Translate

Wednesday, February 3

Well, those were short-lived peace talks

February 3, SAA Coalition pounds stuffing out of Islamist forces in Aleppo:
(AFP) The Syrian army on Wednesday cut the last supply route linking opposition forces in the northern city of Aleppo to the Turkish border, a military source said, in a major blow to the rebels. The source said the army had broken a long-running [three year] rebel siege of two government-held Shiite villages, Nubol and Zahraa, and taken control of parts of the supply route.
February 3: UN Special Envoy to Syria suspends half-hearted talks about peace talks:
(Reuters) Talks being mediated by the United Nations to end the war in Syria are on hold, U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura said on Wednesday, while another official at the United Nations blamed the suspension on Russia's latest military escalation.
"I have concluded frankly that after the first week of preparatory talks there is more work to be done, not only by us but by the stakeholders," he said.
"I have indicated from the first day that I won't talk for the sake of talking."
He was speaking after meeting opposition coordinator Riad Hijab, who had just arrived in Geneva.
A senior U.N. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that de Mistura called a halt to the talks after Russia increased air strikes to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, undermining the negotiating process.
"I think the special envoy decided to suspend the talks because the (United Nations) did not want to be associated with the Russian escalation in Syria, which risks undermining the talks completely," the official said.
"The stepped up airstrikes gain the government ground, but also aim at humiliating the opposition on the ground and in Geneva," he added.
Hijab told reporters that it was not the last chance for peace, but the opposition would not return to peace talks without evidence of humanitarian improvements on the ground. The pause was a chance for the international community to put pressure on Assad and his allies, he said.
The pause came abruptly after several days of stuttering progress and postponed meetings, without De Mistura ever getting the two sides in a dialogue. De Mistura's office initially said the talks would resume on Feb. 25 but later issued a statement saying the could start again before that date.
It also came after intensified Syrian government advances backed by Russian air strikes on rebel positions in northern Aleppo.
Hijab blamed the Syrian government delegation for collapsing the talks, but its leader Bashar Ja'afari said it was "a failure of everybody except the government of the Syrian Arab Republic."
Ja'afari told reporters that he had known for "hours" that the opposition wanted to withdraw and accused De Mistura of pausing the talks to avert a walk-out.
"We consider that the style used by the Special Envoy to justify the withdrawal of Riyadh delegation under instructions from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was not subjective. It didn't say the truth as it was,” Ja'afari said.
[...]
The unnamed UN official is talking trash; what about the humiliation of the civilian victims of the suicide bombing near a Shiite shrine in Damascus on January 31? Wouldn't the attack have been sufficient for De Mistura to suspend the peace talks? 

Al-Jaafari is right; the Riyadh faction wants the talks halted while it tries to regroup. From a Reuters report earlier today:
Rebels described the assault north of Aleppo as the most intense yet. One commander said opposition-held areas of the divided city were at risk of being encircled entirely by the government and allied militia, appealing to foreign states that back the rebels to send more weapons. 
"Intense" is right; here's video from Al-Masdar News of the army's assault (no music; I promise):



More from the Reuters report:
Another rebel commander said he had sent reinforcements to the area. "We sent new fighters this morning, we sent heavier equipment there. It seems it will be a decisive battle in the north, God willing," said Ahmed al-Seoud, head of a Free Syrian Army group known as Division 13. "We sent TOW missile platforms. We sent everything there," he told Reuters.
U.S.-made TOW missiles, or guided anti-tank missiles, are the most potent weapon in the rebel arsenal and have been supplied to vetted rebel groups as part of a program of military support overseen by the Central Intelligence Agency.
But while they have helped rebels to slow advances on the ground, they are of little use against fighter bombers.
As to whether the White House is still ordering the CIA to send al-towi to the Riyadh faction -- let's ring up President Obama and ask him.

********

Palace coup in the making in KSA? We'll soon find out.

Things are bad, Orlov notes, "and have reached the point where preparations are being made to remove oil minister Ali al-Naimi, who is being prepared for the role of a 'scapegoat'."

I can't quote the original source for this because it's in Russian so I'm going with Sputnik's version of the analysis. As to how much of it is speculation -- it was originally published in Near Eastern Outlook, which according to rumor is a Russian site with connections to the Russian government; I hope so because that would suggest the analysis is backed by Russian government intelligence reports.

Anyway, enough of the situation has already been published in Western news reports to make the analysis plausible, and if it's correct that the attempted coup will happen sometime this month we'll know soon enough how plausible it turns out to be.  What is certain at this point is that something big is afoot in the kingdom; the head of a powerful clan who is loyal to the Nayef faction was dismissed from all his government posts by the Salman faction and had to flee the country.  

I note that if the Saudi interior ministry is the same as the "ministry of internal affairs" mentioned in the analysis, it is just this ministry that unburdened itself the other day to the BBC about the kingdom's longstanding problems with the funding of al Qaeda. This would suggest Crown Prince Nayef is not without sharp claws to defend his claim to the throne even though his opponent has the armed forces behind him.

Before turning over the floor to Sputnik, I'll mention that I think this claim by the Russian analyst smacks of Russian propaganda -- or Saudi propaganda:
"Almost daily, Washington exhorts Riyadh to continue to keep the price of oil down. The Kingdom realizes that by doing this, they are striking a blow to themselves, and not just against Russia and Iran, but for now, US influence is simply too strong to be opposed."
All signs are that the Saudi rulers have been doing what they want to do since they decided the Obama administration didn't have their best interests at heart. This widely vetted observation serves as a reminder to Americans who are disillusioned with their press outlets. One is wise to also read all foreign press defensively. 

