held Hostage By Pakistan

From Slate:

Our Man in Pakistan

The dreadful treatment of Raymond Davis is a reminder of how dysfunctional our relationship with Pakistan has become.

By Christopher Hitchens

Feb. 28, 2011,In April 2001, a Pakistani diplomat—the first secretary of the Pakistani Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal, as a matter of fact—was found by the Nepalese police to be stashing a large cache of sophisticated high explosives in his home. Muhammad Arshad Cheema invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution and, after a short interval, was sent home.

In October 1985, after the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean, an act of open piracy that culminated in the rolling of a disabled man, Leon Klinghoffer, from the vessel's deck into the sea, the organizer of the "operation" was apprehended and taken into custody by the Italian police. But Abu Abbas was not inconvenienced for long. He was released when he was found to be carrying a diplomatic passport—an Iraqi diplomatic passport as it happened, though he was by nationality a Palestinian and had never been accredited to any overseas mission.

In April 1984, during a demonstration by anti-Qaddafi protesters outside the Libyan Embassy in London, a fusillade of shots fired from inside the embassy struck 12 people. One of them, a police officer named Yvonne Fletcher, was killed. So grave was the incident that it led to the breaking of diplomatic relations between London and Tripoli and to a series of negotiations that only ended when Libya agreed to accept "general responsibility." But the entire staff of the Libyan Embassy was allowed to return home without let or hindrance.

These cases were far more murky and gruesome, and involved much more serious breaches of local and international law, than the decision of Raymond A. Davis to use deadly force against men he believed to be his assailants in Lahore, Pakistan. Additional murk has resulted from inter-agency incompetence on the part of the United States, which has given discrepant accounts of his no-doubt discrepant job descriptions "in-country." But this does not in the least alter the main element of the case, which is that Davis is "our diplomat," in the president's own words and that the Pakistani authorities have no right either to detain him or to put him on trial.

Even if he were accredited to a country like Portugal or Poland, it would make no difference whether or not Davis was a member of the "special forces," a CIA agent, or a man working under contract. Nor would it matter whether or not he was using his own name. Even in the case of a deliberate breach of local law, he would be repatriated before it was decided whether or not, or how, to proceed against him. But Pakistan is not a "normal" country. It is a failed and rogue state, where Davis would have had to know that his assailants might very well be working for the forces of law and order. There would be no need for him to be carrying arms if it were not notorious that the Pakistani army and police are the patrons of the Taliban and in league with various criminal and fundamentalist gangs.

A similar observation holds true when the grotesque idea of trying him in a Punjabi court is mooted. This is a country where senior lawyers offered their services for free to the boastful jihadist murderer who had just slain Punjab's governor Salman Taseer in broad daylight, and where grinning police officers oversee hysterical demonstrations calling for Davis to be hanged (never mind the trial). Prison conditions in Pakistan are of a kind to make Abu Ghraib look trivial: sarcastic letters in the Pakistani newspapers mockingly stress the fact that a shortish stay in such a jail would be near enough to a death sentence anyway.

Not to mince words, then, Davis is a hostage. In addition to the usual sense of the word, he is a hostage to the Pakistani authorities who dare not—even if they wish—make an enemy either of the Islamist mobs or the uniformed para-state run by the intelligence services. He is also a hostage to the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government to call things by their right names. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made the correct noises about the relevant international statutes governing immunity, and their envoy Sen. John Kerry (who should never have been sent unless notified in advance that he would return with the prisoner) has even spoken of putting Davis on trial in the United States, which in ordinary circumstances might seem a little premature. But they all talk as if Pakistan were a country of law, and they all talk as if Pakistan were not a client state. Its client status, indeed, is what leads so many Pakistanis to detest America, without whose largesse and indulgence it would long ago have faced collapse. Thus to the final irony: We are denied leverage by the fact of the very influence for which we are hated.

This sick relationship with Pakistan, which plays a continuous and undisguised double-cross on us in Afghanistan, will probably have to be terminated at some point. But in the meantime, it will have to be made very clear to the rulers of that country that if they want to keep Raymond Davis in prison, they will have to manage without our subsidies. He may be a bad test of an important principle, but it is still the important principle that is being tested, and we have no more right to compromise on the principle of diplomatic immunity than the Pakistanis have to violate it.

Had this taken place in Israel the thread would no doubt be three pages long by now.

The people of Bahrain, Libya and whereever else have the right to self determination without interference form outside their borders.

The leadership of Bahrain are doing exactly the same as Gaddafi except with the direct assistance of foreign armies in repressing their own people. Both leaderships deserve condemnation and the peoples of both countries moral support. The UN should be discussing Bahrain as it is Libya.

