Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair tells Brian Williams about his new role on the world stage.
On 27 June 2007, he officially resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after ten years in office, and Blair was officially confirmed as Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia.
Blair originally indicated that he would retain his parliamentary seat after his resignation as Prime Minister came into effect; however, he resigned from the Commons on being confirmed for the Middle East role, by taking up an office for profit .
President George W. Bush had preliminary talks with Blair to ask him to take up the envoy role. White House sources stated that "both Israel and the Palestinians had signed up to the proposal".
Media has speculated that Blair is planning to become the first President of the European Council, a post created in the Treaty of Lisbon that would come into force in 2009, if successfully ratified.
What the hell qualifies this guy to be an Middle East Envoy and how is it that Bush could have anything to do with Bush unless it's this: In January 2008 it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan "in a senior advisory capacity"
In my view of "It" this is another sign of a New World Order.
To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution.
If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional.
To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.
Wake up people!!
Jan 21, 2008
Blair on Mideast or A New World Order
Jan 19, 2008
Something We Already Knew
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After the United States has spent more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some American officials now acknowledge that there were too few controls over the money. The strategy to improve the Pakistani military, they said, needs to be completely revamped.
Do you think that they are finally getting that we are wasting money in the Middle East, that we are funding terrorism at the same time? We have been taken for a ride!
Read More^
Jan 8, 2008
Who's Provoking Who?
WASHINGTON — Just hours before President Bush was to begin his trip to the Middle East, he sharply criticized Iran on Tuesday for fomenting “a dangerous situation” in an incident over the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.
Asked whether he thought the Iranians were trying to provoke a fight with the United States by having several of their vessels confront American craft, the president said the Iranians had engaged in “a provocative act.”
“It is a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple,” Mr. Bush said in a brief question-and-answer session in the Rose Garden. “I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what I think it was.”
Read More^
Related: US releases Iran stand-off video
Thanks to Ted from Ted's SoapBox 2.o for the link...
Jan 1, 2008
Nov 27, 2007
The 'Triumphant' Neocons
Citing signs of military progress in Iraq, America’s neoconservatives are reasserting their vision of the United States as an imperial power that can reshape the Muslim world in a way favorable to the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Casting aside the image of the war as a bloody quagmire, the neocons are again selling Iraq as a vital beachhead in the Middle East from which the United States can project power throughout the region and achieve victory over Islamic militants hostile to Israel.
Sep 18, 2007
More Pressure on Iran
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is pressing Arab allies to form a more united front against Iran, seen by Washington as the region's long-term threat.
At military compounds and royal reception halls across the Persian Gulf, Adm. William Fallon is delivering personal appeals to Arab leaders to counter Iran's ambitions to expand its regional influence and move ahead with its nuclear program.
While it appears that our great military minds are going to great lengths to not openly threaten Iran, they are quiety galvanizing Gulf leaders while letting others sharply escalate pressure on Tehran.
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.
Read More...Adm. Fallon Presses Case Against Iran
Jul 20, 2007
My small attempt to understand
the islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle
By David Zeidan
This article analyzes how radical Islamist movements have altered traditional Islamic concepts to justify their worldview. Based on the writings of prominent radical Islamist leaders across a wide spectrum, it analyzes the ideas of a cosmic struggle between good and evil as reflected in the individual and in society. It traces the reinterpretation of traditional Islamic concepts such as jahiliyya, takfir, hijra, mufassala, jihad and istishad to justify indiscriminate violence.
Read More...
I am putting this out there as part of my own small attempt at understanding what is happening in the Middle East - without all Bush's rhetoric. As near as I can figure (this is very much simplified) the primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state .
Apparently, the greatest outrage of all is the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, which is an outright infidel occupation of the "land of the two Holy Places the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims." Some regimes in Muslim states, including the Saudi government, have joined this evil alliance, becoming mere puppets of the Americans and suppressing faithful ulama who would reveal the truth to their people. Westerners living in the Arabian Peninsula are not people of the book, but infidels occupying Muslim Holy Land and must be expelled by violent jihad., a call upon all Muslims - Iraqis and non-Iraqis alike - to support Jihad on U.S. forces in Iraq.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.
For 14 centuries this has been the way of life in the Middle East. While their Customs and their Culture may be different from ours, it is still theirs. People don't like being bossed around and most especially not by the United States.
