Showing posts with label Al-Qaida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al-Qaida. Show all posts
16.1.10
4.1.10
Help Yemen, not its current government
I have always found Brian most Whitaker's middle east analyses very informed and accurate. This article on the current crisis in Yemen is no exception...
Brian Whitaker is the author of an ebook 'The birth of modern Yemen'
Brian Whitaker is the author of an ebook 'The birth of modern Yemen'
19.11.08
Al-Qaida's hate propaganda: Disgusting
This organisation is a shame the Islamic world would have to bear for a long time. Their speech is full of manipulation, hate, and bigotry. And no, Islam and Muslims are not like this bunch. In fact, I think that Al-Qaida is responsible for the anti-Muslim wave across the western world, for Guantanamo, for Iraq, for Abu-Ghraib, and for what is happening to the peace process in Palestine, as much as Israel, zionists, the US, and the neo-cons are responsible for these 21st century moral stains.
I can't bear these cave dwelling mercenaries anymore, and I think it is justified that the news shut them out, they are a venom to Humanity.
I can't bear these cave dwelling mercenaries anymore, and I think it is justified that the news shut them out, they are a venom to Humanity.
18.3.08
Iran training Al-Qaida ?
Well, at least that's what hopeful US presidential candidate and republican nominee John McCain said. Some may see it as a gaffe. But weren't Saddam's links to 9/11, relationships with Al-Qaida, and WMDs also gaffes ? They were documented gaffes, broadcasted, doctored, spinned, and never really taken back as their consequences continue to spill misery over millions of Iraqis and threaten an entire region.
Some may think that lies, which the Iraq war gaffes really are, are different from gaffes. But I think that McCain, not having to bother with the whole complexe issue of ME countries the US invades and their ethnic mosaics, learned the only official mantra in US foreign policy; what one says about the country the US wants to wage war on and invade is what is important, not the facts, not the facts...
So who cares if Saddam didn't have any relationship with Al-Qaida or wasn't linked to 9/11, or Iraq didn't have any WMDs, or Iran is not actually training Al-Qaida but some other groups which can be seen actually as Al-Qaida ennemies ? The most important thing is to make a case for war by proxy, by arguing that the US is threatened on its soil. Al-Qaida and 9/11 have been so far the best proxy. The argument that Iran is a threat to Israel doesn't seem to be convincing so far, Israel is surely a proxy, but not as much as the twin towers, hence McCain's gaffe, lie, or slip of the tongue...
Some may think that lies, which the Iraq war gaffes really are, are different from gaffes. But I think that McCain, not having to bother with the whole complexe issue of ME countries the US invades and their ethnic mosaics, learned the only official mantra in US foreign policy; what one says about the country the US wants to wage war on and invade is what is important, not the facts, not the facts...
So who cares if Saddam didn't have any relationship with Al-Qaida or wasn't linked to 9/11, or Iraq didn't have any WMDs, or Iran is not actually training Al-Qaida but some other groups which can be seen actually as Al-Qaida ennemies ? The most important thing is to make a case for war by proxy, by arguing that the US is threatened on its soil. Al-Qaida and 9/11 have been so far the best proxy. The argument that Iran is a threat to Israel doesn't seem to be convincing so far, Israel is surely a proxy, but not as much as the twin towers, hence McCain's gaffe, lie, or slip of the tongue...
17.1.08
Everything Quite On The Lebanese Front ?
According to Nir Rosen, it may well be the calm before the tempest. Read his article: "Al Qaeda in Lebanon, The Iraq War Spreads"
And every tempering with a solution to the present deadlock in Lebanon is a step toward chaos. The kind of chaos we saw and still see in Iraq.
And every tempering with a solution to the present deadlock in Lebanon is a step toward chaos. The kind of chaos we saw and still see in Iraq.
14.12.07
Al-Qaida attacks Annapolis peace conference
My first thought: Who cares ?
My second thought: that's too much honor for Annapolis.
My two thoughts pulled together: Everything Bush does is a failure and everything Al-Qaida does is a failure too, and each party's media appearances are meant to save the other from its repeated failures.
Thanks the media.
Annapolis Blues
My second thought: that's too much honor for Annapolis.
My two thoughts pulled together: Everything Bush does is a failure and everything Al-Qaida does is a failure too, and each party's media appearances are meant to save the other from its repeated failures.
Thanks the media.
Annapolis Blues
31.10.07
The Madrid Bombing Sentences
Can someone tell me why this man was acquitted ?
