There is little doubt that the US will hit Iran after pulling its troops out of Iraq. Military spending in the US has gained too much momentum to leave any hope that the current dynamics will change in the foreseeable future. The US military-industrial complex and its Pentagon partners have long been preparing the war-against-Iran project, readily resorting to the most unsavory methods in the process.
Preparations for the war against Iran largely resemble the activity which preceded the US attack against Iraq. S. Hussein faced allegations of concealing WMD stockpiles, and the current Iranian leadership is being charged with maintaining nuclear program which is about to become a global peril. Tehran’s statements that it is ready to host IAE inspections are brushed off just as were Iraq’s offers to admit Western experts to its installations. Washington holds that an Iranian nuclear threat is an established fact and remains totally unreceptive to objections. Rationally, the US at the same time rejects the proposal to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East (as its implementation would create serious problems for Israel) and reacts sluggishly to the more than real risks stemming from Pakistan’s illicit possession of nuclear weapon.
On top of the fact that a US military escapade targeting Iran would bear a global negative impact, Russia has to take into account its own vested interests in Iran. Let’s face it: the US globalism poses a direct threat to Russia, as it automatically reduces Russia’s role to that of a dependent supplier of commodities for the unified Pax Americana and imposes on it broader implications of the status. The globalization project leaves nations no chance to sustain their political and cultural sovereignty and thus puts in jeopardy the core values of the Russian civilization.
The brewing war can, as one of the options, be viewed through the prism of the conflict between globalization and Islam. At the moment, the Shia Iran happens to be one of the biggest obstacles in the way of globalization. One should keep in mind that – in line with the requirements of its religion – Iran rejects the interest rate which is the cornerstone of the Western economy. Even Iran’s banking system manages to avoid charging interest rates, thus sending a kind of a message to the rest of the world. This is the ideological axis of the Iran-US ideological standoff exposing the ruthless nature of the US pawnbroking order based on the legitimized exploitation of those in need. The adequacy of the views of Iranian mullahs outrages Washington globalists. It is natural that Tehran became the stronghold of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and that the US cannot proceed with its plans of transforming the Middle East as long as Iran in its present shape is there.
The objectives of the forces seeking to steer the region towards globalism are to overthrow the Shia regime in Tehran and to install a pro-US government in its place. What would be the consequences of the establishment of a pro-US regime in Iran from Russia’s perspective? The Caspian region and Russia’s neighbors – Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan – would be dragged into a new instability zone as their Americanization would be seen as a natural step by the proponents of globalization. The advent of regimes unfriendly to Russia – akin to the former Orange one in Ukraine – in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan would confront Moscow with unfavorable settings. Another Saakashvili in Azerbaijan would create major problems, especially for Armenia. The consequences of the US making inroads into Turkmenistan are generally unpredictable but obviously negative.
It is worth noting that Russia has important direct links to Iran in the sphere of the economy. The cooperation between Moscow and Tehran is already under pressure and stands no chance in the case of regime change in Iran.
Russia should carefully answer several elementary questions to formulate its position on the Iranian problem. The questions are:
1. Is Russia interested in the existence of Iran in its present form? The answer is that it is, considering that Tehran is open to cooperation with Moscow. Tehran may be a difficult partner, but that is a routine situation. Iran’s position reflects the views held by the Muslim world whose respect Russia should do its best to retain.
2. Is Moscow’s increasingly obvious pro-US drift a positive development from the standpoint of Russia’s own interests? Hardly so – if Moscow hopes to buy the long-promised reset by concessions to Washington in dealing with Iran, the policy is markedly short-sighted. The reset will materialize only to the extent to which it is in the interests of the US. Russia’s experts on the US should express their views on how the reset story is unfolding. It is time to assess soberly which factors forced the US to pledge the reset and how much good will there was in Washington’s motivation. The impression is that the good will did not play a significant role.
The bottom line is that Russia’s politics with respect to Iran should stay clear of any US influence.
3. How should Russia react while the aggression against Iran remains a possibility or at the time of the aggression? A strike on Iran would serve to perpetuate the politics of unilateral or group-backed military sanctions under forged pretexts, which the world encountered when the former Yugoslavia came under attack. Every new aggression of this type constitutes a step towards building the practice into the customs of the international politics. Should the war against Iran break out, the UN would deserve to be renamed into a talk club having no right to take real action against a group of conspirators in its own ranks.
Some may be reluctant to admit it, but Russia’s national interests are bound to collide head-on with the assertive globalism. The politics of military sanctions against Iran, which may yet meet with support in Moscow, would inevitably put Russia’s own interests in jeopardy. Russia should hold firmly that an aggression against Iran would be an unacceptable breach of the international law, an aggression that must be condemned with utmost clarity.
These guys on the FSK have a really great insight on world affairs. I wish they had more influence in the current Russian government.
@Carlo: I personally interviewed one of their top guys, Lt-Gen. Leonid Ivashev who is not only very knowledgeable, but also a great guy on a personal level. I wish he was Minister of Defense instead of the Anatoly Serdyukov and his lame list of civilian deputies…..
Why has there been this change in Russian policy over the last year or so? Is Medvedev surrounded by Chubais and the Atlanticist crowd who think they can do a deal with the US? What’s in it for Russia to abandon Iran the way they have? let’s hope Putin comes back to power in 2012
“…Moscow’s increasingly obvious pro-US drift…”
I hear that a lot lately and I’m yet to see any evidence of the drift. The sanctions signed up by Medvedev? But Russia has joined to at least 4 UN sanctions against Iran in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 all in relations to the Iranian nuclear program so how is Medvedev’s take on the Iranian nukes is different from Putin’s?
“The bottom line is that Russia’s politics with respect to Iran should stay clear of any US influence”
The guys seem to live in a fantasy world – no country politics can “stay absolutely clear from any US influence” and just a very few states can fight back for their national interests by using flexible balances of checks and counter-offensive strategies.
The Russians just announced that the Busher plant will be ready to start by August 21 and the White House publicly admitted that they have no arguments against that.
Lukoil just resumed it’s fuel supply to Iran that was stopped shortly after the UN sanctions were announced which already was met by fierce condemnation from the West.
The bottom line is – The Russians just keep carry on the USSR’s policy in the Middle East so it stays a boiling pot it has always been to continue the pressure on oil and gas prices, and to keep the US busy. Russia continues supply weapons to Syria and Iran being well aware that a lot of them end up in the Hezbollah hands, Russia also supplies the Lebanese army with weapons including aircraft, choppers and BTRs. The latest border clash between the Lebanese and Israelian armies was hailed by the Hezbollah leaders who called the Lebanese soldiers heroes and promised full support from Hezbollah should a war with Israel break out.
If a strike at Iran happens the Russians most likely will work closely with China to make sure that the US will not go into the Iranian territory for the regime change. Air strikes will leave the Iranian leadership with practically no opposition whatsoever as any opposition during war time would be considered traitors not only by the regime but by majority of the Iranians. The US will stay an evil empire for a couple of more generations of Iranians, oil and gas prices will go up so Iran will have no problems to cope with the material damage caused by war. The Russians will get moral right to eventually sell S300 to Iran to prevent the future strikes. Hezbollah and Hamas will keep the Israelis busy during the war which will bring them more support in their countries. It looks like everyone wins.
Sometimes I even wonder if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is intentionally provoking the US to take on Iran. He saw what happened with Yugoslavia Iraq and Afghanistan so he should make no mistake about the determination and capability of the US and still he keeps announcing more and more interesting news about the Iranian nuclear program development but I guess if Iran will hold back from attacking oil tankers during the looming war and will just concentrate on self defence of it’s own territory that will cause even more damage to the US leaving them with no excuse for a land operation and bringing a lot of sympathy to the Iranians from around the world. But if Iran will try to fight back on the US turf which is the open sea as well as the territories of Iraq and Afghanistan then I wouldn’t have much hope for the current Iranian regime.
alibi
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi Saker, I guess you can delete my first post, I was confused by the system as usual
Cheers
alibi
@alibi: I did remove the double posts, but PLEASE do not worry about this. Frankly, the comment system on blogger is buggy as hell and it is a pain to manage. So unless I comment is spam, I mostly leave doubles. And you are not the only one who is baffled by this idiotic system – others have been having problems too.
Please post here freely and don’t worry about the rest. I will do my best to clean it, but if I am late, then hey – a good comments (as yours always are!) always deserves a second reading :-)
Saker et al.
