Today marks the 8th anniversary of the Iraqi war. Actually today marks the day where the massive statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in central Baghdad as US troops captured the city. Most probably people that planned the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) would have never envisioned a situation where by they are caught in a quagmire. Militarily the US and other allied forces to the US are failing to eliminate Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, and they are still facing a staunch resistance in Iraq from different factions. Economically, the US has spent so far approximately 1 trillion US dollars financing both the wars, increasing the rate of the current (inevitable) economic crisis. And finally politically, the US and its allies have less control in the politics of the invaded countries especially Iraq where countries such as Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have much more influence and control of the political process as compared to the US and its allies.
US a Superpower:
On top of all that, the status of the US as a superpower where no one dares to stand up to it has been slowly dwindling. Those in the Middle East that have stood by its policies and obeyed the orders of the US during the Bush era have now all moved back to their natural roles and are constantly trying to rebuild relations with countries that have been severely targeted by the Bush administration (for example Syria). Even the untamed dog of the Middle East (Israel) has been refusing to accept and obey the policies of the current Obama administration, escalating tensions between the two 'strategic' allies described by the Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren, as the worst in the past 35 years. In addition, so far the US has been unable to enact most of its international policies that Obama has stated prior to ascending to presidency. Most notably the US has been unable so far to start a "peace process" in the Middle East, neither have they been able to deter the Iranians from their nuclear program or even enforce more stringent international sanctions against Iran. The most notable achievement so far at an international stage has been the signing of a new START treaty, and that, technically, has nothing to do with the Middle East.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Iraqi Bombings: Is Syria Responsible?
The press conference that was carried out two days ago between Hugo Chavez and Bashar Al Assad was very interesting to watch. Apart from what the talkative Hugo Chavez (I understand now why he has his own TV show) one thing caught my attention from what Bashar Al Assad said during that press conference. When answering a reporters question he said something along those lines 'currently there are no leaders or presidents that work for a cause, most leaders are serving their own interests instead of their peoples interest'. It is debatable as to the extent the Syrian regime serves the peoples interests rather than their own (my personal opinion is that they do) however this comment could be said to be directed towards the current members and leaders of the puppet government in Baghdad especially after the deteriorating situation between the two countries after the bombings on what is now known as the 'Black Wednesday' where more than 100 people were killed in bombings that targeted different Iraqi ministries.
When the bombings took place, the Iraqi prime minister Al Maliki was on a two day visit to Syria along with a group of ministers from the puppet Iraqi government signing Strategic agreements between the two countries including the creation of a higher strategic council that would look after the strategic affairs between the two countries. In some Arab news outlets some political analysts viewed the signing of those agreements as part of a large regional alliance between Iran-Turkey-Iraq and Syria. However those analysts, although they are probably right about the attempts by those countries to create a regional alliance, fell short after the bombings in Baghdad.
Al Maliki ended his visit to Syria a day earlier heading back to Baghdad where without any evidence Al Maliki and Hoshyar Zibari (Iraqi foreign minister) placed responsibility of the bombings to two members of the Iraqi Baath party that reside in Syria in a very Bush administration style; providing no evidence and placing the blame hours after the bombings occurred. Feeling deceived by the Iraqi puppet government the Syrian regime strongly denied all the allegations that were directed towards it. The Syrians went on to launch a diplomatic effort to explain to the world its position in this matter while the Iraqi's continued and escalated their tone and accusations to the Baathist members and 'neighboring states'. It is worth noting that some Arab news agencies reported that the head of the Iraqi intelligence services Mohammad Al Shehwani was retired as cheif of the intelligence services after disagreeing with Al-Maliki over who was behind the bombings saying that the Baathist party doesn't not have the capabilities to conduct such bombings. This comes contrary to what has been said by Reuters which claimed that Al Shahwani was released days before the bombing occurred as Al Shahwani reached the retirement age.
The issue of capabilities is probably the main issue that leads to the dissmisal of the Iraqi accusations towards the Baathists in Syria and the Syrian role in the bombings. Do members of the Baath party have the ability to conduct large simultaneous bombings in probably the most guarded areas in Baghdad? Do they have relationships with members of the current government security services that would allow for such bombings to occur?