Other Links on Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed:
NYTimes, February, 15th, 2007
Washington Post, November 14th, 2004, 'Suspect moved freely in Europe'
Other Links on Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed:
NYTimes, February, 15th, 2007
Washington Post, November 14th, 2004, 'Suspect moved freely in Europe'
27.7.07
Conspiracies against civil society: What the 'Zodiac' and Bin Laden have in common ?
Yesterday I watched the 'Zodiac', a movie by David Fincher on one of the most notorious serial killers in the US. This is Fincher's best movie so far. Factual, meticulous, with attention to details, even though it is based on a one man account written by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist working for the SFC at the time.
The Killer who terrorised San Francisco and area was never found with certainty. The main suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen was questioned by the police who was unable to charge him - despite a huge amount of coïncidence between him and what the police 'knew' about the killer (technically considered as circumstancial evidence) - because of the graphological expertise. This is where the story became puzzling for me. Most of the evidence the police possessed at the time were the letters and ciphers the Zodiac wrote to the press, the police, and anybody who would gove him media presence and keep him in the public eye. The graphological expertise did however change over time, over more than 10 years, and its changes led the police and the journalist working on the story to suspect different people, taking suspicion away from Leigh Allen, only to focus on Leigh later. It was amazing how the struggle of the police turned around letters and graphology, a very uncertain evidence, if we judge the standards of graphology at the time. It was somehow a doomed trail.
And this was not the only obstacle in the Zodiac story.
The absence of a clear pattern in the killings, except their savagery, absence of motive, and the will to inflict terror on the population by calling the police and sending ciphers and letters;
The dispersion of the killings on different administrative police areas and different jurisdictions;
Their duration over a ten month period, which is a long period if we judge by the weight of the threat at the time (the killer was thretening to kill a whole load of a schoolbus), during which the killer identification was made increasingly difficult;
The duration of the police investigation extending, under partial information, in both directions, to connect the murders to past unresolved killings, and present and future threats from the Zodiac which went on until mid 70s,
The despair of the police who weregoing from one piste to another without being able to dig deep in the investigation...
Something in this story made me think of l'affaire des 'tueurs fous du Brabant' who terrorised Nivelles and the region of the Brabant in Belgium between 1982 and 1985. Les tueurs du Brabant was a larger scale crime and terror operation involving disgruntled members of the police (gendarmerie) as well as Neo nazi and extreme right groups. The killers were never found and identified but there is police evidence that they were more than one, at least three, and they had links to various groups. But the more consistent interpretation of such an operation came from Le Monde Diplomatique in 2001. According to Le Monde Diplomatique, it was probably an operation to destabilise the weak Belgian government.
A small scale terror operation like the Zodiac killings could not be meant to destabilise the US, but to keep the population in a state of terror, definitely yes. One of the obstacles to the investigation about the Zodiac killings is that the police never assumed the theory of more than one killer operating under an umbrella group and I think this might have been the case in the Zodiac killings. This is an irony because for the 9/11 attacks, the US government rushed to conceptualise the foundations of Al-Qaida as a terror group or network, while we know that Al_Qaida networks operate loosely and 'by inspiration'. However, serial killings like the Zodiac's were clearly orchestrated to strike the imagination and provoke terror and the fact that there were many serious suspects in the investigation should have led to a conspiration done by a group, mainly against civil society in the US, because civils were the main target.
I think the most accurate interpretation of the Zodiac killings comes, in this regard, from Spike Lee in his movie 'Summer of Sam'. Spike Lee insists in his movie, not on the trail followed by the police and not on the affair itself but on the results of such a terror climate on the population in a special neighbourhood, and on the psychology of some of the movie's characters. I find that Spike Lee's 'Summer of Sam' is a good complement to Fincher's movie if you were to watch the 'Zodiac' on video.
Reflecting on this story, I found many similarities between the US's main serial killings operations and the present climate of terror. Major serial killings in the US, including killings of officials, were never resolved, and their main results were the production of a climate of terror. Thanks to Bin Laden, the US does not need its serial killers now. One has to consider Bin Laden as a super Zodiac with a wide media international coverage and much more people terrorised day and night by the idea of him.
Conspiarcy theorists beware !
Fellow blogger Conspiraloon Stef has posted an interesting article recently on the subject of Terror and its relation to major state conspiracies against their own civil societies.
Listen to the talk mentioned by Stef in his post. It was given by Nafeez Ahmed recently in London. There are many interesting parallels that Ahmed draws between the present security-political climate and WWII known archives, in terms of public opinion manipulation.