Here is the outlines of another analysis I have read. The author is Cemil Ertem and I will state the main points:
Israel is going to pull back. That’s what US wants and that’s why Turkey is playing its role to reduce Israeli influence in the Middle East.
Iran under control and balanced by Turkey. This already has been happening politically as well as financially. Iran last month has passed a law so that foreign banks can do business in Iran. This means constant and regulated flow of capital into Iran and as a result oil refineries will being to be upgraded soon.
Long story short, Iran will be integrated into the global market and supply chain because there is need for secure and reliable energy supply chain from the region to the EU and Russia is supportive of this. As the author says “This is the fourth bourgeoisie revolution”. According to the author, Russia is a supporter of this plan.
Zerkes
Let’s hope your guy is right, Zerkes. That would be a rational settlement of the Iran problem but unfortunately some key actors are not rational. The neocons, both American and Israeli are total fruitloops and they may succeed in getting their war.
New Russian analysis book on the Russian-Georgia war which timeline and sources from all sides.
Haven’t read it but the foreword is by David Glantz so it must be good.
Although reading the summary I don’t think it includes things like information warfare and media/PR, the role of NGO’s as well as the use of MPRI private contractors.
Has a PDF link to download it for free.
http://cast.ru/eng/?id=386
@VINEYARDSAKER
I don’t think there is any really good Russian analysis sites.
They won’t even touch the issue of terrorism, organised crime, oligarchs, Lord Jacob Rothschild and how this relates to US lead foreign policy in regards to Russia since 89.
Without a doubt the 9/11 hijackers were part of a western intelligence European/US/Mid East network originally recruited to fight in Chechnya with links to CIA, MI6, etc. which would be easy to expose from various authoritative sources as well as other major terrorist attack especially Madrid which was organised in the Panski Gorge in Georgia which if they were to reveal it would be game over for the US in Eurasia and the phoney “war on terror”.
@Anonymous
This sums it up why Medvedev is the new Gorbachev.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8gz-z4_HI
“Russia continues supply weapons to Syria and Iran being well aware that a lot of them end up in the Hezbollah hands, Russia also supplies the Lebanese army with weapons including aircraft, choppers and BTRs.”
Alibi, Russia hasn’t been selling weapons to Iran and Syria since Putin left the presidency. If I am not mistaken, the last deliveries were MANPADs to Syria and Tor-M2E to Iran. The S-300 sale contract to Iran, signed in 2007, seems to have been cancelled. And the deliveries of weapons to Lebanon (including a few refurbished MiG-29s) are all under approval of the US and Israel, who don’t consider them a threat at all. I really think there was a change after Putin left – maybe (and hopefully) I am mistaken, but recent facts seem to confirm my opinion.
@jack: you really, REALLY, made my day, thanks!! I have a great deal of respect for Dave Glantz with whom I used to correspond in my past life as a military analyst and any book prefaced by him is worth reading, IMHO. H is one of the top, if not THE top, expert on Russian military affairs in the USA. Thanks a lot for that pointer!
The Saker
@Anonymous
Lord Rothschild actually has a large stake in Lukoil which was probably part of the deal when his YUKO’s company was shut down and his man in Russia put in prison.
No surprise that his Guardian media outlets here in the UK Guardian and Telegraph newspaper, Economist, etc are
@VINEYARDSAKER
I found the link on Rogozin’s twitter page.
How are you able to contact all these people?
Would you be able to contact former ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul or any other personal in Pakistan?
This is an excellent website of US terrorism court cases and what some of them reveal which I have only checked a couple of them which give some good historical insight and information reading the court documents. Found good information in regards to Chechnya however you would have t know prior what individuals and organisations are involved like Babar Ahmad who was Basayeav’s webmaster but is categorised as Taliban affiliate as he is being charged with aiding Taliban against US force in Afghanistan in the US
http://www.investigativeproject.org/cases.php
@jack: How are you able to contact all these people?
In the past I used to be a military analyst with all sorts of good connections. Now that part of my life is long gone and I have no more special access to anything.
As for the website, I just took a short look at it’s description of Hezbollah and it parrots the propaganda about Hezbollah being a “terrorist group” which is utter nonsense. Maybe the rest of the info is better, but I would be careful with it.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Jack, that book on the South Ossetian war seems to be very, very interesting, thanks for sharing the link!
hi Saker, actually I wanted you to remove the very post that is still here. The two others were improved versions of that one. But don’t worry there was nothing new anyway.
alibi
@VINEYARDSAKER
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
The CIA since 79 has been working with Iranian intelligence to support Islamic terrorism internationally which has directly benefited the US.
Even Brzezinski acknowledges this in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard.
“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).
And Yes the Iranians do or at least did support Chechen terrorism.
Here is one article of them working with the Saudis out of Bosnia and Vienna.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm
There was also another where it details a meeting between Khattab, Basayeav, Hezbollah international head and Iranian intelligence in Somalia in 96 discussing spread of the jihad network after the 1st Chechen war.
Here is some Chechen connections including the Benevolence Foundation that Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers have worked through since the Bosnian war and financed there stay in the US who along with another Chechen-Saudi NGO features in connection to 9/11.
US v. Benevolence International Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/106
US v. Ahmad, Babar
(Basayeav and Khattabs major financier in Europe running, financed the Nord Ost Moscow theatre siege, Chechen jihadist websites and tried to set up a Chechen training camp in Oregon).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/107
US v. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/248
Phoenix Memo
(Famous 9/11 pre-warning memo with investigation and interview of Zakaria Mustapha Soubra who came from London to the US in 99 (London again!) who had photocopied pictures of Bin Ladin, Chechen warlord Khattab and dead Chechen fighters stuck on his living room wall).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/365
And there is probably other ones like the alleged 20th hijacker caught in the US prior to 9/11 who was a recruiters for French Algerians to fight in Chechnya which I haven’t checked yet.
@VINEYARDSAKER
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
The CIA since 79 has been working with Iranian intelligence to support Islamic terrorism internationally which has directly benefited the US.
Even Brzezinski acknowledges this in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard.
“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).
And Yes the Iranians do or at least did support Chechen terrorism.
Here is one article of them working with the Saudis out of Bosnia and Vienna.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm
There was also another where it details a meeting between Khattab, Basayeav, Hezbollah international head and Iranian intelligence in Somalia in 96 discussing spread of the jihad network after the 1st Chechen war.
Here is some Chechen connections including the Benevolence Foundation that Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers have worked through since the Bosnian war and financed there stay in the US who along with another Chechen-Saudi NGO features in connection to 9/11.
US v. Benevolence International Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/106
US v. Ahmad, Babar
(Basayeav and Khattabs major financier in Europe running, financed the Nord Ost Moscow theatre siege, Chechen jihadist websites and tried to set up a Chechen training camp in Oregon).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/107
US v. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/248
Phoenix Memo
(Famous 9/11 pre-warning memo with investigation and interview of Zakaria Mustapha Soubra who came from London to the US in 99 (London again!) who had photocopied pictures of Bin Ladin, Chechen warlord Khattab and dead Chechen fighters stuck on his living room wall).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/365
And there is probably other ones like the alleged 20th hijacker caught in the US prior to 9/11 who was a recruiters for French Algerians to fight in Chechnya which I haven’t checked yet.
@VINEYARDSAKER
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
The CIA since 79 has been working with Iranian intelligence to support Islamic terrorism internationally which has directly benefited the US.
Even Brzezinski acknowledges this in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard.
“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).
And Yes the Iranians do or at least did support Chechen terrorism.
Here is one article of them working with the Saudis out of Bosnia and Vienna.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm
There was also another where it details a meeting between Khattab, Basayeav, Hezbollah international head and Iranian intelligence in Somalia in 96 discussing spread of the jihad network after the 1st Chechen war.
Here is some Chechen connections including the Benevolence Foundation that Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers have worked through since the Bosnian war and financed there stay in the US who along with another Chechen-Saudi NGO features in connection to 9/11.
US v. Benevolence International Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/106
US v. Ahmad, Babar
(Basayeav and Khattabs major financier in Europe running, financed the Nord Ost Moscow theatre siege, Chechen jihadist websites and tried to set up a Chechen training camp in Oregon).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/107
US v. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/248
Phoenix Memo
(Famous 9/11 pre-warning memo with investigation and interview of Zakaria Mustapha Soubra who came from London to the US in 99 (London again!) who had photocopied pictures of Bin Ladin, Chechen warlord Khattab and dead Chechen fighters stuck on his living room wall).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/365
And there is probably other ones like the alleged 20th hijacker caught in the US prior to 9/11 who was a recruiters for French Algerians to fight in Chechnya which I haven’t checked yet.