The best defense against propaganda (and sloppy reporting) is to look at all of it as 'intelligence,' in the way a cop interviewing witnesses would do. Some witnesses might be wrong in their recollection, some might be lying, but all their accounts must be taken into consideration if one wants to piece together a reasonably accurate version of events or informed guess. That's not easy the first time out or even the hundredth but with practice it gets easier to look at news reports as intelligence reports.    
               
Battle Royal: The Prospects of a Palace Coup in Saudi Arabia
02.02.2016 - 14:36 
Sputnik

With rumors circulating in Riyadh over whether 80-year-old Saudi King Salman is planning to abdicate in favor of his son, which would effectively constitute a palace coup, Middle East expert Alexander Orlov provides his own take on the impact such a move would have on the Saudi dynasty, the region and the world.

Last month, reports emerged suggesting that Saudi Arabia's King Salman may be planning to abdicate the throne in favor of his 30-year-old son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Salman, 30, currently serves as the country's defense minister, and is considered to be responsible for some of the Kingdom's most brazen behavior, including the ill-fated military operation in Yemen and the execution of Saudi Shia cleric and rights activist Nimr al-Nimr.

Analyzing the possibility of a power struggle brewing in the secretive kingdom in a recent article for the foreign policy journal New Eastern Outlook, Orlov, a political scientist specializing in the Middle East, explained that for starters, any overt attempt by Salman to position his son to succeed him would violate the country's succession laws, and hence effectively amount to a palace coup.

Abdication in favor of Prince Salman, Orlov writes, would "bypass Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the country's internal affairs minister, and thus violate all [the Kingdom's] traditions of succession. After all, King Salman's son is the deputy crown prince, and his turn for the leadership should hypothetically come after Crown Prince Nayef becomes king, at which point he, Salman, will become crown prince."

For his part, the political scientist notes, King Salman's maneuver may come down to the fact that after Nayef becomes king, the title of deputy crown prince may be abolished altogether, and Prince Salman may not get his chance to rule. After all, the title of 'deputy crown prince' "had never been part of Saudi Arabia's monarchical power structure, and was only established by the last king, the elderly Abdullah, who died a few months later, in January 2015."

Meanwhile, the country's powerful Succession Council is rumored to be split, with "its members, the elderly princes and the King's closest relatives, too conservative in their views to agree on a new system of succession to the throne, although some of them did agree with the idea 'for the good of the cause'."

"But here what is needed is unanimity, or at least an absolute majority, and not a fifty-fifty split. In these circumstances, rumors have begun to spread in Riyadh among the upper echelons of power on the possibility of a coup d'état by means of the monarch's abdication and self-appointment to the position of the 'Father of the King', followed by the appointment of his son, Prince Mohammed Salman, to the throne, without the Succession Council's approval. What's more, this change of power is meant to occur before the end of February."

"Of course," the political scientist notes, "the costs of such an option are clear and undesirable for the Saudi dynasty, but the alternative could be the beginning of the disintegration of the Kingdom, which is again facing unrest from the Shiite minority, and no money is to be found in the treasury due to a long run of low oil prices."

Things are bad, Orlov notes, "and have reached the point where preparations are being made to remove oil minister Ali al-Naimi, who is being prepared for the role of a 'scapegoat'."

Nevertheless, the analyst suggests, with the Saudis and their US allies looking to see oil prices go down and stay down, in the interests of containing its strategic enemies – Russia and Iran, the current rulers in Riyadh do not seem likely to back down on the policy of flooding the world with cheap oil.

With an economically weakened Russia advantageous to Washington, "it is advantageous to the Kingdom, and the other monarchies of the Persian Gulf as well. This is especially true of Qatar, which is angry at Moscow for supporting Bashar Assad in Syria, Russia's interest in preventing the disintegration of Iraq, and its position on other issues in the Arab world, as well as its cooperation with Iran."

"Almost daily, Washington exhorts Riyadh to continue to keep the price of oil down. The Kingdom realizes that by doing this, they are striking a blow to themselves, and not just against Russia and Iran, but for now, US influence is simply too strong to be opposed."

And now, with the country on the verge of a palace coup, "it is no accident," Orlov suggests, "that Crown Prince Nayef interrupted this visit abroad and quickly returned to Riyadh. It speaks of one thing: that he is ready to fight for the throne."

In a battle between Deputy Crown Prince Salman and Crown Prince Nayef, things would look good for the young prince, the analyst notes. "Standing behind him are the armed forces and the National Guard, while Crown Prince Nayef has only the ministry of internal affairs and the police at his disposal."

As for the government, the analyst suggests that "among the country's ministers, the majority are also on Salman's side. It was not for nothing that King Salman carried out a cabinet reshuffle in April-May 2015, dismissing Prince al-Faisal, who had headed the country's foreign ministry since 1975. He was replaced by Adel al-Jubeir, who had previously served as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States. Meanwhile, Adel Fakeih, [a figure] close to the clan of the reigning monarch, was appointed to the post of economy minister, with Hamad al-Sweillam appointed the head of the royal court."

"All of these personnel decisions by the new king displeased some powerful clans in the country, including the influential al-Tuwaijri family. The family's spokesman, Khaled al-Tuwaijri, who had previously served in the post of secretary of the Allegiance Council and the head of the Royal Chancery and Guard, was dismissed from all his posts and fled the country."

With most of the cards looking to be in the hands of King Salman and his son, the young prince, one fact which shouldn't be discounted, according to Orlov, is the position of the leaders of the country's tribal groups and clans, "on which the situation 'on the ground' [ultimately] depends." These groups, he recalls, "are lying low in anticipation of what happens in Riyadh. But one thing is clear: the policy of reducing oil prices has hit them where it hurts — their pockets, since they too have their quota on the proceeds of oil exports, and they are extremely dissatisfied with Salman and his family."

In the final analysis, Orlov notes, "we will not have to wait long for the endgame." The main goal for Saudi authorities, he explains, "will be to prevent the disintegration of the Kingdom following the change of power," since this would "immediately affect the situation in the entire region, where Iraq is already literally falling apart, while Bahrain is on the verge of Shia revolution."