The Killer who terrorised San Francisco and area was never found with certainty. The main suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen was questioned by the police who was unable to charge him - despite a huge amount of coïncidence between him and what the police 'knew' about the killer (technically considered as circumstancial evidence) - because of the graphological expertise. This is where the story became puzzling for me. Most of the evidence the police possessed at the time were the letters and ciphers the Zodiac wrote to the press, the police, and anybody who would gove him media presence and keep him in the public eye. The graphological expertise did however change over time, over more than 10 years, and its changes led the police and the journalist working on the story to suspect different people, taking suspicion away from Leigh Allen, only to focus on Leigh later. It was amazing how the struggle of the police turned around letters and graphology, a very uncertain evidence, if we judge the standards of graphology at the time. It was somehow a doomed trail.
And this was not the only obstacle in the Zodiac story.
The absence of a clear pattern in the killings, except their savagery, absence of motive, and the will to inflict terror on the population by calling the police and sending ciphers and letters;
The dispersion of the killings on different administrative police areas and different jurisdictions;
Their duration over a ten month period, which is a long period if we judge by the weight of the threat at the time (the killer was thretening to kill a whole load of a schoolbus), during which the killer identification was made increasingly difficult;
The duration of the police investigation extending, under partial information, in both directions, to connect the murders to past unresolved killings, and present and future threats from the Zodiac which went on until mid 70s,
The despair of the police who weregoing from one piste to another without being able to dig deep in the investigation...
Something in this story made me think of l'affaire des 'tueurs fous du Brabant' who terrorised Nivelles and the region of the Brabant in Belgium between 1982 and 1985. Les tueurs du Brabant was a larger scale crime and terror operation involving disgruntled members of the police (gendarmerie) as well as Neo nazi and extreme right groups. The killers were never found and identified but there is police evidence that they were more than one, at least three, and they had links to various groups. But the more consistent interpretation of such an operation came from Le Monde Diplomatique in 2001. According to Le Monde Diplomatique, it was probably an operation to destabilise the weak Belgian government.
A small scale terror operation like the Zodiac killings could not be meant to destabilise the US, but to keep the population in a state of terror, definitely yes. One of the obstacles to the investigation about the Zodiac killings is that the police never assumed the theory of more than one killer operating under an umbrella group and I think this might have been the case in the Zodiac killings. This is an irony because for the 9/11 attacks, the US government rushed to conceptualise the foundations of Al-Qaida as a terror group or network, while we know that Al_Qaida networks operate loosely and 'by inspiration'. However, serial killings like the Zodiac's were clearly orchestrated to strike the imagination and provoke terror and the fact that there were many serious suspects in the investigation should have led to a conspiration done by a group, mainly against civil society in the US, because civils were the main target.
I think the most accurate interpretation of the Zodiac killings comes, in this regard, from Spike Lee in his movie 'Summer of Sam'. Spike Lee insists in his movie, not on the trail followed by the police and not on the affair itself but on the results of such a terror climate on the population in a special neighbourhood, and on the psychology of some of the movie's characters. I find that Spike Lee's 'Summer of Sam' is a good complement to Fincher's movie if you were to watch the 'Zodiac' on video.
Reflecting on this story, I found many similarities between the US's main serial killings operations and the present climate of terror. Major serial killings in the US, including killings of officials, were never resolved, and their main results were the production of a climate of terror. Thanks to Bin Laden, the US does not need its serial killers now. One has to consider Bin Laden as a super Zodiac with a wide media international coverage and much more people terrorised day and night by the idea of him.
Conspiarcy theorists beware !
Fellow blogger Conspiraloon Stef has posted an interesting article recently on the subject of Terror and its relation to major state conspiracies against their own civil societies.
Listen to the talk mentioned by Stef in his post. It was given by Nafeez Ahmed recently in London. There are many interesting parallels that Ahmed draws between the present security-political climate and WWII known archives, in terms of public opinion manipulation.
12.4.07
Al-Qaida Maghreb vote pour Sarkozy
L'extrait suivant de dépêche AP date de Jeudi 14 septembre 2006.
Dans son message vidéo du 11 septembre, coïncidant avec le cinquième anniversaire des attentats sur le sol américain, le No2 d'Al-Qaïda, Ayman al-Zawahri, demande ainsi au GSPC "d'être un os dans la gorge des croisés américains et français" et d'inspirer peur et détresse "dans les coeurs des traîtres fils apostats de France".
A l'Époque, Al-Qaida et le monde commémoraient le cinquième anniversaire du 11 septembre. Nicolas Sarkozy, déjà président de l'UMP et assuré de sa candidature à la présidentielle, effectuait une visite très médiatique aux États-Unis. De ce pays dont il admire tant le dirigeant actuel, George Bush, Sarkozy s'est fait un plaisir de commenter la déclaration de Ayman Al-Zawahiri de la manière suivante:
"Nous prenons très au sérieux ces menaces. J'ai eu l'occasion de qualifier la menace en France d'élevée et de permanente, les mots ont un sens. Mais il n'y a rien de nouveau", a confié le ministre de l'Intérieur. "Nous savons depuis le 11 septembre 2003 que le GSPC, qui est le successeur du GIA a fait acte d'allégeance à Al-Qaïda.