Carlo: “Alibi, Russia hasn’t been selling weapons to Iran and Syria since Putin left the presidency”
Medvedev personally announced in Damask on May 11 that he just signet up a new arms deal with Syria the deal includes a shipment to Damask MIG29s anti aircraft systems Panzir-S1 unnamed helos and anti tank systems. The news was immediately criticised by Israeli’s foreign minister of course. It’s no secret that Damask would be not able to pay for the weapons, and it’s no secret that some of the weapons will make their way to Hezbollah /remember the war back in 2006/
As for S300 – the Russians just keep trading with the US tit for tat like they did before remember – the Caribbean crisis American missiles removed from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet missiles removed from Cuba. Funny but even now we’re still told that it was a striking win by the US and nobody cares to mention that in fact the US had to remove the missiles which had already been in service in Turkey and could reach Moscow within 10-20 min. The Russians were only in a process of setting theirs up. And yet it was a Kennedy’s triumph. So – now Russia holds back on S300 delivery and the US and Israel hold back on setting up the Georgian air defence. McCain fiercely lobbies supply of anti tank and anti aircraft systems to Georgia and I see no reason for the States or Israel not to provide Saakahsvilly with them except for one – S300 which coincidentally were due to be delivered in Iran in 2008 – 2010.
Looking back at what the Russians had to give away and what they received from the US in exchange I see more benefits then losses. War in Georgia went unpunished. Abkhazia has S300 in service since 2008 and a few Russian military bases bases in Ossetia, Ukraine is back, so is Kirgizstan, ABM in Poland put on hold, so is a radar in Czech Rep. The Russians still don’t let the American poultry in. Since the crisis started Putin put on hold WTO membership and imposed severe protective import duties which made the West cry bloody murder. I don’t know, I really don’t see big losses here.
I am not convinced that an attack on Iran will take place. This whole sabre rattling is to mask the invasion of Lebanon for it’s water. Greater Israel will be confined to the bin if new water source cannot be made available. The sabre rattling is to warn Iran to stay out of the conflict when the invasion occurs.
VINEYARDSAKER
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
The CIA since 79 has been working with Iranian intelligence to support Islamic terrorism internationally which has directly benefited the US.
Even Brzezinski acknowledges this in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard.
“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).
And Yes the Iranians do or at least did support Chechen terrorism.
Here is one article of them working with the Saudis out of Bosnia and Vienna.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm
There was also another where it details a meeting between Khattab, Basayeav, Hezbollah international head and Iranian intelligence in Somalia in 96 discussing spread of the jihad network after the 1st Chechen war.
Here is some Chechen connections including the Benevolence Foundation that Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers have worked through since the Bosnian war and financed there stay in the US who along with another Chechen-Saudi NGO features in connection to 9/11.
US v. Benevolence International Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/106
US v. Ahmad, Babar
(Basayeav and Khattabs major financier in Europe running, financed the Nord Ost Moscow theatre siege, Chechen jihadist websites and tried to set up a Chechen training camp in Oregon).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/107
US v. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/248
Phoenix Memo
(Famous 9/11 pre-warning memo with investigation and interview of Zakaria Mustapha Soubra who came from London to the US in 99 (London again!) who had photocopied pictures of Bin Ladin, Chechen warlord Khattab and dead Chechen fighters stuck on his living room wall).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/365
And there is probably other ones like the alleged 20th hijacker caught in the US prior to 9/11 who was a recruiters for French Algerians to fight in Chechnya which I haven’t checked yet.
@jack: Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
Under that criterion all of NATO is a terrorist organization. No, seriously, while I regret that Hezbollah and Iran did have some involvement in Bosnia on the side of the Bosnian-Muslim, I cannot blame them too much considering the quasi hysterical propaganda in the Muslim world about a “genocide” going on there and all the rest of the US-sponsored propaganda. Bottom line though – training the wrong side might be a mistake, but this is hardly terrorism.
As for the accusation of Wahabis and Iranian Shia working together in Chechnia or anywhere else, its utter nonsense. It is at least as silly to claim that there is this Wahabi-Shia alliance as it is to claim that there is a “Christian” alliance of Protestants, Papists and Orthodox Christians acting together in some modern ‘crusade’ – it makes for tasty propaganda, but it is nonsense.
Only Tel-Aviv and Washington are interested in perpetuating the myth that Wahabi terrorists (which are real) are somehow covertly allied with Iran and Hezbollah. The reality is that the Wahabis absolutely HATE the Shia and that the Shia in Iran and Lebanon are fully aware of that and consider the Wahabis as crazed lunatics (which they are, of course). As for the Chechens, their brand of “Islam” is so full of neo-pagan influences and customs that it really belongs into a category by itself.
Can you name me ONE SINGLE TERRORIST ACTION committed by Hezbollah in the last 20 years. Because to make that accusation stick, you will need facts. And please, do not mention the destruction of US Marine barracks in Beirut (which, by the way, was a legitimate target and which was executed before Hezbollah was even created) or the bombing in Buenos-Aires as that myth has already been dubunked (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/01/hezbollah-didnt-do-argentine-bombing.html). As for the Khobar Towers (another legitimate target, I would add), there is exactly ZERO proof of anybody involvement.
So, can you substantiate the “terrorist” label for Hezbollah?
Calling Hizbollah terrorists is nonsense. They are a national liberation movement that have succeeded in freeing Lebanon from Israel tyranny. That doesn’t mean you have to support their political philosophy or the branch of Islam it is based on.
It would be incredibly sectarian to refuse to support the resistance because you don’t agree with their politics. This is the mistake so much of the left makes about Lebanon Palestine Iraq and Afghanistan. The resistance aren’t liberals therefore they feel they should support the Empires “civilising mission.”
Interestingly Israel supported Serbia in the Yugoslav wars presumably because their enemies were neofascist Croats and Islamists.
robert
Carlo: “Alibi, Russia hasn’t been selling weapons to Iran and Syria since Putin left the presidency”
I keep struggling with the system here, the answer to you that I had posted seems to get lost somewhere. Hope it will find it’s way around and to avoid repeating myself I just want to let you know that back on May 11 Medvedev announced an arms deal with Damask which includes supply of MIG29s anti air craft system Panzir, unnamed choppers and anti tank systems. The deal has already been condemned by the Israelis foreign minister.
alibi
@VINEYARDSAKER
Hezbollah and Iran were also involved in kidnappings in Lebanon and Iranian intelligence and Hezbollah were involved in the Embassy bombing in Beirut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAjTIZ0vvaY
Iran worked with the Saudis and every other Islamic group in Afghanistan during the 80’s.
And the idea that Iran and Hezbollah was pressured to assist Bosnian Muslims is debunked by the fact that Iran started training Bosnian Muslims in the 1980’s.
Boudansky’s work on the on terrorism research in the Balkans is flawless which he cites people in various intelligence agencies and documents seized in counter terrorism operations and even exposes there links to western intelligence.
He was reporting on this when the international community and mass media where in anti-Serb hysteria.
http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Balkan/Balkanindex.htm
If you don’t believe him then the US own declassified 98 DEA report regarding OBL, Russia and WMD at the request of Judicial Watch using the freedom of information act on page 5 section 10 notes that Iranians fighters are among the instructors taught to carry out operations in Russia.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/102/dia.pdf
@Anonymous
JINSA and all the other major Jewish organisations like ADL which is an Israeli intelligence front supported war against Serbia
@jack: First, you are referring to events which took place before the creation of Hezbollah. The only way to ‘pin’ these attacks on Hezbollah is to conflate it with organizations such as Islamic Jihad. Second, I remind you that the attacks you are referring to occurred during the invasion of Lebanon by Israel with the military support of the USA. The targets of the attacks by the Islamic Jihad (embassies and military compounds) were fully legitimate targets. A better case against Hezbollah might have been to blame them for TWA 847 or the Western hostages, except that in the hostages case other Shia organizations were also involved (Amal, Islamic Jihad) and that there never has been any proof of Hezbollah’s involvement. Far more relevantly, you ignored my question which specifically said Can you name me ONE SINGLE TERRORIST ACTION committed by Hezbollah in the last 20 years. – in other words between 1990 and 2010. There are pleny of good reasons for this timeframe
a) the leadership of Hezbollah changed in 1992 after the assassination of Abbas al-Musawi
b) 20 years is universally accepted as a “prescription period”.
c) Hezbollah is probably the ONLY major actor in the Middle-East which has not committed any action which could be described as “terrorist” in 20 years.