"And all this occurs against the backdrop of the war in Syria, Yemen and the growing conflict between Riyadh and Tehran, which is gaining momentum, and is fully capable of creating a Shiite crescent – the nightmare of Saudi rulers, as well as the monarchs of Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait."

[END]


Putin and Assad rise to defend civilization as societies sink into tribalism


Thierry Meyssan's latest writing for Voltaire Network is not free of conspiracy theory but he transcended his obsessions enough to deliver in the following passages what is the clearest explication I've found of what's really at stake in Syria. From Geneva 3: Toward peace in Syria without armed opposition; February 1, 2016:
[...]
Indeed, at the beginning of the [Syrian] war, the opposition was represented by intellectuals whom the CIA had corrupted during the preceding years, and by the Muslim Brotherhood, who had been working for Langley since at least 1953. This is no longer the case. The intellectuals, who had the capacity to govern, were obliged to leave their place to warlords recruited and financed by Saudi Arabia. 
But the Saudi kingdom is a tribal régime which accepts only relations of a tribal  "lord-vassal" nature. It therefore chose its warlords according to their ethnicity or their tribal origin. After several years, even those who originated from urban families returned to tribal behaviour. By doing so, they are now no longer representative of anyone but the nomads of the Saudi-Syrian desert. 
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they were unable to hold onto power in Tunisia and Egypt. Consequently, they are not considered by Washington to be capable of governing a country.
The nomination by Riyadh of a President and a spokesman for the Negotiations Committee, chosen among the ex-Ba’athist ministers, was not enough to mask the real presence of tribal warlords.
This, by the way, is one of the lessons of this war – the unnatural alliance of the Western powers and the Saudis has hit a cul-de-sac. What was tolerable for the Saudis in their own country is not so abroad. The expansion of Wahhabism is now causing problems for Europe on its own territory, and the advent of tribalism in the Near East would be a catastrophe for all, since it would mean the "somalisation" of the region. 
This was without doubt the objective of the Straussians, but it is no longer the goal of President Obama. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that modern states are absolutely incompatible with tribal societies, which is what led all modern states to settle their populations.
[...]
If Thierry has figured out Obama's goal will he please let me know but aside from that and what seems to be his acceptance of criticism that Leo Strauss' views support American expansionism, the above passages don't linger in the weeds. He goes straight for the jugular of the hypocrisy that palmed off globalization as civilization. 

The chief beneficiaries of globalization have taken to whining about their hypocrisy come home to roost in the form of tribalism. So now a British reporter for the BBC thunders at Saudi Interior Minister spokesman Maj. General Mansour al-Turki that Saudis poured tens of billions into supporting al Qaeda, and al-Turki placidly rejects the International Community's criticism of Islamic Values. But it was perfectly okay with British Commonwealth citizens, and Europeans, and Americans, when the values were inflicted with the full complicity of those citizens on societies across Africa and Asia. 

Now the result is arriving by the boatload on the shores of Europe while EU leaders beseech the citizenry to be tolerant and globalists scold those Americans trying to hang onto the last vestiges of their republic.

Into this muddle made from greed, lies and indifference step Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad, who are absolutely clear on the differences between tribalism and civilization. Get out of their way, if you don't fancy tribal warlords telling you how to live. 

********

Tuesday, February 2

SAUDI INTERIOR MINISTRY ADMITS SAUDI REGIME AID TO AL QAEDA Updated 9:45 AM EST

Update
The original source was indeed the BBC. Here's the link to the report, which includes part of the video interview; you will see that the interviewer is not playing around. The rest of the interview will be aired today. See the BBC site for details. This is big news; it confirms claims that have been made for years -- confirmation straight from the Saudi government.

*** 

YIKES! 
Groundhog Day is off to a roaring start! This vindicates Moussaoui's testimony. 

I'm not going to take time at this moment to go to the original source for this report, which could be the BBC; below is the FARS report. 

What does it all mean? Sounds like fallout from the battle for control of the kingdom between two factions. See Thierry Meyssan's January 11 report for Voltaire Network, Towards the collapse of Saudi Arabia for some details on the struggle. (I take with a large grain of salt his conspiracy theory about the U.S. government working on a plan to split Saudi Arabia into five nations and encouraging dissension in the Saudi regime.)  

And if the Beeb was the source, it could be some in the British government are abandoning the Saudi ship -- or at least the current monarch's ship.  

Tue Feb 02, 2016 - 3:44
FARS

TEHRAN (FNA)- Spokesman of the Saudi Interior Ministry Mansour al-Turki admitted his government's huge financial assistance to the al-Qaeda terrorist group under the disguise of charity aid.

"This multi-billion-dollar aid has been collected using Saudi Arabia's monetary system," Turki told BBC in an interview on Tuesday.

He said that the money was gathered from the Saudi people by certain groups who claimed that they would use it for charity.

"They told people that their money will be used for the poor but unfortunately, the money was spent for supporting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan financially," Turki said.

The regional and international analysts agree on the Saudi origin of al-Qaeda.

Last year, an Al-Qaeda terrorist, sentenced to life imprisonment in the US, said that members of the Saudi royal family sponsored the terrorist network in the 1990s.

Prominent members of the Saudi royal family supported the terrorist network Al-Qaeda in the 1990's, said Zacarias Moussaoui, an Al-Qaeda terrorist convicted to life imprisonment in the US, according to the New York Times.

In his letter to a judge of the US federal court in New York last year, Moussaoui wrote that members of the Saudi royal family, such as former Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar Bin Sultan and the ambassador of the country in the United States, Prince al-Waleed Bin Talal, were major donors to the terrorist organization in the late 1990s.