A l'époque, j'avais mentionné la déclaration du numéro 2 de Al-Qaida comme reflétant le sens aigu de la communication médiatique de ce groupe terroriste. En effet, le moment choisi pour lancer des menaces vis-à-vis de la France, la visite d'un néocon Français à un néocon US, assurait Al-Qaida, et paradoxalement en même temps Sarkozy, de la meilleure couverture médiatique possible, eux pour rappeler au monde qu'ils existent quand même du fin fond de leurs caves en Afghanistan, et Sarkozy, en réagissant, de rappeler au monde et aux Français qu'il est le meilleur candidat pour les protéger contre le terrorisme, si proche d'eux.
Il me semble que c'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut placer les récents attentats du groupuscule lié à Al-Qaida au Maroc et en Algérie, le contexte de la campagne électorale en France. En fait, comme nous le rappelle si bien Adam Curtis dans son excellent 'The Power of Nightmares', Al-Qaida a besoin de l'idéologie néocon pour exister. Les deux idéologies sont interdépendantes.
Mais pourquoi maintenant et pourquoi avant le deuxième tour des élections alors que Nicolas Sarkozy est assuré, selon tous les sondages, d'être élu pour le deuxième tour ? Al-Qaida a vraisemblablement appris la leçon de Madrid. Quand une intervention de ce genre est trop proche des élections, elle risque d'affoler et de produire l'effet contraire. La meilleure combinaison pour Al-Qaida serait un deuxième tour entre Sarkozy et Le Pen, ainsi Sarkozy sera assuré d'être élu. Comme pour Chirac, les électeurs pinceront leur nez et iront aux urnes pour élire Sarkozy. Mais cette fois-ci c'est bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet croyez-moi. Sarkozy n'est différent de le Pen que par la respectabilité qui lui a été dévolue par un grand parti politique qu'il a mis à la disposition de ses ambitions électorales par toutes sortes de manoeuvres.
Attendons nous au pire. Dans les jours qui viennent, les discours des quatre candidats principaux vont se radicaliser et se concentrer sur le thème de la sécurité intérieure et de l'immigration comme medium du terrorisme. Déjà, hier, Ségolène affutait ses armes contre l'Iran craignant probablement que Sarkozy ne l'accuse encore de mollesse. Et il ne tardera pas à le faire, croyez-moi.
La seule sortie honorable, pour nous citoyens, de ce cauchemar balisé par des extrêmistes des deux bords est de refuser la politique du pire, de refuser la peur, de refuser à la fois les discours musclés, les candidats Chickenhawk comme Sarkozy, et faibles dans leur propre parti, sous tutelle d'un autre néocon potentiel (Dominique Strauss Kahn et autres proches de son parti comme Bernard Kouchner), comme l'est Ségolène Royal.
Mon collègue Kel (Osterley Times) a un délicieux post montrant une caricature et une définition du Chickenhawk (terme anglais qui peut être traduit par 'le vautour poulet', désignant les néocons qui n'ont jamais eux-même été à la guerre - poulets - mais qui mènent des politiques guerrières - vautours). Pour ceux qui aiment la volaille !
Lire l'article de Alain Gresh rassemblant les déclarations de Sarkozy sur Al-Qaida et montrant clairement l'ignorance du ministre de l'intérieur, tout comme les neo-cons, des spécificités du radicalisme sunnite allant jusqu'à même ignorer la différence entre sunnites et shiites.
AUDIO
Dans son message vidéo du 11 septembre, coïncidant avec le cinquième anniversaire des attentats sur le sol américain, le No2 d'Al-Qaïda, Ayman al-Zawahri, demande ainsi au GSPC "d'être un os dans la gorge des croisés américains et français" et d'inspirer peur et détresse "dans les coeurs des traîtres fils apostats de France".
A l'Époque, Al-Qaida et le monde commémoraient le cinquième anniversaire du 11 septembre. Nicolas Sarkozy, déjà président de l'UMP et assuré de sa candidature à la présidentielle, effectuait une visite très médiatique aux États-Unis. De ce pays dont il admire tant le dirigeant actuel, George Bush, Sarkozy s'est fait un plaisir de commenter la déclaration de Ayman Al-Zawahiri de la manière suivante:
"Nous prenons très au sérieux ces menaces. J'ai eu l'occasion de qualifier la menace en France d'élevée et de permanente, les mots ont un sens. Mais il n'y a rien de nouveau", a confié le ministre de l'Intérieur. "Nous savons depuis le 11 septembre 2003 que le GSPC, qui est le successeur du GIA a fait acte d'allégeance à Al-Qaïda.