As for the Bosnian topic, let me add this: if your brother does something stupid and ends up in fight, you will still help him simply because he is your brother. In the case of Bosnia, it is quite obvious that the US propaganda grossly mis-represented the causes of the war and the reality of it. Nontheless, the Bosnian Muslims did suffer from this war and I do not the very modest amount of help given by Iran or Hezbollah (assuming the latter ever had anything to do with this war, which I do not believe is true) as a cause for labeling them as “terrorists”. I personally know Russian officers who joined the fight on the Serbian side even though they knew full well that the Serbs had a good share of responsibility in what happened in Bosnia, yet nobody says that Russia is a ‘terrorist country’ just because it helped the Serbs! Lastly, God knows I am not a supporter of the Bosnian Muslims or their leaders, but this was a WAR. To speak of “terrorism” in the context of a war is just not serious. Not in the Lebanon of the 1980s or the Bosnia of the 1990s.
Anti-Serbian hysteria – which I had to fight against on this blog on more than one occasion – is no worse than anti-Muslim hysteria. The Muslim word out there is every bit as complex and diverse as the so-called ‘Christian’ one (I would call it ‘post-Christian’ or ‘ex-Christian’) and Muslims are just as human as non-Muslims. I would agree that helping Itzebegovich and his mix of crooks and fanatics was one bad decision. But a bad decision is not something which can be equated with terrorism.
So let me repeat my question to you:
Can you name me a single action by Hezbollah in the last 20 years which would constitute a terrorist action like, say, what the Chechens did in Budennvsk?
This, by the way, is even more true for Iran. Iran did commit clearly terrorist actions in the early days following the Islamic Revolution. But there too, the leadership changed. Can you name a single terrorist act attributable to Iran since Ali Khamenei was elected as the Supreme Leader?
@Jack,VINEYARDSAKER:
Why not leave the term ‘terrorist’ out of the discussion? It is a loaded, relativistic and zionist-inspired term whose application depends on the politics of the one using it. If you take the Serb side in the Bosnian war, what Hezbullah allegedly did to help the Bosnians is called “terrorist”. Anti-imperialists will call NATO and the US “terrorist” at every turn. All active resistance to the Empire is designated as “terrorist”:
==================
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
==================
How does training guerrillas count as “terrorism”? If they sent guerrillas to train the Abkhazian separatists from Georgia, would you still consider them terrorists?
This is no different from the Mujaahideen/Jihaadi distinctions. Fight Soviet imperialism => Mujahideen (honorific). Fight American Imperialism => Jihadi (pejorative).
==============
Iran worked with the Saudis and every other Islamic group in Afghanistan during the 80’s.
==============
Simplistic to the extreme. In the US, both the NRA and other right-wing groups, along with progressive groups, have teamed up to fight in the coming war to save net neutrality. So 10 years from now we’ll say, “So-and-so progressives are bad because they worked with the NRA once”. In the broad picture, no two countries could be as ideologically polar opposites as Saudi Arabia and Iran. I detect the usual left-wing anti-Iranian propaganda here, which is as sophistical as Glenn Beck’s — more so, because the left is supposed to be actually “intellectual”!
As importance as ideological clarity is when making analyses, it often gives way to looking at the world in terms that are so binary and reductionist that the dragon will eat its own tail till there is nothing left. Hence the tendency of arm-chair socialists to splice ever increasing pejorative “-isms” and “-ites” in their mutual infighting….
Anyway, I promised Saker I would no longer comment on the pro-Serbian bias of the discussions here — “take the bitter with the sweet” — otherwise there is so much more to say :-)
On the other hand, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was no less a form of imperialism than the US invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Muslim world at least, the anti-imperialist movement has always recognized the evil of both East and West varieties of imperialism: Both are manifestations of post-Enlightenment European arrogance and materialism.
@Jack,VINEYARDSAKER:
Why not leave the term ‘terrorist’ out of the discussion? It is a loaded, relativistic and zionist-inspired term whose application depends on the politics of the one using it. If you take the Serb side in the Bosnian war, what Hezbullah allegedly did to help the Bosnians is called “terrorist”. Anti-imperialists will call NATO and the US “terrorist” at every turn. All active resistance to the Empire is designated as “terrorist”:
==================
Hezbollah is definitely a terrorist organisation as its instructors were drafted into Bosnia in 92 to start training Muslim guerrillas.
==================
How does training guerrillas count as “terrorism”? If they sent guerrillas to train the Abkhazian separatists from Georgia, would you still consider them terrorists?
This is no different from the Mujaahideen/Jihaadi distinctions. Fight Soviet imperialism => Mujahideen (honorific). Fight American Imperialism => Jihadi (pejorative).
[contd]
==============
Iran worked with the Saudis and every other Islamic group in Afghanistan during the 80’s.
==============
Simplistic to the extreme. In the US, both the NRA and other right-wing groups, along with progressive groups, have teamed up to fight in the coming war to save net neutrality. So 10 years from now we’ll say, “So-and-so progressives are bad because they worked with the NRA once”. In the broad picture, no two countries could be as ideologically polar opposites as Saudi Arabia and Iran. I detect the usual left-wing anti-Iranian propaganda here, which is as sophistical as Glenn Beck’s — more so, because the left is supposed to be actually “intellectual”!
As importance as ideological clarity is when making analyses, it often gives way to looking at the world in terms that are so binary and reductionist that the dragon will eat its own tail till there is nothing left. Hence the tendency of arm-chair socialists to splice ever increasing pejorative “-isms” and “-ites” in their mutual infighting….
Anyway, I promised Saker I would no longer comment on the pro-Serbian bias of the discussions here — “take the bitter with the sweet” — otherwise there is so much more to say :-)
On the other hand, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was no less a form of imperialism than the US invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Muslim world at least, the anti-imperialist movement has always recognized the evil of both East and West varieties of imperialism: Both are manifestations of post-Enlightenment European arrogance and materialism.
@ishamid: Why not leave the term ‘terrorist’ out of the discussion? It is a loaded, relativistic and zionist-inspired term whose application depends on the politics of the one using it.
This is a good intention, but it is also fraught with a real risk: blurring the lines between fundamentally different groups. There is simply no way I can stick the Chechen insurgents and Hezbollah into the same conceptual category. The second problem is that the Zionists use the label ‘terrorist’ on Hezbollah to prevent people from thinking about it in rational, fact based terms. The reality is, of course, that Hezbollah is far from being a terrorist organization and it has proved that many times over. Compare the treatment which Hezbollah has given to the (guilty) Haddad militia in South Lebenon to how the Chechen insurgents treated the (innocent) Russian population of Chechnia. IF you absolutely want to say away from the term ‘terrorist’ (which is fine by me), then I would say that Hezbollah’s record on respecting basic norms of human rights, international law, law of war, civil right and the like is exemplary. Or let’s put it this way: does Hezbollah deliberately kill innocent bystanders? One might argue that the missiles shot as Israel were a warcrime, but a closer inspection of this event will show that Hezbollah was trying as best it could to shoot at what NATO calls “support infrastructure” and not at civilian centers. But hey – Katiusha’s are not accurate weapons. Let’s make sure Hezbollah gets several brigades of Isander-M for the next war and I am sure that they targeting will be impeccable.
Fight Soviet imperialism => Mujahideen (honorific). Fight American Imperialism => Jihadi (pejorative).
Its not the enemy which matters, but the fighting methods. So on
Afghanistan I would say this: the Soviets had not more business being there than the USA and in both cases the Afghans are in their right defending their country. Alas, the record of ALL Afghan factions shows a total disregard for any norms of civilized behavior with systematic massacres committed by all sides. So I would say that yes, they were freedom fighters then as they are freedom fighters now, but they are also ruthless and utterly immoral thugs in their methods.