It is amazing how many westerners seem to think denying the rights that they as westerners take forgranted to other people is acceptable and using ridiculous argeuments to support such statements.

You either believe in human rights, freedom, democracy and self determination or you dont. There arent some kind of special rights for us that shouldnt exist for others

How many times does it need to be spelled out. Sharia law is incompatable with democracy, as are human rights, such as a women's right to an education or to travel unimpeded, or the basic right to adopt whatever faith (or no faith) you desire. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur unless you want to achieve equality by taking away the rights of those who have then to bring everyone down to the same level of repression. You are also assuming that those protesting even represent a majority oppinion, there may be many shiites living in Bahrain who are happy enough but dare not voice this view for fear of intimidation or violence from the Islamo-fascists.

Ahh I see it now. Only Arabs that are openly hostile to the west are good arabs. Arabs that try to modernize, albeit at a pace respectful of their local customs, and that do not resort to rhetoric that involves comparing other nations to satan or the uttering of psychotic threats involving wiping countries off the earth are "bad". Good Arabs worthy of support and praise have hostile political regimes and embark on crazy wars as was the case with Ghaddaffi and the now very dead Hussein of Iraq. There are many faults associated with the Bahraini leadership, just as there was with Egypt's Mubarek, but at least they didn't start wars with anyone and at least the quality of life improved under their rule. The groups trying to overthrow the Bahrain government have not offered an alternative have they? They just want to be in charge and be rid of the Sunnis. Thing is, The Sunnis are a major part of the Arab world and have no use for Shiites. Who do you think a Sunni nation like Turkey or Syria is going to side with, even though they make kissie kissie sounds with Iran?

The concept applies to all Muslims not just Arabs. Indeed Muslims who embrace secular values and coexist within a democracy aare bad Muslims. Those who try to modernise or adapt their faith to modern science are to be silenced with death threats.

-------------

A British imam and scientist who tried making a point about the theory of evolution being compatible with Islam was forced to retract his comments because of death threats, reports the Independent. Dr. Usama Hasan, a physicist and fellow at the Royal Astronomical Society, was told by police to avoid an East London mosque, after delivering a lecture there earlier this year about how Islam and the theory of evolution were compatible. "I seek Allah's forgiveness for my mistakes and apologize for any offense caused," wrote Hasan in a statement.

Hasan's lecture—which reflected a common opinion among Muslim scientists—was interrupted by extremists, who shouted and handed out pamphlets titled "Darwin is blasphemy." "One man came up to me during the lecture and said 'You are an apostate and should be killed'," Dr Hasan said. "I want to go back – I've been going to the mosque for 25 years. It is my favorite mosque in London, and I have been active in the community for a long time. I hope my positive contribution will outweigh their feelings towards me." But the mosque dismissed Hasan from his duties there last week, saying his views were a "source of antagonism in the Muslim community."

------------

On the other hand a Muslim who preaches antisemitism and incites violence directed towards his host Country and conspires with terrorists is a good Muslim who is to be given the right to free speech and live on state benefits.

The cringing gutless self-hating left wing lunatics would have things this way and Sharia law imposed in any area of any land where Muslims (of all viewpoints) form a majority. Evidently they would like such areas to apply strict Sharia law so the local populace could benefit from public stonings, floggings and beheadings.

Well you retarded lunatics, go and live in a fundamentalist Islamic state if you want but don't co-opt in the rest of us.

Ahmadinejad must be trying for the Hugo Chavez - 'Hit me I know you want to' award, I do hope someone obliges him soon.

Yes. Once again it seems that a People are being opressed by a minority government. In this case being the puppet US backed Bahrain King and his cronies.The majority rise up against them so they enact, admitingly legally, a security agreement between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia only too willing steps in to help as a successful revolution and overturn of the present day Bahrain government would almost certainly lead to the oppressed majority in Saudi Arabia itself rising up against the US puppet Monarchy there. You can see a pattern emerging here where the USA is on the verge of losing alot of influence in the Middle East. Basically if Bahrain falls then chances are it will be a knock on effect to Saudi Arabia. With Mubarak, another US puppet already gone it is looking quite a precarious situation in the Middle East for US and a certain other cocky little piece of earth in the region. Watch this space.

All well and good except for the fact that they(The Bahrainis) weren't being terribly oppressed. I guess they will be now for awhile though, especially if the Shia fundamentalist gain traction.

Hands in the air if you want them chopping off.

More social engineering from the land which gave us Pol Pot. There are existing laws to deal with human trafficing and sham marriages are routinely weeded out by foreign consulates so the Cambodians could with a will do likewise. I wonder how many 49'ers will be cruising the bars of Phnom Penh looking to beat the age limit, like Logan's run, Khmer style.