A l'époque, j'avais mentionné la déclaration du numéro 2 de Al-Qaida comme reflétant le sens aigu de la communication médiatique de ce groupe terroriste. En effet, le moment choisi pour lancer des menaces vis-à-vis de la France, la visite d'un néocon Français à un néocon US, assurait Al-Qaida, et paradoxalement en même temps Sarkozy, de la meilleure couverture médiatique possible, eux pour rappeler au monde qu'ils existent quand même du fin fond de leurs caves en Afghanistan, et Sarkozy, en réagissant, de rappeler au monde et aux Français qu'il est le meilleur candidat pour les protéger contre le terrorisme, si proche d'eux.
Il me semble que c'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut placer les récents attentats du groupuscule lié à Al-Qaida au Maroc et en Algérie, le contexte de la campagne électorale en France. En fait, comme nous le rappelle si bien Adam Curtis dans son excellent 'The Power of Nightmares', Al-Qaida a besoin de l'idéologie néocon pour exister. Les deux idéologies sont interdépendantes.
Mais pourquoi maintenant et pourquoi avant le deuxième tour des élections alors que Nicolas Sarkozy est assuré, selon tous les sondages, d'être élu pour le deuxième tour ? Al-Qaida a vraisemblablement appris la leçon de Madrid. Quand une intervention de ce genre est trop proche des élections, elle risque d'affoler et de produire l'effet contraire. La meilleure combinaison pour Al-Qaida serait un deuxième tour entre Sarkozy et Le Pen, ainsi Sarkozy sera assuré d'être élu. Comme pour Chirac, les électeurs pinceront leur nez et iront aux urnes pour élire Sarkozy. Mais cette fois-ci c'est bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet croyez-moi. Sarkozy n'est différent de le Pen que par la respectabilité qui lui a été dévolue par un grand parti politique qu'il a mis à la disposition de ses ambitions électorales par toutes sortes de manoeuvres.
Attendons nous au pire. Dans les jours qui viennent, les discours des quatre candidats principaux vont se radicaliser et se concentrer sur le thème de la sécurité intérieure et de l'immigration comme medium du terrorisme. Déjà, hier, Ségolène affutait ses armes contre l'Iran craignant probablement que Sarkozy ne l'accuse encore de mollesse. Et il ne tardera pas à le faire, croyez-moi.
La seule sortie honorable, pour nous citoyens, de ce cauchemar balisé par des extrêmistes des deux bords est de refuser la politique du pire, de refuser la peur, de refuser à la fois les discours musclés, les candidats Chickenhawk comme Sarkozy, et faibles dans leur propre parti, sous tutelle d'un autre néocon potentiel (Dominique Strauss Kahn et autres proches de son parti comme Bernard Kouchner), comme l'est Ségolène Royal.
Mon collègue Kel (Osterley Times) a un délicieux post montrant une caricature et une définition du Chickenhawk (terme anglais qui peut être traduit par 'le vautour poulet', désignant les néocons qui n'ont jamais eux-même été à la guerre - poulets - mais qui mènent des politiques guerrières - vautours). Pour ceux qui aiment la volaille !
Lire l'article de Alain Gresh rassemblant les déclarations de Sarkozy sur Al-Qaida et montrant clairement l'ignorance du ministre de l'intérieur, tout comme les neo-cons, des spécificités du radicalisme sunnite allant jusqu'à même ignorer la différence entre sunnites et shiites.
AUDIO
11.4.07
The Hezbollah between USraeli sponsored anti-guerilla and national and regional dialogues
The political situation in Lebanon is in a dead end. The Sanyura government supported by the Bush administration is refusing any internal dialogue with its opponents, which are a majority in Lebanon and include Hezbollah, Amal and the Free patriotic movement. Arguing that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation holding allegiances to Iran and Syria, the Bush administration has undermined any solution to the Lebanese dead end and is actively promoting confrontation by literally arming the anti-Hezbollah Samir Gea'gea's militia, the security apparatus of Sanyura's puppet government, which doubled in a matter of months reaching 24000 men, and by tolerating the activity of openly islamist sunni extremist organisations in Lebanon. The last bombing of two passengers buses in the Lebanese mountain at 'Ayn 'Alaq had the signature of sunni extremists. Read the April report of the International Crisis Group, page 11.