A recent comment made by a Turkish newspaper "Hareet" stated that 'there is a country in the region that is annoyed by the growing relations between Turkey, Syria and Iraq' saying that 'Syria did not gain anything from those attacks'. It is clear which country might be annoyed with those growing relations between the three countries. Egypt remains the only country in the region that has not improved its relations with the Syrians and there remains to be any sort of high ranked diplomatic exchanges between the two countries other than the visit by Omar Soliman who arrived in Damascus earlier this year to conduct talks with the different Palestinian factions in Damascus. The Egyptians seem to be the most annoyed with the improving relations between the three countries as it was one of the main players in the region that took part in the attempts to isolate the Syrian regime during the Bush era; seeing itself i.e. the Egyptian regime, being slowly isolated from regional affairs and the decreasing influence and role of the Egyptian regime in the region.
The Iraqi's seem to be only interested in increasing the issue by directly blaming the Syrian regime and calling on for an international investigation and tribunal for those responsible for the bombings even though there are attempts by both Turkey and Iran to lower the tensions between the two countries. The Syrian president Bashar Al Assad will be on his way to Ankara soon in an attempt to resolve the issue, there is an expectation members of the Iraqi government will be present in Ankara too, however Iraq has still not confirmed if anyone from its government will be heading to Ankara.
When the bombings took place, the Iraqi prime minister Al Maliki was on a two day visit to Syria along with a group of ministers from the puppet Iraqi government signing Strategic agreements between the two countries including the creation of a higher strategic council that would look after the strategic affairs between the two countries. In some Arab news outlets some political analysts viewed the signing of those agreements as part of a large regional alliance between Iran-Turkey-Iraq and Syria. However those analysts, although they are probably right about the attempts by those countries to create a regional alliance, fell short after the bombings in Baghdad.
Al Maliki ended his visit to Syria a day earlier heading back to Baghdad where without any evidence Al Maliki and Hoshyar Zibari (Iraqi foreign minister) placed responsibility of the bombings to two members of the Iraqi Baath party that reside in Syria in a very Bush administration style; providing no evidence and placing the blame hours after the bombings occurred. Feeling deceived by the Iraqi puppet government the Syrian regime strongly denied all the allegations that were directed towards it. The Syrians went on to launch a diplomatic effort to explain to the world its position in this matter while the Iraqi's continued and escalated their tone and accusations to the Baathist members and 'neighboring states'. It is worth noting that some Arab news agencies reported that the head of the Iraqi intelligence services Mohammad Al Shehwani was retired as cheif of the intelligence services after disagreeing with Al-Maliki over who was behind the bombings saying that the Baathist party doesn't not have the capabilities to conduct such bombings. This comes contrary to what has been said by Reuters which claimed that Al Shahwani was released days before the bombing occurred as Al Shahwani reached the retirement age.
The issue of capabilities is probably the main issue that leads to the dissmisal of the Iraqi accusations towards the Baathists in Syria and the Syrian role in the bombings. Do members of the Baath party have the ability to conduct large simultaneous bombings in probably the most guarded areas in Baghdad? Do they have relationships with members of the current government security services that would allow for such bombings to occur?
A recent comment made by a Turkish newspaper "Hareet" stated that 'there is a country in the region that is annoyed by the growing relations between Turkey, Syria and Iraq' saying that 'Syria did not gain anything from those attacks'. It is clear which country might be annoyed with those growing relations between the three countries. Egypt remains the only country in the region that has not improved its relations with the Syrians and there remains to be any sort of high ranked diplomatic exchanges between the two countries other than the visit by Omar Soliman who arrived in Damascus earlier this year to conduct talks with the different Palestinian factions in Damascus. The Egyptians seem to be the most annoyed with the improving relations between the three countries as it was one of the main players in the region that took part in the attempts to isolate the Syrian regime during the Bush era; seeing itself i.e. the Egyptian regime, being slowly isolated from regional affairs and the decreasing influence and role of the Egyptian regime in the region.
The Iraqi's seem to be only interested in increasing the issue by directly blaming the Syrian regime and calling on for an international investigation and tribunal for those responsible for the bombings even though there are attempts by both Turkey and Iran to lower the tensions between the two countries. The Syrian president Bashar Al Assad will be on his way to Ankara soon in an attempt to resolve the issue, there is an expectation members of the Iraqi government will be present in Ankara too, however Iraq has still not confirmed if anyone from its government will be heading to Ankara.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Difference Between Iran and EU
In an article published on the wall street journal, the writer reflects the difference between what is happening in Iran and the European Union saying:
"In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result."