Moussaoui said he was responsible for creating a digital database of donors, so that Osama Bin Laden could have an overview of those who had contributed to militancy. He also claimed that he negotiated a plan with a member of the Saudi embassy in the US to shoot down the US president’s plane ‘Air Force One’ with a Stinger missile.

Also, Syrian Ambassador to Jordan Bahjat Suleiman called Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan "the real gang leader of terrorists fighting in Syria".

Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan is the head of Al-Qaeda terrorist group and the founder of the ISIL in Syria, Suleiman said in 2013.

Suleiman said, Osama Bin Laden was the founder of Al-Qaeda, Aymen Zahiri is their apparent leader, and Bandar bin Sultan is the real leader of Al-Qaeda.

[END REPORT]

********

Update to "Waiting on the dawn: The Tale of Sathya Sai Baba and the Stupid Villager"

This is for readers who saw the post yesterday. A few minutes ago I made changes to the post; first I supplied the name of the Shiite cleric executed by the Saudi government, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, and the name of the archduke whose assassination touched off events that led to World War One. I also changed "ashram" to "palace" in the Sai Baba tale I told. Then I tried to preempt complaints from any Sai Baba devotees who would chance across the post and elaborated on my point in telling the tale, as follows:   

For Sathya Sai Baba devotees who are insulted by my likening his powers to those of a jinn and referring to his ashram as a palace -- I'm imagining myself talking to a Saudi child of Persian heritage or who is Iranian and looks five years old to me. A child who is much too young to be caught up in the angst of adults who are not showing common sense. 

There is a time and a place to stage mass public protests, but this would not be when a very powerful regime is but a few incidents from outright panic. From that view it's the point of the tale of Sai Baba and a stupid villager that matters to me and I would hope the child -- the point being that the villager was not quite so stupid as to spurn common sense when it was offered to him. 

Keep in mind that this is what the Shiite protests in Qatif looked like to the kingdom's rulers:



Remind you of anything? At the start of the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo the Saudis couldn't have dreamed that they would result in Hosni Mubarak being booted from power.  Now they look at such protests and see anything as possible. They fear the Obama administration would lend support to the Shiite protests in Saudi Arabia and even to revolution. Not very likely I'd say, but frightened people don't coolly calculate odds. 

***
      
If I'd seen this report, published today at RT, before I made the updates I might have added that the Saudi regime was in bigger trouble than most people realized at the time of the Qatif protests. But I think I made my point without further updates.

*********

Monday, February 1

Waiting on the dawn: The Tale of Sathya Sai Baba and the Stupid Villager



There's that child again. You might remember she was with her family at a protest rally in Saudi Arabia that FARS described as "huge." From other photos the site posted it doesn't look all that huge to me but I suppose it was huge for KSA:
TEHRAN (FNA  - December 13, 2015)- Saudi people took to the streets in the kingdom's town of Qatif on the anniversary of the holy prophet's demise on Thursday to express their protest at the death sentences given to several political detainees and the country's ongoing crackdown on dissent.
Who takes a child that age to a protest? Well maybe her parents couldn't get a babysitter or the whole town was at the rally. It looks as if they were trying to prevent the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr -- the cleric who could to turn out to be the Shiite version of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination touched events that led to World War One. 


History is full of "What ifs?" and 20/20 hindsight. But even if the British hadn't rescued Faisal's tribe from being wiped out by the Turks, it could have been another Arab tribe that came to control the price of oil and protect the hegemony of the U.S. dollar and in doing so help produce a relatively stable world order for decades.

So to ask whether another tribe would have extracted the very high price for cooperation that the House of Saud demanded from the United States and other Western countries is like asking what would have happened if the German government hadn't smuggled Lenin back into Russia. 

What's done is done. We must look at where we are today, and where we are is that all over the world many people have discovered they'd believed in a grand illusion. Behind the appearances of order stood a single tribe fashioning a religion into a juggernaut that would destroy entire societies. The irony is that the Saudis did this to fight encroachments of other religions on lands they considered important to their own religion. Now the engine of destruction the Saudis created has turned on them.

Ever thus; those most determined to preserve their idea of order invariably unleash chaos.

For decades people looked high and low for the cause of terrorism's rise: the Israel-Palestinian conflict; Lebanon's Civil War; the youth bulge in Middle Eastern countries; corrupt, authoritarian governments; anti-Western ideas; etc. 

Even earlier this year the U.S. Department of State was ruminating in public about the factors fueling the rise of Islamic State -- was it lack of education, or perhaps a crying need for better job opportunities?

But by mid-2015 Islamic State had done so much jabbering about itself that there were Western counterterrorism experts specializing in Middle Eastern Islamic terrorism who said, in essence, 'Waaait a minute; this isn't a new cult, this is Wahhabism and Salafism turned full-face.'    
  
Are there religious preceptors within Islam who also understand this? At the end of this post I present a videotaped interview conducted by RT's Sophie Shevardnadze with Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, Syria's Grand Mufti (English translation voiceovers), and RT's English transcript of the interview. 

Listen or read the transcript, then tell me whether you think Syria's Grand Mufti understands, even though he doesn't mention the term Wahhabism or Salafism. My opinion is that he does understand, fully. 

As to whether he's correct that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam -- here I am reminded of the answer Black Elk gave someone who asked if he really believed his tribe's 'world creation' story to be true: 

"I don't know if it's true. I know this is how the story was told to me."

The Grand Mufti is a religious teacher not a historian. So when he famously said that there is nothing holy about war, that's how it was taught to him.

His critics would say that he contradicted his teaching when he issued a fatwa calling on Syrian males of fighting age to join the military to defend Syria. It's not my place to apologize for his fatwa. But I ask this: how many teachers of Islam preach that there is no such thing as a holy war? I think focusing on that question is more productive than charging Sheikh Hassoun with contradicting himself on occasion.