The opposition to the Sanyura government has entered its fifth month of standoff with no solution in sight despite some attempts (not genuine in my opinion) from the Saudis to come up with a proposal. Initially, the opposition has asked for an extension of the Sanyura government into a national unity government to include ministers from the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. As their pacifist demand was ignored, they have now one outcome, the ballot box. But even here, the Sanyura government seems to be reluctant to agree on early elections and is afraid of losing its grip on power.
It is in this tense climate that Hassan Nasrallah gave Alain Gresh the following interview translated by the author of this blog.
Meeting and interviewing Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the most important party in Lebanon, is not an easy task. Even though Hezbollah is a parliamentary party with a large social infrastructure and a preponderant influence among Shiites, it is classified as a terrorist organisation by the US. Hassan Nasrallah is, without a doubt, un « homme à abattre », a man on the killing list.
The interview is meant for TV and is a part of a TV documentary on Hezbollah. We are told that the meeting will take place in the afternoon and that someone will meet us at a restaurant and drive us to the meeting venue without any other precision as to the time of the meeting. A first car drives us into a garage where we are transferred into a second car with blackened windows: we cannot identify the trajectory. We will be transferred five times from one car to another before we reach our destination: an improvised studio with two flags, the Lebanese and Hezbollah's.
Despite all these precautions, the man who comes to meet us does not appear anxious. He speaks slowly, smile often and tries to convince without ever raising the tone of the conversation. The interview lasts 2 hours. Here are some themes tackled in the interview. There are no transcripts yet of the recordings and the quotes are taken from personal notes. Questions are in Italic Bold.
The internal situation in Lebanon.
The risks for a renewal of the civil war exist, however Hezbollah will do everything in its power to avoid it. The majority of the Lebanese people, who have already experienced a civil war, do not want another one. Our objective for Lebanon is not an Islamic republic for to be implemented the Islamic republic will require the consent of the majority of the population. That is not the case in Lebanon: not only the Christian minority refuse to live in an Islamic republic but even Lebanese Muslims are not convinced by such a project. We want a Lebanon whose destiny is not decided by one religion but by all its religious communities. It is for this same reason that we asked for a national unity government. The Imam Moussa Sadr was the first to advocate an end to sectarianism in Lebanon; but we have to take into account the realities and fears of Lebanese, those among Christians who are afraid from becoming marginalised.
Why doesn't Hezbollah give its weapons in a sign of good will destined to the other communities?
Our weapons are not directed at other communities in Lebanon neither are they for at internal combat operations. They were never used as such. Our weapons are destined to Israel and the resistance against the external enemy, Israel and Israeli aggression and occupation.
The velayat e-faqih [1] and relations with Iran. Is there a contradiction between the fidelity to the religious principle of velayat e-faqih and the fact that Hezbollah is a national Lebanese political party ?
No. On one hand, all what we do we do it to serve our country Lebanon. We even make use of our relations with Iran in the service of our country, never the contrary. We define our Politic and our strategy according to our priorities. On the other hand, the velayat e-faqih is an allegiance to a man and not a country. The Velayat e-faqih is actually Iranian, before he was Iraqi, and in the future he will probably be Lebanese. Iran is a state and it designs its strategy and obligations accordingly. These strategy and obligations are not ours. For example, Iran has diplomatic relations with Lybia but we don't. We are hostiles to such relations as long as Lybia does not explain the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (Sadr is the founding Shi'ite Imam of the political movement 'Al-Mahroumin', the dispossessed, the precursor movement to present Shi'ite political parties, Amal and Hezbollah. He disappeared in Lybia in suspicious circumstances in 1978 and his disappearance has not been explained by Lybian authorities). We also differed with Iraq's Sh'ia on the decision to execute Saddam Hussein. We had concerns about the timing and the conditions in which the execution was carried. In Iran, there were different opinions on this matter also.
On Israel and Palestine.
The creation of Israel is the result of a denial; denying the Palestinians their right on their land. Time will do nothing to this fact and Palestinian rights must be respected. The two state solution is not possible, it is not realistic. The best solution is a one state solution. One democratic state on the entire territory of Palestine in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can live and coexist. The name of such a state is not important, it can be agreed upon by all parties.
What will happen if the Palestinian national unity government signs a peace agreement with Israel?
We supported the Mecca agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian problem should be left to Palestinians themselves to decide and we should not impose upon them a solution (as we should not impose upon Lebanese a solution they don't agree with). Our first responsibility goes for Lebanon and its occupied territory, not Palestine.
If a global peace agreement is signed between Israel and Arab countries, will Hezbollah recognize Israel ?