Then there is Noam Chomsky whose opinion and speculations regarding different matters are always interesting to read. Chomsky says in a radio interview:
"In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result."
Then there is Noam Chomsky whose opinion and speculations regarding different matters are always interesting to read. Chomsky says in a radio interview:
Friday, 19 June 2009
Why Not Peru?
The coverage of the western media on the Iranian "revolution" has been so extensive that some outlets have dedicated a minute by minute coverage webpage to follow what is happening there. This meant that whatever is happening anywhere else in the world goes unnoticed. For example what happened in Peru during the demonstrations by the poor and native of that country against the government that had planned to introduce new laws allowing foreign companies to exploit the rainforest which those people lived by. Atleast 60 people have been killed during the demonstrations and many more missing. But this is not important because Peru unlike Iran is not hindering the West and their multinational companies from exploiting their natural resources and allowing them to dominate over the area.
The independent has writen an article about it, yes one article is all that it gets. And the only reason why they did is because it somehow is related to the UK...
The independent has writen an article about it, yes one article is all that it gets. And the only reason why they did is because it somehow is related to the UK...
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Mousavi's big blunders
By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi
In the current post-election turmoil, when the reformist challenger to Ahmadinejad has petitioned the relevant authorities to void the presidential elections results and hold new elections, it is easy, too easy, to jump to conclusions about who is right or wrong in Iran today, as if Mousavi and the other reformist candidate Mehdi Karrubi, have the final say on the fraudulent nature of the elections results, hotly contested in the streets of Tehran and a number of other Iranian cities today.
The western media has adopted at face value Mousavi's allegation of rigged elections and the stream of images from Iran, showing the defiant mostly young Iranians battling the riot police, etc., has showered us with the tendency to dismiss any suggestion that the Mousavi camp bear some blame for what has transpired in Iran, that is, a major political crisis. Here is one plausible explanation:
Initially, the ruling elite had no intention of any "election engineering" and, in fact, lowered its guards by allowing a fiercely competitive race that galvanized the public attention through the TV debates, unfettered campaigns, etc. but then as we got closer and closer to the June 12 appointed hour, it became patently obvious that the reformist camp was pushing the envelope to new, and from the vantage point of system coherence, intolerable heights that, in turn, required a stern reaction.
With respect to Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is today appealing to the spiritual leader and pledging loyalty to the principle of rule of jurisprudence, velayat-e faghih, it is noteworthy that throughout the campaign Mousavi showed no deference whatsoever to the leader and, in fact, crossed the red line when he showed his secularist true colour in his speech at Tehran University, which can be seen on youtube, where he explicitly called on the clergy to not get involved in politics and maintain their independence from government.
During his long absence, Iran has been much transformed and, per the words of a University political scientist, a "regional power house under the leadership of ayatollah Khamenei" has emerged that, perhaps, Mr. Mousavi has no keen knowledge of, in light of his vitriolitic attacks on the regime's foreign policies, calling Iran's foreign policy a "disaster."
Ayatollah Khamenei was quick to respond to Mousavi's mostly unfounded criticism, by issuing a statement that questioned the views that claim Iran has been "isolated." Ahmhadinejad himself aptly rebuffed Mousavi in their TV debate, when he pointed at the 60 world leaders who have visited Iran during his term, adding that 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement have been supporting Iran.
That is true, and sadly neither Mousavi nor Karrubi ever showed any understanding of the country's dynamic foreign policy, e.g., the fact that Iran today is at the forefront of the NAM movement and its regional power and influence has substantially increased. Instead of constantly trashing Iran's foreign achievements, a fair opposition candidate would have praised the positive while criticising the negative and, yet, there was a conspicuous lack of balance in Mousavi's assessments of Iran's foreign policy performance.
Nor was Mousavi consistent all the time. Case in point, while in his Farsi speeches he criticised Ahmadinejad's hitherto unanswered letter to Obama, in his latest interview with an Arabic satellite channel, he sang a different tune by referring to the letter as a sign of Iran's proactive diplomacy. Also, he would defend Iran's program without ever giving Ahmadinejad any credit for the strides that Iran has taken in its nuclear program in the past four years. "We had three centrifuges when I came in and we have over 7000 now," Ahmadinejad pointed out during the debate, to Mousavi's oblivious ears.