Anyway, I promised Saker I would no longer comment on the pro-Serbian bias of the discussions here
Frankly, and respectfully, what I see is not so much a pro-Serbian bias (at least on my part) as a pro-Muslim bias on your part. You always end up siding with the Muslims against non-Muslims, no matter what the conflict is. Even a cursory look at my blog will show you that I am not anti-Muslim in the least. I even recently had a reader write to me telling me how proud he was to see that Arabs could have a blog like mine. I had to disillusion him about my ethnicity (he was very graceful and thankful when he learned that I was neither a Muslim nor an Arab).
I still am reeling at your excuses for the atrocities committed by the Chechens (result from oppression, in your words). I can only suppose that you have never seen the videos of what the Chechen insurgent did…
As for the Wahabis, or what the Western propaganda refers to as “Jihadis”, they are every bit as bad as the worst of the US propaganda paints them to be, if not worse. And they have a long record of being so, which I am sure you must be aware of. Just remember the Wahabi horrors in Karbala in 1802! Were those Muwahiddun not the spiritual ancestors of the Chechen thugs a la Basaev or Hattab?!
The pro-Serbian bias you see here is only a refusal to paint the war in Bosnia in black and white, good guys – bad guys, terms. I sincerely wish you would see my approach to this for what it is, and not just dismiss it as a pro-Serbian (or pro-anything) bias. I care about the truth, not about any one party.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
==================
You always end up siding with the Muslims against non-Muslims, no matter what the conflict is.
==================
!!! Come on, Saker, you should know me better than that by now. But I’ll let that slide ;-)
One example, for the record: The American government had every right to hunt down the 9/11 attackers — I don’t believe the conspiracy theories –, try them, and execute them. It does not matter that they were Muslim. When one beats a dog and it goes feral, one still has to put down the dog, as well as hold responsible the one who beat the dog.
That’s nuance, not “always siding with the Muslims” :-)
===================
I still am reeling at your excuses for the atrocities committed by the Chechens (result from oppression, in your words).
===================
You’re making it hard to keep my word here, but the sociology of oppression is always important to keep in mind when judging any conflict. I’m biting my tongue and will keep my word…
===================
As for the Wahabis, or what the Western propaganda refers to as “Jihadis”,
===================
I was talking about the Afghan insurgents and their genuine supporters, not the brainless Wahhabi zombies…
Most respectfully, I would dare say I’m much more familiar with the evils of Wahhabi extremism than you give me credit for, I’ve dealt with this my entire life… not sure why you brought them up in this context: did I say something just now to make you think I support that nonsense?
Even the Taliban ideology I despise. I’ve written critically within the Muslim anti-imperialist community on the lack of clarity on the part of many Muslims about the Taliban’s reactionary ideology: They are not an Islamic movement like Hamas or Hezbullah, but a traditionalist tribal one with a religious veneer.
On the other hand, they are the natives of their own land, and it’s their right to resist foreign occupation. So as much as I despise their ideology and methodology I reject the label of “jihadi” applied to them and other resisters per se.
===================
The pro-Serbian bias you see here is only a refusal to paint the war in Bosnia in black and white
===================
Well, your last post on the issue was by a virulent anti-Islam racist … but I will not get into that argument with you again :-)
Peace
[contd]
===================
As for the Wahabis, or what the Western propaganda refers to as “Jihadis”,
===================
I was talking about the Afghan insurgents and their genuine supporters, not the brainless Wahhabi zombies…
Most respectfully, I would dare say I’m much more familiar with the evils of Wahhabi extremism than you give me credit for, I’ve dealt with this my entire life… not sure why you brought them up in this context: did I say something just now to make you think I support that nonsense?
Even the Taliban ideology I despise. I’ve written critically within the Muslim anti-imperialist community on the lack of clarity on the part of many Muslims about the Taliban’s reactionary ideology: They are not an Islamic movement like Hamas or Hezbullah, but a traditionalist tribal one with a religious veneer.
On the other hand, they are the natives of their own land, and it’s their right to resist foreign occupation. So as much as I despise their ideology and methodology I reject the label of “jihadi” applied to them and other resisters per se.
===================
The pro-Serbian bias you see here is only a refusal to paint the war in Bosnia in black and white
===================
Well, your last post on the issue was by a virulent anti-Islam racist … but I will not get into that argument with you again :-)
Peace
@Ishamid: One example, for the record: The American government had every right to hunt down the 9/11 attackers — I don’t believe the conspiracy theories –,
Of course you do! You believe that a small group of guys who liked to drink, party and fornicate, took box cutters on the orders of OBL and hijacked 4 planes, TWO of which succeeded in bringing down THREE New York buildings in free fall acceleration exactly into their footprint. You also believe that steel buildings can melt and collapse from a fire in less than one hour. You believe that these planes were flown at speeds which exceed their maximum structural capability by pilots who could not even fly a Cessna properly. And you even believe that the fact that most of the so-called hijackers had residences on US military basis or apartments rented by the FBI or visa delivered by special orders “from above” against the decision of the local consular section in Riyadh does not in the least show a connection to US “deep government” interests. Sure sounds like a conspiracy theory to me ;-)
That’s nuance, not “always siding with the Muslims” :-)
Nope, that is the politically correct position to take in the USA. IF, and I repeat, *IF* the official government conspiracy theory in which you believe was true, then you would have to accept that this is a clear case of blowback for US imperialism and oppression, that OBL did warn the USA about taking action, that al-Qaeda killed far less Americans than the number of Muslims the USA killed (and is still killing!) world wide. You would then see a clear case of “reaction to oppression” and not speak of “dogs” but of shahids how gave their lifes in resistance against the oppressors of the Umma ;-)
There are something like 1,6 billion Muslims in the world, many of which have, or still are, engaged in various conflicts, but you single out 19 pasties designated by the US deep state as the perpetrators of 911 as a proof that you are not systematically supporting Muslims against non-Muslims. I don’t believe that you can even convince yourself with this example.
You’re making it hard to keep my word here, but the sociology of oppression is always important to keep in mind when judging any conflict. I’m biting my tongue and will keep my word…
Your word, which I never demanded from you, referred to Bosnia, not Chechnia. What baffles me is that you still speak about the “sociology of oppression” about Chechnia, but not about OBL and what the CIA used to call “al-Qaeda”. Granted, both the Chechen insurgents and the Afghan “freedom fighters” were awash in Saudi money and US weapons and had the full support of the US Empire, just like the Bosian Muslims, I would add, but still – if you study the history of Chechnia after (not before!!) Stalin’s death you will find far LESS oppression than in most (nominally) Muslim countries today.
“Deux poids, deux mesures” as the French say.
I would dare say I’m much more familiar with the evils of Wahhabi extremism than you give me credit for
I am quite sure of it, what I am trying to do here is to make you act on this awareness
did I say something just now to make you think I support that nonsense?
Not the ideology – no. But you still end up siding with those who truly beyond any form of excuse (the Chechens) or buying into a a black and white “good guys bad guys” narrative about Bosnia which grossly oversimplifies a complex conflict with very few “good guys” (besides the innocent victims of the thugs on all sides).
@ishamid: continued:
your last post on the issue was by a virulent anti-Islam racist
MY post?! No, you are probably referring to Jack’s comment. First, Jack could point the finger at you and accuse you of anti-Serbian racism. Second, I do not censor comments here and I publish plenty of comments with which I do not agree. You might notice that I did not agree with Jack’s view of Hezbollah AND, that I did so *without* accusing Jack of being an anti-Lebanese or anti-Shia or anti-Iranian racist.
Please do not take offense at my remarks here. They are offered in a spirit of sincere friendship in which sometimes it is important to bluntly point out a disagreement. I honestly disagreed with Jack (on some points) and I honestly disagree with you (on some points). But most fundamentally, I disagree with BOTH of you because BOTH of you see “Muslim” as a normative category. For Jack – Muslims are bad, for you – they are good. This is, of course, a caricature of your points since both you and Jack are very well read and sophisticated observers, but that is not an unfair characterization of your bottom lines.
The other irony is that both you and Jack are voicing what are essentially two different aspects of the US propaganda. Jack – the one about Islamic terrorism and you about anti-Islamic oppression. You even both apply it to the same conflict (Bosnia) at the same time. This can sound crazy, but it is no more crazy that how the USA used to describe the very same people as “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” depending not even on the time frame, but on the audience. What I wish both of you did is BREAK OUT of the US narrative and look at these conflicts (Bosnia, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.) not through the prism of the categories which the Establishment is defining for you, but with your own, unprejudiced, look. I for one thing believe that in a rational world, Bosnian Serbs and Hezbollah should have been allies just as I believe that Russia and Iran would greatly benefit from a common position (with China, and the ALBA countries, of course). But that is what the Empire wants to avoid at all cost and, to my great regret, they have prevailed so far.