All right; I've stalled long enough. Here is what I would say to the child. 

There was a wise man named Sathya Sai Baba who had the powers of a great jinn. One day a man asked him, "Why does God love some people more than others?"

Sai Baba answered, "God loves everyone equally but some he likes more than others."

A son of an Arab tribal chieftain once told me that his people have a saying: "When God likes you he gives you a face everyone likes." 

You have such a face. Do not reject God's faith in you by being angry at God. 

But then why doesn't God like everybody? i will explain by telling a true story.

There was a man who lived in the village near Sathya Sai Baba's palace. The villager lost his job and his family was facing starvation because of this. Then the villager learned that a large construction project was happening at the ashram and that the head of the ashram was asking for volunteers to work on the project.  

The man had heard that Sathya Sai Baba was a wonder-worker.  So he signed on to work as a volunteer. Then he prayed to Sai Baba to use his powers to help him steal building materials from Sai Baba's own palace grounds so he could sell the materials, and in this way feed his family.

The first day he worked on the project the villager was able to steal materials, even though they were guarded.

When the supervisor of the construction project learned of the theft, he ordered the guard to be increased on the materials.  

A few nights later, the villager again prayed to Sai Baba to help him steal building materials, and again he was successful despite the increased number of guards.

The supervisor ordered the guard increased again. By then there were so many guards it would have been impossible to steal from the site. But again the thief prayed to Sai Baba for help and again he was able to steal without the guards noticing.

At that point the supervisor realized that something strange was going on, so he went to Sai Baba. The supervisor told him that he didn't want to know why it was happening, he just wanted the thefts stopped.

The next time the villager set out to steal more building materials, he duly prayed to Sai Baba for help. But as he was creeping toward the construction site, there was Sai Baba walking alongside him. 

The thief was quite startled but Sai Baba asked in a pleasant voice, "Did it ever occur to you that someone who could help you steal right from under the noses of guards could also help you find a job?"

No, it had never occurred to him but now that it had, he asked Sai Baba to help him get a job that paid enough to take care of his family's needs. This was done.

Here you might think that Sathya Sai Baba must have liked the villager even though the villager stupidly stole from him. I would guess that was the case. But now imagine if instead of asking Sai Baba to help him get a job, the villager had said, 'No, as long as you help me steal from you, I will go on doing so.'

That is my answer to why God doesn't like everyone equally. Stupid people God doesn't seem to mind. What seems to bother God is the ones who ignore every warning, every sign, that they must find another way to do something if the way they've been following is doing themselves or others harm.

For Sathya Sai Baba devotees who are insulted by my likening his powers to those of a jinn and referring to his ashram as a palace -- I'm imagining myself talking to a Saudi child of Persian heritage or who is Iranian and looks five years old to me. A child who is much too young to be caught up in the angst of adults who are not showing common sense. 

There is a time and a place to stage mass public protests, but this would not be when a very powerful regime is but a few incidents from outright panic. From that view it's the point of the tale of Sai Baba and a stupid villager that matters to me and I would hope the child -- the point being that the villager was not quite so stupid as to spurn common sense when it was offered to him. 

Keep in mind that this is what the Shiite protests in Qatif looked like to the kingdom's rulers:



Remind you of anything? At the start of the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo the Saudis couldn't have dreamed that they would result in Hosni Mubarak being booted from power. Now they look at such protests and see anything as possible. They fear that the Obama administration would lend support to the Shiite protests in Saudi Arabia -- and even to a revolution. Not very likely I'd say, but frightened people don't coolly calculate odds.            
         
Terrorism is a new ideological trend, has nothing to do with Islam: Grand Mufti of Syria
Published time: 13 Nov, 2015 08:20
RT
[Transcript of interview below]




The Middle East conflict - war in Syria and Iraq - has already spilled over. No one is safe from the terrorist attacks, neither East, nor West. Islamic State claims it is still strong, and its ideas are attracting new recruits to replace those killed on the field. Islamic State says the horrors it perpetrates are done in the name Allah - spurring resentment against Muslims all across the globe. Today, we speak to an Islamic scholar, a Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, to see how the jihadists have twisted the idea of Islam. And does their agenda have anything to do with Islam at all?
Sophie Shevardnadze:Thank you very much for being with us today. This is a great honor. We are delighted to have you, because there are so many things we want to discuss. You said that there is no such thing as a religious war, there are only political interests. But ISIL fighters want to conquer the whole world, they use Islam as their banner and call this fight a religious war. Are they guided by political interests?
Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun: First of all, I want to express my gratitude to the Russian Federation, because it sided with the truth. It did not separate Syrians by their Shia or Sunni background. It decided to support the Syrian people as a whole.
Syria is a secular, democratic society where different religious groups coexist – Christians, the Druze, Sunni and Shia Muslims. Those who call their wars religious do so in order to provoke radicalism among Muslims. This of course goes against the true Islamic culture, because a person with values will never commit the atrocities ISIL is known for. They use religion as a pretext for conflict and bloodshed. I think there are two kinds of Islamic State fighters – those who know nothing about true Islam and those who have some religious background, but they use religion to promote their own agenda and kill others. 
SS: How are ISIL leaders able to make so many young people follow them? They make them participate in violent acts, in combat – how do they do it?
ABH: What ISIL is doing is not new. This organization has existed before – under different names. They convince their followers that they are guided by religious convictions, spread their ideology, spending a lot of money on that work. We must remember it.
SS: Right! But they don’t buy these young people – they come from Europe, Russia, the U.S. young people from good families for some reason go to Syria and begin to fight for ISIL. How do Islamic State leaders achieve that? It does not matter how they name themselves. How do they do this? What goes on in people’s heads?
ABH: We met with some guys who came from the UK, France. Many of them were Syrians. They come here to build some sort of Islamic caliphate. They think that they will promote Islam and spread it to the whole world.
But we know that religion should not be preached with weapons – rather with love and solidarity. ISIL uses ideology to lead young people astray. But they do it for their own political purposes. Most of the people being killed in Syria today are Muslims. The majority of ISIL victims are Muslims! 
SS: But why do these young men join ISIL? Why do young, healthy people that have good lives at home, go to fight for Islamic State?
ABH: Many young people go abroad, because they want to follow a new ideological trend – radical Islam. They are lost, and leading them back on the right path will take some serious effort. They end up with the wrong people, believing they can wage war in the name of religion.