How did a man known previously as an unreconstructed leftist, who is still so enamored of planned economy, with no ties whatsoever to the Second Khordad reformist movement end up at the helms of this movement and, now, with his great refusal to accept the elections' verdict without showing much evidence of voter fraud, has thrown that movement in a crisis of survival? That is surely a question for future historians to ponder, for at the moment with passions running high in Iran, Mousavi is simply viewed as a symbol of resistance to religious tyranny.
But what about the tyranny of simplistic and distorted portrayal of Iran's achievements and his tacit questioning of the highest religious authority, that is a prerequisite for candidacy in today's Iran, aforementioned? Mr. Mousavi may be right about some voter irregularities but to remain steadfast on his wild claim on June 12, before the vote count had began, that he is the "definite winner," leaves a lot to be desired.
In conclusion, a more prudent politician would try to utilize the millions of votes cast on his behalf into bargaining chips for influence and even policy input in the next administration, instead of wearing the hat of a martyristic hero and thus basking in the glow of regime-bashing, a regime that has done much to empower the ordinary Iranians and enhance Iran's power in the international arena.
Source: Middle East Online
In the current post-election turmoil, when the reformist challenger to Ahmadinejad has petitioned the relevant authorities to void the presidential elections results and hold new elections, it is easy, too easy, to jump to conclusions about who is right or wrong in Iran today, as if Mousavi and the other reformist candidate Mehdi Karrubi, have the final say on the fraudulent nature of the elections results, hotly contested in the streets of Tehran and a number of other Iranian cities today.
The western media has adopted at face value Mousavi's allegation of rigged elections and the stream of images from Iran, showing the defiant mostly young Iranians battling the riot police, etc., has showered us with the tendency to dismiss any suggestion that the Mousavi camp bear some blame for what has transpired in Iran, that is, a major political crisis. Here is one plausible explanation:
Initially, the ruling elite had no intention of any "election engineering" and, in fact, lowered its guards by allowing a fiercely competitive race that galvanized the public attention through the TV debates, unfettered campaigns, etc. but then as we got closer and closer to the June 12 appointed hour, it became patently obvious that the reformist camp was pushing the envelope to new, and from the vantage point of system coherence, intolerable heights that, in turn, required a stern reaction.
With respect to Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is today appealing to the spiritual leader and pledging loyalty to the principle of rule of jurisprudence, velayat-e faghih, it is noteworthy that throughout the campaign Mousavi showed no deference whatsoever to the leader and, in fact, crossed the red line when he showed his secularist true colour in his speech at Tehran University, which can be seen on youtube, where he explicitly called on the clergy to not get involved in politics and maintain their independence from government.
During his long absence, Iran has been much transformed and, per the words of a University political scientist, a "regional power house under the leadership of ayatollah Khamenei" has emerged that, perhaps, Mr. Mousavi has no keen knowledge of, in light of his vitriolitic attacks on the regime's foreign policies, calling Iran's foreign policy a "disaster."
Ayatollah Khamenei was quick to respond to Mousavi's mostly unfounded criticism, by issuing a statement that questioned the views that claim Iran has been "isolated." Ahmhadinejad himself aptly rebuffed Mousavi in their TV debate, when he pointed at the 60 world leaders who have visited Iran during his term, adding that 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement have been supporting Iran.
That is true, and sadly neither Mousavi nor Karrubi ever showed any understanding of the country's dynamic foreign policy, e.g., the fact that Iran today is at the forefront of the NAM movement and its regional power and influence has substantially increased. Instead of constantly trashing Iran's foreign achievements, a fair opposition candidate would have praised the positive while criticising the negative and, yet, there was a conspicuous lack of balance in Mousavi's assessments of Iran's foreign policy performance.
Nor was Mousavi consistent all the time. Case in point, while in his Farsi speeches he criticised Ahmadinejad's hitherto unanswered letter to Obama, in his latest interview with an Arabic satellite channel, he sang a different tune by referring to the letter as a sign of Iran's proactive diplomacy. Also, he would defend Iran's program without ever giving Ahmadinejad any credit for the strides that Iran has taken in its nuclear program in the past four years. "We had three centrifuges when I came in and we have over 7000 now," Ahmadinejad pointed out during the debate, to Mousavi's oblivious ears.