Peace to you to, my friend,
The Saker
==============
Of course you do! You believe that
==============
In logic there is a rule: Belief in a proposition does NOT entail belief in each and every implication of that proposition. Confusing the relation of implication with the act of belief is a very common fallacy.
===============
Nope, that is the politically correct position to take in the USA.
===============
That’s not the case. The right to try and execute a murderer — with all the due process attached to that — has NOTHING to do with how the US has behaved since 9/11, raping and pillaging its way through Afghanistan and Iraq. The US used few legal mechanisms — domestic or international — to pursue its case. Rather, it behaved in an extra-judicial, extra-territorial manner.
It is the justification of the latter that is the politically correct position in the US.
=================
You would then see a clear case of “reaction to oppression” and not speak of “dogs” but of shahids how gave their lifes in resistance against the oppressors of the Umma ;-)
=================
You really like to caricature me, don’t you?
I’m sure you’ll ignore this but I’ll give one more example: Some Native American tribes in the West were excoriated for the frightening practice of “scalping” their enemies. We can condemn scalping, but at the same time note that
i) the Native Americans were subject to oppression and genocide
ii) the White Man actually started the practice of scalping, and the Indians responded in kind.
Whatever excesses the Indians committed in their liberation struggle can be condemned, but it does not follow that they had no right to resist. Today, the Dakota Indians have some of the highest rates of alcoholism and domestic abuse; this is a result of the severe oppression they have suffered and continue to suffer. That does not mean that you don’t arrest a Native American drunk driver.
In South Africa, a century of oppression and dehumanization has created a dysfunctional society that has left SA the most violent country in the world that is not at war. When an African man rapes and murders a woman, he should be severely punished, but his act in the context of the extreme violence in SA on the part of the majority Blacks does not in any way delegitimize the anti-apartheid struggle.
[contd]
================
What baffles me is that you still speak about the “sociology of oppression” about Chechnia, but not about OBL and what the CIA used to call “al-Qaeda”.
================
Sociology is at work in both cases, I’m missing your point.
================
if you study the history of Chechnia after (not before!!) Stalin’s death you will find far LESS oppression than in most (nominally) Muslim countries today.
================
Saker, that’s not worthy of you :-) This is like telling African Americans that the pre-civil-rights era of their history is irrelevant to their current situation. There are many psychoses of the African American situation that cannot be understood in isolation; the history of slavery, racism, and institutional prejudice is still very much relevant, despite the presence of a co-opted “Black man” in the “White House”.
==================
But you still end up siding with those who truly beyond any form of excuse (the Chechens)
==================
Liberation struggle in principle, yes. Gangsterism, no.
==================
or buying into a a black and white “good guys bad guys” narrative about Bosnia which grossly oversimplifies a complex conflict with very few “good guys” (besides the innocent victims of the thugs on all sides).
==================
Virtually all conflicts are complex. But I hold that you tend to equate the two sides of the conflict in a way that smacks of Western-media relativism. There is simply no comparison between the degree of Serb-Croat gangsterism and thuggery in the Bosnian war compared to the other side, and it has nothing to do with “Muslim” or “Christian”.
[contd]
=====================
MY post?! No, you are probably referring to Jack’s comment.
=====================
No I’m referring to something you posted a few weeks back by a known Islam-hating bigot trying to whitewash Srebrenica…
I made no reference to Jack at all!
=====================
BOTH of you see “Muslim” as a normative category.
=====================
Well, I think I know my own beliefs, and I can be very clear in stating that this is simply NOT the case. I even wrote a book whose basic premise is that “Muslim” is NOT a normative category ;-)
====================
US propaganda. … you about anti-Islamic oppression.
====================
Nice try, Saker, but no cigar!
:-)
If two people with different ideologies happen to hold the same view on a particular proposition — which I don’t hold to be the case here — it does not mean that one is voicing the other. That’s ad hominem…
Muslims who live under oppression don’t need the US media or the Left to identify their oppression for them. Sometimes the the US media will paint the anti-imperialists’ points about Muslim propaganda as “Leftist propaganda” as well. Only the truth really matters. I certainly don’t need the US media or the Left telling me if and when Muslims, or any of the oppressed peoples of the world for that matter, are oppressed.
==================
Please do not take offense at my remarks here. They are offered in a spirit of sincere friendship in which sometimes it is important to bluntly point out a disagreement.
==================
That goes both ways and
Peace
@ishamid: Belief in a proposition does NOT entail belief in each and every implication of that proposition.
Well, I was pulling your leg a little but, seriously, if by ‘implication’ we accept A=>B then you are going to be compelled to accept the key elements of the official thesis about 911.
You really like to caricature me, don’t you?
Not in the least. I am saying that you are calling ‘dogs’ people which many other Muslims would call “witnesses”.
Whatever excesses the Indians committed in their liberation struggle can be condemned, but it does not follow that they had no right to resist.
Here we fully agree. The Chechens have always resisted the Russians and the Russians have no legitimate claim to at least the mountainous parts of Chechnia (the plains is more complex as most cities there were founded by Cossacks). Likewise, the Soviets had no right to enter Afghanistan. However, in the Chechen case their so-called “resistance” turned into such a mass butchery that frankly only the ignorant can find words to defend them. From their systematic use of torture of kidnapped people, to their open-air slave markets, to their zindans in which they kept hostages for years, none of that has any precedent in the history of national liberation movements and the Native Americans most definitely did not act in this manner. Not only that, but when they got their independence they attacked Daghestan. No, the Chechens really really really had it coming and the Russians did mankind a service by hunting down and killing every one of their leaders ALL of which were soaked in innocent blood up to their necks. Again, I can only suppose that you are quite unaware of the degree of bestiality the Chechen insurgents showed.
Sociology is at work in both cases, I’m missing your point.
My point is that if sociology can be used to excuse the Chechens, I don’t see why it cannot be used to exculpate the putative 911 hijackers. Frankly, sociology can be used to excuse, exculpate, explain, or ‘understand’ pretty much any kind of mass murder, thuggery, genocide or other vile act. That is EXACTLY what the Israelis are doing today: we kill Palestinians because of the “Holocaust”….
This is like telling African Americans that the pre-civil-rights era of their history is irrelevant to their current situation.
Nope. this is like saying that modern Native Americans do to engage in mass atrocities because of what their fathers suffered. By that logic since most Bolsheviks were Jews and since most victims of Communism in Russia were Russians, Russians would be excused today for murdered thousands of Russian Jews.
I would also stress here that revenge against a group accused for the action of their fathers is profoundly anti-religious. God tells us to see people as INDIVIDUALS, not groups.
There is simply no comparison between the degree of Serb-Croat gangsterism and thuggery in the Bosnian war compared to the other side
This is something which I fundamentally disagree with.
PS:
=================
What I wish both of you did is BREAK OUT of the US narrative and look at these conflicts (Bosnia, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.) not through the prism of the categories which the Establishment is defining for you, but with your own, unprejudiced, look.
=================
My view of Bosnia and Chechnya has nothing to do with the Establishment, and my own reconstruction of the “narrative” in each case has always been based on alternative media sources. Disagreeing with you does not mean believing in the US narrative! If look back at my first discussions with you way back when on the Bosnia issue you will see that it is very much at variance with both yours and the Euro-American narrative.
So I respectfully ask you to disagree with my opinions without caricaturing them as a product of the US-media or mere pro-Muslim prejudice.
:-)
Peace
@Ishamid:
No I’m referring to something you posted a few weeks back by a known Islam-hating bigot trying to whitewash Srebrenica…
I made no reference to Jack at all!
WOW. I had no idea. Ok, you are either talking about this:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2010/07/genocide-myth-uses-and-abuses-of.html
or that:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-happened-at-srebrenica-examination.html
In both cases these are well researched and argued articles. The authors might be wrong about their facts or conclusions, but they are presenting their research just as any other historian would. You simply label them as “racists” (this is exactly how some Jews call ‘racist’ anybody who dares to disagree with the official narrative about the “Holocaust”). And then YOU complain about ad hominem?!