Now, after Russia began to bomb ISIL targets in Syria, many young Islamic State fighters ran off. What happened to their convictions? They fled. 
If you want to create a true state, you need to build it on the basis of political values and democracy. We don’t impose any religion in Syria; we don’t say that there must be a Christian state, a Jewish state or a Muslim State. These ideas come from outside. The West is instigating such ideologies. The West is playing a big part in the process. 
I think a state should be founded on strong political and cultural elite. 
What we see in Syria today is similar to what happened in Yugoslavia - Croatia, Bosnia. There were major cultural elites there. But the West began to provoke different political and religious groups in order to start a civil war, which resulted in manslaughter. 
So in Syria we have to build a society that will have room for all religious and ethnic groups. We see this kind of order in Russia. Religion is distorted by those who want to start new conflicts, wars…
SS: We will talk more about religion. But first I wanted to ask you about extremists. Pope Francis warned about ISIL fighters entering Europe as refugees. Do you think Europeans should look at every refugee as a suspect?
ABH: Are all refugees Syrians? Of course not! These are people from different countries turned into conflict zones. We see people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Tajikistan and Libya. They are all running to Europe. And many of them have radical convictions. That’s true.
Europeans allowed this ideological trend to develop freely, they let radical Islam spiral out of control. I have seen this in France, the UK and the U.S.. There are Islamic centers financed by Saudi Arabia. These centers became magnets for new extremists, who later travel to the Middle East and start wars there. You reap what you sow. Now we are seeing the results of this policy.
SS: So today terrorism is a trend?
ABH: Terrorism is a dangerous political trend. It is also a cultural trend. And we have to study it in order to fight it. 
ISIL is trying to promote its political agenda through violence, using weapons. They tell their followers that they will go to paradise, “If you murder people, you will end up in paradise.” But this goes against the Prophet’s teachings, because, of course, nobody gets to paradise using these methods. We need to preach the idea that a person gets to paradise through cultural enlightening, education and solidarity.
SS: You’ve said many times that what is happening in Syria now has nothing to do with religion. Why is it that those who fight for the opposition, for ISIL, don’t hear you? Why are they not listening to you?
ABH: Most of those who are now fighting for ISIL came from other countries. They are not Syrians. They come from China, Russia, Europe… And the organizers of this movement indoctrinated them. So the fighters are not listening to us. Many of them don’t even know anything about me.  
Syria has always been a place where different religions co-existed in a civilized manner within one country. We’ve had different eras – Christian and Muslim conquests. But in the end there was always peace. For two thousand years we did not have people murdered for religious reasons in our land. 
Syria has never had a strict religious government system, unlike Lebanon, for example, where the president must be a Christian, and the Prime Minister – a Sunni Muslim. We could never imagine something like that in Syria. The current conflict is not about religion. Syria is an ancient country. I think what is happening in Syria today is a result of a conspiracy.
SS: But, conspiracy or not, people will always be people. There are good people and bad people everywhere. For example, I remember how Islamists in Egypt were burning Coptic churches, and Muslims created a human shield around the churches, so that Christians could worship in peace. What is the situation in Syria like in this respect? Do Syrians help Christians, the Druze?
ABH: In Egypt it was different. It was all internal. There was not much external interference there, no Blackwater personnel, for example. Egypt changed its political regime on its own, whereas in Syria the attempt to overthrow the government was orchestrated from abroad, by other countries. Syrians were provoked. But we are still there, despite the conspiracy. 