There are too many ifs. We will define our position in due time according to the regional and international contexts.
Al-Qaida.
Our disagreements with this movement are numerous and they concern Religion and Politics. This movement the non participation of Islamic movements i n national elections while we in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as the Muslim brothers in Egypt, are engaged in the political electoral process. Moreover, Al-Qaida denounces Muslims who depart from Al-Qaida's political and religious agenda and does not refrain from killing them. That is not our conception of Religion and Politics. Some tried to suggest the existence of links between our movement and Al-Qaida but nobody has been able to substantiate this claim with the slightest proof. We will never engage if fight against them as we do not intend to fight anybody who does not attack us (Nasrallah is sending a message here to Sunni Muslim extremists in Lebanon linked to Al-Qaida whose presence was revealed by the article of Seymour Hersh, the redirection, and who seem to infiltrate Lebanon with the blessings of the US and its allies, the Sanyura government and Saudi Arabia).
Risk of war.
If there is a war on Lebanon, the situation will be totally different from what was before the July war when Israel attacked Lebanon. We have vacated the border positions between Israel and Lebanon and they are now occupied by the Lebanese army. If Israel were to attack again, the role of the army will be to defend the Lebanese territory. We are present in the south because we live in the cities and villages of the south. Our combatants come from these cities and villages, they can fight in the next war. The UNIFIL will be in a very difficult position: either it will be a spectator of the war or it will help repel the aggression. It can also retreat. None of these solutions is satisfactory. Some are surprised and concerned that we are renewing our weapons arsenal but they do not react the same way to the fact that Israel is seeking weapons from the US and is preparing for war through maneuvers and intensive training
Read here my post: Hassan Nasrallah, the New Face of Moderation in Lebanon and the Middle East
Notes
[1] The principle of velayat e-faqih, or the government of the doctrine, is to assign an important power to the guide of the community of the faithfuls in the Shi'ite religion. Since the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran, this position was attributed to ayatollah Khomeini and is now filled by Ali Khamenei. This principle is disputed by many Shi'ite clerics. It is accepted by Hezbollah while rejected by ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah, one of the highest ranking Shi'a clerics in Lebanon. Fadlallah is considered also as someone who is close to Hezbollah.
Read how Haaretz reports on Hezbollah's public declarations about its weapons arsenal. It seems that Hezbollah is doing this just to offset Israel.
The opposition to the Sanyura government has entered its fifth month of standoff with no solution in sight despite some attempts (not genuine in my opinion) from the Saudis to come up with a proposal. Initially, the opposition has asked for an extension of the Sanyura government into a national unity government to include ministers from the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. As their pacifist demand was ignored, they have now one outcome, the ballot box. But even here, the Sanyura government seems to be reluctant to agree on early elections and is afraid of losing its grip on power.
It is in this tense climate that Hassan Nasrallah gave Alain Gresh the following interview translated by the author of this blog.
Meeting and interviewing Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the most important party in Lebanon, is not an easy task. Even though Hezbollah is a parliamentary party with a large social infrastructure and a preponderant influence among Shiites, it is classified as a terrorist organisation by the US. Hassan Nasrallah is, without a doubt, un « homme à abattre », a man on the killing list.
The interview is meant for TV and is a part of a TV documentary on Hezbollah. We are told that the meeting will take place in the afternoon and that someone will meet us at a restaurant and drive us to the meeting venue without any other precision as to the time of the meeting. A first car drives us into a garage where we are transferred into a second car with blackened windows: we cannot identify the trajectory. We will be transferred five times from one car to another before we reach our destination: an improvised studio with two flags, the Lebanese and Hezbollah's.
Despite all these precautions, the man who comes to meet us does not appear anxious. He speaks slowly, smile often and tries to convince without ever raising the tone of the conversation. The interview lasts 2 hours. Here are some themes tackled in the interview. There are no transcripts yet of the recordings and the quotes are taken from personal notes. Questions are in Italic Bold.
The internal situation in Lebanon.
The risks for a renewal of the civil war exist, however Hezbollah will do everything in its power to avoid it. The majority of the Lebanese people, who have already experienced a civil war, do not want another one. Our objective for Lebanon is not an Islamic republic for to be implemented the Islamic republic will require the consent of the majority of the population. That is not the case in Lebanon: not only the Christian minority refuse to live in an Islamic republic but even Lebanese Muslims are not convinced by such a project. We want a Lebanon whose destiny is not decided by one religion but by all its religious communities. It is for this same reason that we asked for a national unity government. The Imam Moussa Sadr was the first to advocate an end to sectarianism in Lebanon; but we have to take into account the realities and fears of Lebanese, those among Christians who are afraid from becoming marginalised.