How did a man known previously as an unreconstructed leftist, who is still so enamored of planned economy, with no ties whatsoever to the Second Khordad reformist movement end up at the helms of this movement and, now, with his great refusal to accept the elections' verdict without showing much evidence of voter fraud, has thrown that movement in a crisis of survival? That is surely a question for future historians to ponder, for at the moment with passions running high in Iran, Mousavi is simply viewed as a symbol of resistance to religious tyranny.
But what about the tyranny of simplistic and distorted portrayal of Iran's achievements and his tacit questioning of the highest religious authority, that is a prerequisite for candidacy in today's Iran, aforementioned? Mr. Mousavi may be right about some voter irregularities but to remain steadfast on his wild claim on June 12, before the vote count had began, that he is the "definite winner," leaves a lot to be desired.
In conclusion, a more prudent politician would try to utilize the millions of votes cast on his behalf into bargaining chips for influence and even policy input in the next administration, instead of wearing the hat of a martyristic hero and thus basking in the glow of regime-bashing, a regime that has done much to empower the ordinary Iranians and enhance Iran's power in the international arena.
Source: Middle East Online
Monday, 20 April 2009
Walking Out - An Act of Racism
If the west keeps on bringing up the issue of free speech, and then walk out on a person who is merely expressing his opinion, what does that make the western nations? What is the difference between walking out in protest of what Ahmadinijad had to say about the racist, apartheid Zionist state, and when Muslims walked in the streets demonstrating against the insulting drawings of the prophet Mohammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him)?
The double standards exhibited by these people is unbelievable. To not accept the fact that the Zionist state is a racist, hateful state that has been waging wars against the Arabs and has been using weapons indiscriminately against civilian populations is an act of racism in it self. These are the same western countries that stood and watched Lebanese being massacred in 2006, and are the same ones supplying Israel with weapons and technology and aid that has been used to Massacre Palestinians for the past 60 years, while at the same time subjugating Arab countries and Muslim countries to economic sanctions just because they refused your hegemony in thier countries..
wonder why AlQaeda gets so many sympathizers within the muslim world...?
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Trying Too Hard
It seems the Egyptian regime has now gone full force against Hizbullah and Iran attempting to lower the support that Hizbullah has amongst the Egyptians. The crime of Hizbullah is that they tried to help out the trapped people in Gaza by supplying the people with essential day to day products and the resistance with weapons and ammunition. It is true that Hizbullah by sending members of its group to Egypt does indeed violate the sovereignty of Egypt but if the Egyptian government refuses to open up the Rafah border and allow the Palestinians whom have been trapped in Gaza for almost 2 and a half years with limited supplies, and if the Egyptian government refuses to support those who are willing to fight for their freedom by at least turning a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons to those freedom fighters then someone else will take up that role. It is unfortunate that such a regime has borders with Gaza.
(On this note let me point out that Mr. Mubarak along with other world leaders and politicians are nothing short of criminals for not forcing Israel to lift the siege off Gaza even after a devastating military attack by the Zionists).
I am most amazed by the Egyptian media which has lost all of its professionalism in the way it has been dealing with the issue. The slandering of Hasan Nasarallah, or any other leader or even person in such a manner by supposedly professional journalists writing in respected news outlets, is nothing less than shameless and utterly shocking, these journalists have managed to reach new levels of low.
The most infuriating thing is how those journalists repeat the same thing as if if they keep saying it we will have to believe it.
One thing I would really want an answer to is the comment made by journalists and politicians who are saying that "the Egyptian people are completely around/support the Egyptian government in everything it does", to what extent is this? Do the Egyptian people support the Egyptian governments role in the Gaza war by sealing off the border and not allowing aid to go through? Do they support the view that Hamas and Iran (and any other state that refuses to be dictated by America) are the enemies while Israel and the United States are their "best friends"? Do they share the opinions of their foreign minister when he said that "any Palestinian coming through the borders will have their legs cut off" during the time the Gazans broke through the Rafah border crossing out of desperation? Do the Egyptian people believe that internally their country and government is at its best shape, economically and socially?!
And what the hell is that claim about "spreading Shiaism" in Egypt?! As if the Egyptian Government is so worried about the spirituality of its people; that Shiaism will spread like wild fire if it wasn't for the heroic interventions of the flawless government that stopped one man of 25 years of age sent by Hizbullah to convert the people of Egypt to Shiaism. I wonder if those Palestinians and Egyptians helping the Hizbullah agent are Shia as well considering that at least 3 members of that "Cell" belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. I find those claims by Egypt and other Arab governments that Iran is trying to spread Shiaism within their countries is very patronizing and condescending to Arabs and non-Arabs in the Muslim world.