[Pundita note:  Hassoun is misinformed about Egypt's revolution, as are a great many people including Americans. The U.S. government, through ngos and gongos, was deeply involved in helping the Tahrir Square activists topple Hosni Mubarak's administration.]  
SS: I am also asking about regular Syrians. Do they help Christians to survive, Christians who are also being attacked by ISIL extremists? Do they help each other in Syria?
ABH: Of course, we are afraid for our Christians. But, to be honest, we don’t divide our people into Christians and Muslims, we protect all Syrians. There are many Christian politicians in our country. Our former defense minister is one of them. We don’t make a distinction between Christians and Muslims… 
We live as one family and protect each other. We don’t divide people into the Druze, Sunni or Shia Muslims, and Christians. So, we are very concerned about the fact that so many Christians are now leaving the region. We will never let the situation get to the point where there are no more Christians in Syria, because this country also belongs to Christians.
Of course, Islam recognizes Jesus Christ, as we all know. We don’t reject Mother Mary, don’t reject Jesus. Whereas ISIL doesn’t think about Christians, they just follow their own agenda. And fighters from different countries help them. That’s why we are now standing alongside Russia and believe that our strong friends will help us, because together we are strong. 
As for religion, today it is used to divide countries, to create so-called Islamic states, which would basically be weak states under Western control.
SS: Thank you again for being with us today. I want to talk more about ISIL. ISIL is not just fighting against everybody, right? They are also trying to create a state, with certain social institutions - education, etc. They pay salaries, give money to the poor. It may even seem that at times they are doing it better than the actual state – at least judging by the number of their followers. 
ABH: I can’t quite agree with you. We see what is really going on there. They just steal the money. They steal the money, their business is contraband. They steal oil from Syrian and Iraqi fields and smuggle it out. They sell it at a low price to whoever is willing to buy it. So they are not just terrorists – they are also thieves and murderers.  
There is also money coming in from Qatar, Saudi Arabia – through so-called charities. They use the money to destroy our country, to destroy Syria. And the vicious cycle continues. 
Now ISIL fighters flee when they hear that Russian jets are coming. They left many Syrian oil fields where they used to steal oil and then sell it. So it is not a state, it is a criminal group. They are not trying to create anything. Look at what they’ve done in Palmyra. What state would do something like that? A true state will not destroy or sell historic treasures. Of course, they think that they are a state. But they are thieves, murderers and criminals.
SS: Why do they destroy historic landmarks? What is their goal? They also destroy mosques. What do they get from that? Of course, they have ideological differences with people from other religious groups. But destroying landmarks and mosques – what’s the point?
ABH: You tell me! Why did they vandalize the Iraqi museum? Nobody had ever done that. ISIL began its conquest in Iraq by ransacking the Mosul Museum. What for? ISIL wants to erase the history of our region, our legacy.
The colonizers tried to do the same in South America, when they invaded the continent and tried to bring the locals to their knees, in order to tap the territories for resources. They also tried to erase the history.
It is an attempt to rewrite history. This is how they plan to weaken the countries – rob people of their history. It is basically neocolonialism, but it is done through third parties. And of course they have some interests too. 
So they might use religious convictions as a pretext, but it leads to enslavement of people and nothing else. That’s what they’ve done.
SS: Let’s get back to one perennial issue. I hope nobody will get offended, but it is very important for us to get an understanding of this. You always emphasize that radical ideologies have nothing to do with real Islam. And most Muslim spiritual leaders agree with you. But could you please explain to me: with Muslim clergy almost unanimously condemning extremism, why is extremism still so explicit in Islam? 
ABH: First of all, this is reaction. All this radicalization comes as a reaction to the enormous tragedies and frustrations that we’ve had throughout our history. For example, when the government doesn’t care about its citizens, when it doesn’t care about upholding religion, it certainly leads to the emergence of people who accuse the government of defying the foundations of religion. So extremism originally comes as a reaction to poor governance.
Secular states, secular democratic nations, should undoubtedly support religion and their country's’ cultural heritage. They shouldn’t forget that religious and cultural heritage also plays an important role. And if you start destroying it, this may indeed lead to the rise of radicals as a kind of backlash. 
Religion and religious organizations must be present in society, because they are good for people. They provide not only for religious institutions or Islam as such, but for the entire public. They must be an indispensable part of the social fabric. 
But those people seek to set specific parts of society against the powers that be. In fact, much of what I’m talking about is evident in Europe. Do you remember the name of Germany’s major political party? It’s the Christian Democratic Union. That is to say that Europeans follow those principles themselves, even though religion must indeed be isolated from politics, and should primarily remain a social and cultural institution. Therefore, I believe the government must reserve a role for religion to play. But we must be very careful in drawing the line between state and religion. 
Religion is first and foremost a path of spiritual development for people. Our children may belong to different religions, but we should not divide the country because of religion. 
It is the same in Russia. As far as I know, you have secular laws – the criminal code and other regulations. And they have no reference to religion, because all citizens must be treated equally. The bottom line is that we must distinguish between religious ideas and government policies. 
A number of states see themselves as religious states: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. President Erdogan aspires to do the same in Turkey. But in Syria, we do not use religion for political purposes, because religion must bring people together and teach them to love each other. We don’t want to use religion to oppress people. First and foremost, we need to approach religion globally, realizing that religion is one thing, and the state is something different.
SS: Let’s talk about the current situation. Regional countries together with big powers are trying to reach a consensus on Syria’s future. They’re even talking about a dialogue between the government and the opposition. But who should President Assad talk to if most of his opponents are religious fanatics?
ABH: The war has been going on for four years. All these years we’ve been inviting them to start a dialogue. Since the first day of the tragedy we started calling the opposition to come to the negotiation table. Russia encouraged the Syrian opposition to engage in talks three years ago. They refused. Today, their representatives visit Moscow. They agreed to participate in Geneva talks. So Russia has been calling for a dialogue for about 3 years. The Syrian government also sent 3 delegations to Moscow. We hold talks regularly.
But we see that the so-called opposition is in no way a united organization. There are many groups fighting each other, fighting ISIL, fighting us. The Syrian opposition wants to recognize nothing – not talks, not Assad. When Russia launched an anti-ISIL military campaign, the initial response of the so-called moderate opposition was negative. Presently some commanders of the so-called Free Syrian Army say that they are ready to cooperate with the Russian Federation against ISIL. But we offer them to do more than that. What we want them to do is to act together against terrorists unconditionally.
We see Western countries having a hidden agenda, and international players calling for compromise finding them under pressure. But Russia keeps urging the opposition to engage in a dialogue. But Russia’s calls often remain unheeded.
Today a lot depends on the opposition sponsors. It’s them who make decisions, not the opposition itself. It has no independent opinion of its own.
They say there should be a new government in Syria. But the government they want will be essentially a neocolonial government. We changed the Constitution for them; we held elections. Basically, we have a different government today. But they reject everything. The only language they understand is the language of weapons. That’s how they talk – with weapons. They destroy churches and mosques in the name of the so-called revolution. 
What kind of a revolution is this? You destroy your own country. You steal the country’s resources, destroy hospitals.
SS: Still, President Assad is a controversial figure. Do you think it will be easier to achieve peace if he steps down?
ABH: It’s not for me to decide. It is not up to me; it is not up to Bashar Assad. It’s up to the Syrian people to decide.
SS: But what do you think personally? It’s important.
ABH: I think if Assad steps down, this will result in a breakup of Syria. The reason they want President Assad to go is not to restore democracy. They just want to divide Syria into a number of small countries.
We will only accept a decision made by the Syrian people. Let’s allow the Syrian people to speak. We have been hearing a lot of President Hollande, but the Syrian people aren’t allowed to express their opinion for some reason. Let’s stop listening to people from the U.S., the White House, the Élysée Palace, let’s hear what the ordinary Syrian people have to say. We have to let them talk. Just like it’s not up to Washington to decide who should be president of Russia, it’s not up to Washington to decide who should be president in Damascus. We will recognize the results of a fair independent election. It can be monitored by the UN or Russia.
But they refuse, saying, ‘No, we won’t stop fighting until Assad is gone.’ But what is the alternative? Let’s say Assad steps down. What next? What is the alternative for the Syrian people? Let the Syrian people finally say something on the matter.
SS: I remember when the Syrian conflict just began you said that if we didn’t stop the war immediately, it would drag on for another 10-15 years. What’s your prognosis now? Will this terrible conflict drag on until 2025, or is it possible to end it sooner?  
ABH: I hope it will end in 2016, that’s what I hope for, because we’ve begun making joint efforts in order to resolve this crisis. We can now see significant military success achieved on the Syrian-Lebanese border, with the army advancing towards the Syrian-Turkish border.
Syria’s problem is external, not internal. Our problem is our so-called “friends and neighbors” that extend a helping hand to these terrorists. So when we clear the Syrian-Turkish border of terrorists there will be a dramatic improvement.   The presence of the Russian air force coupled with the efforts of the Syrian army led to considerable success. Now a lot of territory along the Syrian-Turkish border has been cleared of terrorists. As for Idlib and Raqqa, we’ll continue operations there in the days to come. So I hope all the terrorists will simply scatter. I also hope your brave Russian pilots will come back home once peace is restored. 
SS: I want to ask you a very personal question. When terrorists killed your son, you forgave them and asked the judge to forgive them, too. How is that possible? How did you overcome the burning desire for revenge? Are there many people like you in Syria? 
ABH: It’s not the men that blew up his car that should be punished, it’s the people who finance them, the people who come to our country from abroad to do all of this.
Of course I won’t forgive the radicals who urge people to kill, who put themselves above others, who say they’ve created some ‘Islamic state’, mutilating the very tenets of Islam. I condemn those people and I’m never going to forgive them because they are playing games with people’s lives at stake.
It’s the leaders of the Gulf countries, Turkey and the America that should stand trial, because they supplied the arms. The weapons that killed my son came from them. To me, all the people who were killed at their hands are like my son. Every Syrian that died in this war is my son.
SS: Mr. Mufti, thank you so much for the interview. I hope your voice will be heard by those who need it. I really hope that this war will end in the near future, because it has lasted for far too long. Thank you very much.
[END TRANSCRIPT]
********