Whether you agree with this or not, the exact nature of what happened in Srebrenica is an extremely important topic of historical investigation and, I would add, no “One Truth” about it has been established by a long shot. In fact, the official narrative is so full of glaring holes that it bears much more research. While I am not a historian, I can tell you that I am personally aware for a fact that
a) a very large number of Muslim men left Srebrenica before the Serbs entered it and that these retreating COMBAT units were attacked by Serbian forces. This is similar to what happened in Grozny when the Russian forces left a corridor open and tricked the Chechen insurgents to use to escape Grozny. In reality the corridor was mined, and artillery spotters had carefully prepared their fire. When the insurgents entered it they got blown into pieces (that is were Basaev lost his leg). This was no “genocide” – this was a case of military deception followed by the destruction of a fighting force.
Muslims who live under oppression don’t need the US media or the Left to identify their oppression for them.
That is quite true about their own oppression. But that is, alas, no true when applied to the putative repression of faraway Muslims about which the only sources of information are Saudi and US media outlets and PR firms.
@ishamod: continued:
b) I also know for a fact that at least the following cases of “Serb atrocities” are false:
1) the Markale bombing which was not a Serb mortar but a flase-flag operation. The UN investigated this one and when it came to the “wrong” conclusion the report was classified.
2) the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo which was staged for the media. The EU investigated this one and when it came to the “wrong” conclusion the report was classified.
Now I ask you – how many of the 1,6 billion Muslims out there can make up their own mind about these events considering that so much effort goes into concealing the real nature of the two events which triggered the UN entry into the war in Bosnia and Kosovo?
Or remember the Timisoara “massacre” under Ceausescu? How that was used to overthrow him even though there was no massacre at all? Or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Or Saddam’s WMD?
All lies. And that does NOT mean that Ceausescu or Saddam were nice people, or that masses did not suffer under their rule. But it shows that not everything imputed to otherwise atrocity-prone leaders or regimes is true. And to question and investigate such claims is not only legitimate, it is necessary.
===============
you are going to be compelled
===============
Belief simply can’t be compelled ;-) and there is just not enough time to spare to debate every issue. I’m staying out of the 9/11 conspiracy-theory debates for now
===============
I am saying that you are calling ‘dogs’ people which many other Muslims would call “witnesses”.
===============
?!? I did not call anyone a dog, I was making an analogy.
===================
My point is that if sociology can be used to excuse the Chechens, I don’t see why it cannot be used to exculpate the putative 911 hijackers.
===================
Not to excuse, but to give context in the interests of a complete analysis. The same goes for the 9/11 hijackers.
===============
By that logic since most Bolsheviks were Jews and since most victims of Communism in Russia were Russians, Russians would be excused today for murdered thousands of Russian Jews.
===============
You keep using the word ‘excuse’ in a way to continually evade the sociological point I have been making…
My father used to joke, “Sociology is the science of making excuses for people”, making the point that it’s very easy to conflate the identification of sociological context with the excusing of bad behavior. These two MUST be distinguished. Missing this distinction results in the continued straw-man arguments with which you respond to me.
I’ve said over and over again that bad behavior must be punished, regardless of the sociological context, but that the sociological context cannot be ignored if one wants to understand and/or alleviate the causes of bad behavior.
==============
God tells us to see people as INDIVIDUALS, not groups.
==============
That is a half-truth but I will not go off on that tangent at the moment :-)
Ok, my friend, I’m done with this topic for now, and I leave you in
Peace
================
You simply label them as “racists”
================
Not “them”, one in particular:
Srđa Trifković is a well-known anti-Muslim racist. I am not “labelling” him; he wears his anti-Muslim prejudice on his sleeve; just read his other writings and videos. If he were not supporting pro-Serbian propaganda, I’m sure you would call him out for his obvious racism as well.
For all your points about the brutality of the Chechens, you seem to wear blinders when it comes to the self-styled Chetniks. Whether this or that incident happened this or that way is not the point; whether 600,000 or 6.000,000 million Jews perished in the Holocaust is not the point. The list of Serbian crimes against the Muslim population of Bosnia is too long and too well documented to sweep under the rug because of disagreement on certain details.
You keep comparing my arguments to zionist ones. Ok, but then I must respectfully say that your belittling of Serbian butchery in Bosnia is little different than the slick ways zionists create disputes about local details in order to evade the global issue.
Ok, I’ve now broken my word and will stop here, wishing you all
Peace
Left perspective on Yugoslavia
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/02/resisting-demonological-temptation.html
Most of the left by the way supported the intervention against Serbia at the time. Kosovo is still seen as the good war that paved the way for Iraq.
@ishamid: then I must respectfully say that your belittling of Serbian butchery in Bosnia is little different than the slick ways zionists create disputes about local details in order to evade the global issue.
Zionists are opposed to any historical investigation. You cannot research the conditions of the founding of Israel, you cannot research who started the various wars opposing Israel to the Arab world, you cannot research the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, you cannot research the Holocaust, you cannot research the pogroms in the Ukraine, you cannot research the sinking of the USS Liberty, you cannot research 9/11, you cannot research the attack on the Mavi Marmara, etc. etc. etc. And if you dare research it, you are either an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.
I let you judge of who of you and I is opposed to investigating the events in Srebrenica.
As for Trifcovic, he is no more anti-Muslim than 99.99999% of Muslims are anti-Serbian. That is to say that I agree with you that his stance is one of total hostility towards Islam (I read his books and even corresponded with him for a while) but I say that he is no less ideological about Islam that most Muslims are ideological about Bosnia.
I would conclude by adding that for somebody so prone to sociological examinations I am amazed at the utter absence of any such investigations on your part of the history of the Bosnian Serbs. Let me ask you this then – if the anti-Chechen terror under Stalin is relevant to modern Chechen attitudes, why is the abominable horrors suffered by the Bosnian Serbs at the hand of the Ottomans and, later, Ustashe, not relevant to the attitudes of Bosnian Serbs?
Deux poids, deux mesures again?
Well the Bosnian Serbs committed more atrocities than the Bosniaks or Croats but that could just be because they had a stronger better armed military. Atrocities were committed by all sides. Also nobody has explained why, if Slovenia Croatia and Bosnia were entitled to secede from Yugoslavia, the Bosnian Serbs weren’t entitled to secede from Bosnia. If the argument is about ethnic cleansing why was nothing done about the ethnic cleansing of Krajina by Tudjman’s fascists? If the internal borders of the Yugoslav republics are sacred why is Kosovo allowed to secede from Serbia? There is no consistency, legal or moral in what was done to Yugoslavia none that is except a consistent bias against the Serbs.
Again that does NOT mean that the Serbs didn’t commit atrocities nor does it make Milosevic a good guy. There were no good guys in the destruction of Yugoslavia.
@anonymous: There were no good guys in the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Except the innocent victims on ALL sides, including the Bosnian-Serbs who not only were opposed by Croats, Muslims, NATO and most of the world, but who even were betrayed and embargoed by Federal Yugoslavia under the Milosevic regime. And when their weapons were collected by the UN and their defense supposedly secured by the UN and, in the last instance, the Federal Army brigades in Bosnia, Milosevic ordered his brigades to retreat without doing anything when the Croats and NATO attacked the UNPAs and then Bosnia itself.
But hey – it appears that some victims are more equal then others and that nobody gives a damn about the plight of the Bosnian Serbs yesterday, today or tomorrow for that matter. This is an ethic groups which everybody just wants to vanish other than as an object of hatred and revulsion.
Not me. I will never forget what I know and I will never cease to speak up.
================
if the anti-Chechen terror under Stalin is relevant to modern Chechen attitudes, why is the abominable horrors suffered by the Bosnian Serbs at the hand of the Ottomans and, later, Ustashe, not relevant to the attitudes of Bosnian Serbs?
================
I never said it’s not relevant at all, but let’s take the bait:
1) Because the Serbs and Bosniaks are ethnically identical dna-wise and otherwise: Bosniaks are not Turks
2) Because Serbs were the rulers and the majority, not the underdogs. Yugoslavia was theirs and they were in the driver’s seat. The power was in their hands;
3) Because the Ottoman role goes much further back than Stalin’s pogroms, and belongs to another age. I know relatively young people whose grandparents were killed by Stalin.
4) Few Muslims were involved with the Ustaše, and not as Muslims but as Croats, exaggerations by some Bosnian Serbs to the contrary to justify their own madness notwithstanding (like the zionists and the Mufti of Jerusalem canard)
5) Even granting the sociological relevance, the Serbs deserved their defeat just as much as the Chechens deserved theirs, by your own logic. You talk about slave markets in Grozny, but never a word on the mass and systematic rape of thousands of Bosnian women, forcing them to have “Chetnik” children, and so much else.