Some members of the Egyptian parliament are saying that Egypt should respond by two folds to the attempts of destabilizing the country by Hizbullah and Iran. What can Egypt do? Ever since the peace treaty signed between the Egyptians and Israelis the Egyptian role and presence in the region has slowly been diminishing. Iran and quickly Turkey, are playing the major roles in the region. Can the Egyptian presence in the region be compared to that of the Iranians? The Egyptians were not even able to get the Palestinians to agree on forming a unity government, unlike the Iranians who have now complete control of Iraq and Lebanon. The Egyptian government has lost its ability of political decision making, which is currently in the hands of the US and Israel, which explains Mubaraks invitation to Netanyahu a week prior to revealing this Hizbullah "cell".
The Egyptians (and when I say Egyptians followed by criticism I mean the Egyptian government) is trying too hard to create this separation between the Sunnah and Shia'a Islam, they are trying too hard to minimize the mentality of 'resistance' within the Egyptian population by smearing the image of those who chose to resist and be truly sovereign unlike the fake sovereignty the Egyptian government claims it has. That resistance to the imperialist plans of Western nations is the only thing that brought the Arabs and Muslims any good, and if anyone claims there is any other means by which we can liberate our countries, bring peace and justice to those that have been persecuted for so long then they are wrong.
(On this note let me point out that Mr. Mubarak along with other world leaders and politicians are nothing short of criminals for not forcing Israel to lift the siege off Gaza even after a devastating military attack by the Zionists).
I am most amazed by the Egyptian media which has lost all of its professionalism in the way it has been dealing with the issue. The slandering of Hasan Nasarallah, or any other leader or even person in such a manner by supposedly professional journalists writing in respected news outlets, is nothing less than shameless and utterly shocking, these journalists have managed to reach new levels of low.
The most infuriating thing is how those journalists repeat the same thing as if if they keep saying it we will have to believe it.
One thing I would really want an answer to is the comment made by journalists and politicians who are saying that "the Egyptian people are completely around/support the Egyptian government in everything it does", to what extent is this? Do the Egyptian people support the Egyptian governments role in the Gaza war by sealing off the border and not allowing aid to go through? Do they support the view that Hamas and Iran (and any other state that refuses to be dictated by America) are the enemies while Israel and the United States are their "best friends"? Do they share the opinions of their foreign minister when he said that "any Palestinian coming through the borders will have their legs cut off" during the time the Gazans broke through the Rafah border crossing out of desperation? Do the Egyptian people believe that internally their country and government is at its best shape, economically and socially?!
And what the hell is that claim about "spreading Shiaism" in Egypt?! As if the Egyptian Government is so worried about the spirituality of its people; that Shiaism will spread like wild fire if it wasn't for the heroic interventions of the flawless government that stopped one man of 25 years of age sent by Hizbullah to convert the people of Egypt to Shiaism. I wonder if those Palestinians and Egyptians helping the Hizbullah agent are Shia as well considering that at least 3 members of that "Cell" belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. I find those claims by Egypt and other Arab governments that Iran is trying to spread Shiaism within their countries is very patronizing and condescending to Arabs and non-Arabs in the Muslim world.
Some members of the Egyptian parliament are saying that Egypt should respond by two folds to the attempts of destabilizing the country by Hizbullah and Iran. What can Egypt do? Ever since the peace treaty signed between the Egyptians and Israelis the Egyptian role and presence in the region has slowly been diminishing. Iran and quickly Turkey, are playing the major roles in the region. Can the Egyptian presence in the region be compared to that of the Iranians? The Egyptians were not even able to get the Palestinians to agree on forming a unity government, unlike the Iranians who have now complete control of Iraq and Lebanon. The Egyptian government has lost its ability of political decision making, which is currently in the hands of the US and Israel, which explains Mubaraks invitation to Netanyahu a week prior to revealing this Hizbullah "cell".