So you want to save Syrian civilization, Mr Kerry? Then try telling the truth

In a January 31 report on Islamic State's attack on Syrian civilians, the Associated Press reported U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as saying:
"... to make the most of this moment, to seize the opportunity for serious negotiations, to negotiate in good faith with the goal of making concrete measurable progress in the days immediately ahead."
"Now, while battlefield dynamics can affect negotiating leverage, in the end there is no military solution to this conflict.  Without negotiations, the bloodshed will drag on until the last city is reduced to rubble and virtually every home, every form of infrastructure, and every semblance of civilization is destroyed."
Kerry knows very well that the grim scenario he outlined is very unlikely to happen now that the Russians have joined with Lebanon's Hezbolla; the Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi armies; and the large number of Syrian volunteer militias fighting on the government's side.

However, the dystopia John Kerry describes almost happened, and it didn't almost happen because of Bashar al-Assad or even the mukhabarat. If he didn't know this when he first took over at the State Department, he knows now. This means he has to find the courage to proceed on truth.

********






    

             

Make Yours a Happy Home and the Lazy American Negro

There are people who've heard Make Yours a Happy Home from the 1974 movie Claudine one time and gotten healed of whatever ails them. I don't know whether it's the most uplifting pop song ever recorded but there's just something about it. 

Maybe it's the can-do attitude in Curtis Mayfield's lyrics and joy in Gladys Knight's voice, the reminder that the capacity for happiness is a determination, something that's worked for, not given. Maybe it's the musical arrangement. Or maybe it's all three and something else called for want of a better word art. 

Ironically Claudine is such a depressing film on so many levels I hesitated to link to the Wikipedia article about it. But there's one thing people in this era can learn from the plot: the Lazy American Negro was always a myth. Even at the height of the welfare system many American descendants of African slaves worked full time, often at more than one job, and collected welfare. 

But that meant they had to lie to The Man, and it was the constant lying, the constant law-breaking, the double life, the completely untrue narrative they wove about themselves to keep collecting that welfare check, which corroded self-image and character.

Why, then, did so many of them live that way? Acquisitiveness, which is not quite the same as greed. It was the pack-rat mentality. The Man was giving away free money and all you had to do to get some was lie. But the lying became a way of life, the way things were, a system that allowed millions of black males to procreate without responsibility to their offspring because The Man was always there with a check when you didn't make child support payments. 
          
Claudine refuses to treat the protagonists as victims or blame Whitey, so I doubt the film could be made today; it's just too unvarnished a treatment of a way of life that did no one any good and skyrocketed alcohol and drug dependence in America's black inner cities.  

Yet none of that circumscribes the story of Claudine, any more than war circumscribes the human condition. An awful lot of us, black, white, rich, poor, have lived screwed-up lives, we've come from screwed-up families, and if there's a stupid way to do something we've done it that way. 

So then what? Fall down on the road and wait to be run over? Best we can do is keep going, keep trying, and learn that if happiness can be given and taken away by others it was never happiness in the first place. That is the takeaway message of Claudine and Make Yours a Happy Home.         
              
Anyhow, thank you Curtis, thank you Gladys Knight & the Pips, thank you Buddah Records.