And don’t say: “But there was rape on all sides!” or “US propaganda!” The systematic rape of Bosnian women by the Serbs is not a figment of US propaganda. The abandoned rape-babies in orphanages, many now grown, are not a figment of Bosnian or Muslim imagination. The overwhelming asymmetry of the numbers of innocent Bosnian Muslim to innocent Serb victims of the war is not imaginary.
War is Hell, and victims on all sides there are, but the systematic and officially sanctioned savagery of the Bosnian Serbs is not propaganda. There are even accounts of Serb militiamen who say they were forced by their superiors to rape Bosnian women. This is even reported by some of the women themselves.
You can argue about this incident or that incident. But the overwhelming case is clear as far as I can tell.
===========
I will never forget what I know and I will never cease to speak up.
===========
And neither will I, except that I will again commit to do my best to avoid bothering you on your blog about it :-)
You and I will probably never see eye-to-eye on this one, so let’s let it go for now. Again, I respect your right to your view of history, and I’ll refrain from further comment on this aspect of it as much as possible. This is your blog and you deserve that respect and more.
Wishing you all
Peace
================
if the anti-Chechen terror under Stalin is relevant to modern Chechen attitudes, why is the abominable horrors suffered by the Bosnian Serbs at the hand of the Ottomans and, later, Ustashe, not relevant to the attitudes of Bosnian Serbs?
================
I never said it’s not relevant at all, but let’s take the bait:
1) Because the Serbs and Bosniaks are ethnically identical dna-wise and otherwise: Bosniaks are not Turks
2) Because Serbs were the rulers and the majority, not the underdogs. Yugoslavia was theirs and they were in the driver’s seat. The power was in their hands;
3) Because the Ottoman role goes much further back than Stalin’s pogroms, and belongs to another age. I know relatively young people whose grandparents were killed by Stalin.
4) Few Muslims were involved with the Ustaše, and not as Muslims but as Croats, exaggerations by some Bosnian Serbs to the contrary to justify their own madness notwithstanding (like the zionists and the Mufti of Jerusalem canard)
5) Even granting the sociological relevance, the Serbs deserved their defeat just as much as the Chechens deserved theirs, by your own logic. You talk about slave markets in Grozny, but never a word on the mass and systematic rape of thousands of Bosnian women, forcing them to have “Chetnik” children, and so much else.
And don’t say: “But there was rape on all sides!” or “US propaganda!” The systematic rape of Bosnian women by the Serbs is not a figment of US propaganda. The abandoned rape-babies in orphanages, many now grown, are not a figment of Bosnian or Muslim imagination. The overwhelming asymmetry of the numbers of innocent Bosnian Muslim to innocent Serb victims of the war is not imaginary.
War is Hell, and victims on all sides there are, but the systematic and officially sanctioned savagery of the Bosnian Serbs is not propaganda. There are even accounts of Serb militiamen who say they were forced by their superiors to rape Bosnian women. This is even reported by some of the women themselves.
You can argue about this incident or that incident. But the overwhelming case is clear as far as I can tell.
[contd]
===========
I will never forget what I know and I will never cease to speak up.
===========
And neither will I, except that I will again commit to do my best to avoid bothering you on your blog about it :-)
You and I will probably never see eye-to-eye on this one, so let’s let it go for now. Again, I respect your right to your view of history, and I’ll refrain from further comment on this aspect of it as much as possible. This is your blog and you deserve that respect and more.
Wishing you all
Peace
@Ishamid: the Serbs and Bosniaks are ethnically identical dna-wise and otherwise (…) the systematic rape of thousands of Bosnian women, forcing them to have “Chetnik” children
Don’t you see the utter absurdity of that alleged ‘plan’?
I’ll refrain from further comment on this aspect of it as much as possible. This is your blog and you deserve that respect and more.
I sincerely INVITE you to KEEP posting your views on this and on any other topic. My idea of respect is one in which an absolute freedom of thought and speech are mutually recognized and upheld. Can’t think of anything more boring then a “one opinion” blog. So please, do break all your self-inflicted promises and challenge me each and every time you think I am mistaken. That would be for me the greatest sign of respect.
With respectful, sincere and kind regards,
The Saker
Here is the real UN Srebrenica report before it was edited and censored by Lord Paddy Ashdown.
http://slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg-sreb101604.htm
@ishamid
Because Iranians/Hezbollah were training Muslim fighters in terrorist tactics like assassinations, kidnapping, using human shield, etc and offensive not defensive measures specifically targeted at the civilian population.
It is a fact which even Nasir Oric bragged about that Serbs entered the enclave because Muslim fighters where massacring the nearby Serb villages killing 3,500 Serbs sparking a response and intervention by Karadicz and Mladic.
As for the Chechens there entire information and propaganda outlet is totally controlled by NED, Soros, Neocons, etc just like in the Balkans most of the allegations not based on any real facts and a suppressed or completely negated history of Chechens in the Caucasus.
They don’t even tell us that the Chechens were genociding the ethnic Russian and non-Chechen population engaging in mass rape, murder and ethnic cleansing or that the majority Chechen population fled Chechen gangs not Russian forces residing in Russia proper.
Let’s face it Muslims don’t make good neighbours when majority non-Muslim country wither it be Catholics in the Philippines and in Africa, Hindus in India and Kashmir, Orthodox Serbs and Russians in the Balkans and Eurasia, Han Chinese in Xinjing, Jews in the Mid East or even amongst their fellow Muslims.
CIA + Islam = NWO
@VINEYARDSAKER
Chechen insurgency became gangsterism? It was gangsterism from the very start literally.
Every major terrorist attack in Europe and in North America runs through this Bosnian-Chechen network established during the 90’s in the Balkans.
It would be hard to directly connect Iran to a specific terrorist attack but is that every major terrorist attack in Europe and North America has a Bosnian connection with groups or individuals who use that as a base which Iran was instrumental in creating.
@Anonymous
Not true in Bosnia most of the UN staff were killed by Muslims and the proof of more Serb crimes compared to that of Croats and Muslims is the fact that all the major bodies operating in the Balkans were vehemently anti-Serb funded by NED, Soros, etc. and the show trial in The Hague financed by Soros and NATO prosecuted more Serbs than Croats and Muslims.
@jack: Here is the real UN Srebrenica report before it was edited and censored by Lord Paddy Ashdown.
That is a report from the documentation of the Respublika Srpska and not a UN document.
Because Iranians/Hezbollah were training Muslim fighters in terrorist tactics like assassinations, kidnapping, using human shield, etc and offensive not defensive measures specifically targeted at the civilian population.
Please define what is offensive and what is defensive, and bring some proof of your allegations.
Muslim fighters where massacring the nearby Serb villages killing 3,500 Serbs sparking a response and intervention by Karadicz and Mladic.
True.
They don’t even tell us that the Chechens were genociding the ethnic Russian and non-Chechen population engaging in mass rape, murder and ethnic cleansing or that the majority Chechen population fled Chechen gangs not Russian forces residing in Russia proper.
True again.
Let’s face it Muslims don’t make good neighbours when majority non-Muslim country wither it be Catholics in the Philippines and in Africa, Hindus in India and Kashmir, Orthodox Serbs and Russians in the Balkans and Eurasia, Han Chinese in Xinjing, Jews in the Mid East or even amongst their fellow Muslims.
Nonsense. With the notable exception of the Ottoman Empire and the Wahabi crazies, Islam as treated Orthodox Christians far better than the Papacy (that is just one example I know about since I wrote an entire term paper comparing the status of Orthodox Christians under Arab Muslim rule and under the Papacy). And why don’t you tally what kind of neighbors the Papists were to Muslims (not to mention the rest of the planet!)
CIA + Islam = NWO
That is what the CIA wants, to use Islam to break up its enemies, but Islam is very diverse and some Muslims, specifically the Iranians and Hezbollah, see through that strategy.
Chechen insurgency became gangsterism? It was gangsterism from the very start literally
I totally and absolutely agree. Did I ever write anything to the countrary? For the record, I find the Chechen insurgency the most despicable, boodthirsty, brutal and bestial of any insurgency in modern times. To their credit, they are very skilled fighters.
It would be hard to directly connect Iran to a specific terrorist attack
Indeed. If it had been possible the USA would have trumpeted about it worldwide.