The Egyptians (and when I say Egyptians followed by criticism I mean the Egyptian government) is trying too hard to create this separation between the Sunnah and Shia'a Islam, they are trying too hard to minimize the mentality of 'resistance' within the Egyptian population by smearing the image of those who chose to resist and be truly sovereign unlike the fake sovereignty the Egyptian government claims it has. That resistance to the imperialist plans of Western nations is the only thing that brought the Arabs and Muslims any good, and if anyone claims there is any other means by which we can liberate our countries, bring peace and justice to those that have been persecuted for so long then they are wrong.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Nuclear Energy
There has been for a while now a discussion going on, on my facebook account message thing, where people discuss random political topics, which is interesting because there are people from different parts of the world who are involved and stuff. So the latest topic of discussion was Nuclear power, well specifically Iran's nuclear power program. Now I was thinking to myself, why nuclear power in the first place, and this is what i came up with! enjoy..
anyways there is no point of having a nuclear program for 'peaceful pruposes' these days. it is clear that using nuclear technology for the production of energy has more cons than pros, and nations like France, Germany and Britain are already shutting down their nuclear power stations, or are planning to do so in favour of sustainable, renewable energy.
All those dumb arab countries that are going after 'peaceful' nuclear programs mainly for energy are not getting it, while they pay billions to countries like france, russia etc to develop their countries civil nuclear capabilities/technology, they are wasting their money, instead they could have spent that money on building and researching renewable energy alternatives, which is inevitably the future for energy, and not nuclear power plants, unless there is a way to deal with the disadvantages of having nuclear power plants mainly concerning the safety of such plants, and how to deal with the waste that is produced from the nuclear reactions and so on.
You have to give credit to countries like Algeria and Syria, for they are atleast thinking about renewable energy. In the case of Algeria, they already have a couple of power stations that work on Solar power and Natural gas and are planning to build more Solar power plants in the future. Syria are working on increasing their knowledge on renewable energy, where research collaborations between Syrian and European (Austrian, German, Norwegian) Universities is going on, with Syria planning to build its first factory to manufacture photovoltaic cells in the country and probably in the region, with the help of a Ukranian company, the project involves both the private and public sector.
But there is still a long why to go, and with the oil barrel reaching 117 dollars last time i checked, I believe those Arab, and other oil exporting nations can actually spend some of that oil revenue on researching and building renewable energy sources/plants.
In that case it makes me wonder why those nations are after nuclear power in the first place (including iran), which makes me doubt it is for "peaceful" purposes. Don't get me wrong I am not against countries having Nuclear weapons right now, since there are still nations that are defying the non proliferation treaty and not signing it, and other nations that have signed this treaty and are still increasing their Nuclear weapons, it is only far for other nations to obtain nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, to balance the military strengthens, since we live in a world where in any moment some Nation can declare war on the other.
anyways there is no point of having a nuclear program for 'peaceful pruposes' these days. it is clear that using nuclear technology for the production of energy has more cons than pros, and nations like France, Germany and Britain are already shutting down their nuclear power stations, or are planning to do so in favour of sustainable, renewable energy.
All those dumb arab countries that are going after 'peaceful' nuclear programs mainly for energy are not getting it, while they pay billions to countries like france, russia etc to develop their countries civil nuclear capabilities/technology, they are wasting their money, instead they could have spent that money on building and researching renewable energy alternatives, which is inevitably the future for energy, and not nuclear power plants, unless there is a way to deal with the disadvantages of having nuclear power plants mainly concerning the safety of such plants, and how to deal with the waste that is produced from the nuclear reactions and so on.
You have to give credit to countries like Algeria and Syria, for they are atleast thinking about renewable energy. In the case of Algeria, they already have a couple of power stations that work on Solar power and Natural gas and are planning to build more Solar power plants in the future. Syria are working on increasing their knowledge on renewable energy, where research collaborations between Syrian and European (Austrian, German, Norwegian) Universities is going on, with Syria planning to build its first factory to manufacture photovoltaic cells in the country and probably in the region, with the help of a Ukranian company, the project involves both the private and public sector.
But there is still a long why to go, and with the oil barrel reaching 117 dollars last time i checked, I believe those Arab, and other oil exporting nations can actually spend some of that oil revenue on researching and building renewable energy sources/plants.
In that case it makes me wonder why those nations are after nuclear power in the first place (including iran), which makes me doubt it is for "peaceful" purposes. Don't get me wrong I am not against countries having Nuclear weapons right now, since there are still nations that are defying the non proliferation treaty and not signing it, and other nations that have signed this treaty and are still increasing their Nuclear weapons, it is only far for other nations to obtain nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, to balance the military strengthens, since we live in a world where in any moment some Nation can declare war on the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)