Why doesn't Hezbollah give its weapons in a sign of good will destined to the other communities?
Our weapons are not directed at other communities in Lebanon neither are they for at internal combat operations. They were never used as such. Our weapons are destined to Israel and the resistance against the external enemy, Israel and Israeli aggression and occupation.
The velayat e-faqih [1] and relations with Iran. Is there a contradiction between the fidelity to the religious principle of velayat e-faqih and the fact that Hezbollah is a national Lebanese political party ?
No. On one hand, all what we do we do it to serve our country Lebanon. We even make use of our relations with Iran in the service of our country, never the contrary. We define our Politic and our strategy according to our priorities. On the other hand, the velayat e-faqih is an allegiance to a man and not a country. The Velayat e-faqih is actually Iranian, before he was Iraqi, and in the future he will probably be Lebanese. Iran is a state and it designs its strategy and obligations accordingly. These strategy and obligations are not ours. For example, Iran has diplomatic relations with Lybia but we don't. We are hostiles to such relations as long as Lybia does not explain the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (Sadr is the founding Shi'ite Imam of the political movement 'Al-Mahroumin', the dispossessed, the precursor movement to present Shi'ite political parties, Amal and Hezbollah. He disappeared in Lybia in suspicious circumstances in 1978 and his disappearance has not been explained by Lybian authorities). We also differed with Iraq's Sh'ia on the decision to execute Saddam Hussein. We had concerns about the timing and the conditions in which the execution was carried. In Iran, there were different opinions on this matter also.
On Israel and Palestine.
The creation of Israel is the result of a denial; denying the Palestinians their right on their land. Time will do nothing to this fact and Palestinian rights must be respected. The two state solution is not possible, it is not realistic. The best solution is a one state solution. One democratic state on the entire territory of Palestine in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can live and coexist. The name of such a state is not important, it can be agreed upon by all parties.
What will happen if the Palestinian national unity government signs a peace agreement with Israel?
We supported the Mecca agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian problem should be left to Palestinians themselves to decide and we should not impose upon them a solution (as we should not impose upon Lebanese a solution they don't agree with). Our first responsibility goes for Lebanon and its occupied territory, not Palestine.
If a global peace agreement is signed between Israel and Arab countries, will Hezbollah recognize Israel ?
There are too many ifs. We will define our position in due time according to the regional and international contexts.
Al-Qaida.
Our disagreements with this movement are numerous and they concern Religion and Politics. This movement the non participation of Islamic movements i n national elections while we in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as the Muslim brothers in Egypt, are engaged in the political electoral process. Moreover, Al-Qaida denounces Muslims who depart from Al-Qaida's political and religious agenda and does not refrain from killing them. That is not our conception of Religion and Politics. Some tried to suggest the existence of links between our movement and Al-Qaida but nobody has been able to substantiate this claim with the slightest proof. We will never engage if fight against them as we do not intend to fight anybody who does not attack us (Nasrallah is sending a message here to Sunni Muslim extremists in Lebanon linked to Al-Qaida whose presence was revealed by the article of Seymour Hersh, the redirection, and who seem to infiltrate Lebanon with the blessings of the US and its allies, the Sanyura government and Saudi Arabia).
Risk of war.
If there is a war on Lebanon, the situation will be totally different from what was before the July war when Israel attacked Lebanon. We have vacated the border positions between Israel and Lebanon and they are now occupied by the Lebanese army. If Israel were to attack again, the role of the army will be to defend the Lebanese territory. We are present in the south because we live in the cities and villages of the south. Our combatants come from these cities and villages, they can fight in the next war. The UNIFIL will be in a very difficult position: either it will be a spectator of the war or it will help repel the aggression. It can also retreat. None of these solutions is satisfactory. Some are surprised and concerned that we are renewing our weapons arsenal but they do not react the same way to the fact that Israel is seeking weapons from the US and is preparing for war through maneuvers and intensive training
Read here my post: Hassan Nasrallah, the New Face of Moderation in Lebanon and the Middle East
Notes
[1] The principle of velayat e-faqih, or the government of the doctrine, is to assign an important power to the guide of the community of the faithfuls in the Shi'ite religion. Since the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran, this position was attributed to ayatollah Khomeini and is now filled by Ali Khamenei. This principle is disputed by many Shi'ite clerics. It is accepted by Hezbollah while rejected by ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah, one of the highest ranking Shi'a clerics in Lebanon. Fadlallah is considered also as someone who is close to Hezbollah.
Read how Haaretz reports on Hezbollah's public declarations about its weapons arsenal. It seems that Hezbollah is doing this just to offset Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006