Democracy in the Middle East? Not going to happen. It just doesn't fit in with their cultural beliefs. They may make a show of it because of political necessities, meaning that they are either to impress the West, or to balance and maintain the current status. There is not a real, genuine move to democracy in any Arab country at the moment, except maybe Iraq now for the moment.
Bin-Laden also accuses the Western powers of plotting to divide Iraq into three mini-states (the north for the Kurds, the middle for the Sunni, and the south for the Shia), and that they plot a similar partition in Saudi-Arabia: one mini-state around the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina, one in the middle, and one in the oil-rich Eastern region.
While it is certainly laudable that the United States would like to see Democracy in the Middle East I think it is fair to say that the real agenda is access to oil, cooperation and assistance on counterterrorism, fostering peace between Israel and its neighbors, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and preventing Islamist radicals from seizing power.
That's My View of "It"
Jul 16, 2007
Misreading Iraq - Again!
George W. Bush and his neoconservative supporters are hailing some signs of cooperation between Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders and U.S. forces in rooting out al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar Province as proof that Bush’s military occupation of Iraq is finally working and should not be ended by Congress. See: Misreading Iraq, Again
By Robert Parry
In pursuit of that goal, Atiyah also saw the importance of keeping the U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote in a letter that was discovered by U.S. forces after Zarqawi’s death in June 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]
The reality is that Al-Qaeda wants us to be in Iraq See: Al Qaeda Strategic Vision: Engage the U.S. Overseas, Not at Home
Download: The Management of Savagery a Translation of Major al-Qaeda Book that Outlines Its Plan for Defeating U.S. and Its Allies.
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.
"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self- serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising ? in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
Comments:
Beaman said...
True, Iraq and Afghanistan are far from being successful democratic and peaceful nations. However is that really the sole fault of the coalition? I personally place most of the blame on the Iraqis, Afghans and those who seek Jihad in those nations from abroad (Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi etc). These people had every chance to create a better country but didn't have the insight to see it. Was that on purpose or not? I don't know.
July 16, 2007 5:14 PM
Carol said...
Special Briefing: Jihad: Who's joining, and why?http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0803/p04s01-wogi.htmlWhat is Jihad? The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.Hi Beaman,You said "These people had every chance to create a better country but didn't have the insight to see it." A better Country by our values? I don't think that we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, do you?Thanks for the visit and for taking the time to comment. I appreciate that.Peace.Carol
July 16, 2007 7:18 PM
Beaman said...
Beliefs no, but freedom from tyranny and the chance at democracy (which is the best form of government known to man), yes. I want Iraqis and Afghans to have all the freedoms, chances and peace we enjoy in the West. I believe our political values should be spread across the world, indeed.I enjoy your blog, even though I disagree here and there. :)Best Wishes.
July 17, 2007 5:10 AM
Carol said...
It's ok to disagree with me I welcome the chance to hear other points of view. I understand what you are saying but I think that the Middle East is so fundamentally and culturally different from us that they may not even want a Democracy. I think that we should really be spending our energies here at home fixing what is wrong and broken in this Country. If other Countries want and ask for our help, well then that would be another matter.Peace.Carol
July 17, 2007 10:39 AM
Apr 15, 2007
This Can't Be Good!
Dmitry Astakhov/Presidential Press Service, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is offering nuclear aid.
So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East.
“The rules have changed,” King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs.”
In Washington, officials are seizing on such developments to build their case for stepping up pressure on Iran. a senior administration official said that the recent announcements were “clearly part of an effort to send a signal to Iran that two can play this game.” And, he added, “among the non-Iranian programs I’ve heard about in the region, I have not heard talk of reprocessing or enrichment, which is what would worry us the most.”So now it's a game of tit for tat? Great. All under the guise of Nuclear Energy? We will have to wait and see who "wins" by making the first nuclear bomb and pushing the button...oh wait, there won't be anyone left to know who won!
Jan 20, 2007
US Government Biological Weapons Legislator Says 2001 Anthrax Attacks Part Of Government Bio-warfare ProgramExpert says FBI covered up the plot to attack Congress which may have been perpetrated by the same people who carried out the 9/11 attacks
http://infowars.net/articles/december2006/131206Anthrax.htm
Leading Academic: Neo-Nazis Have Signed Us Onto WWIIIDestroying World Order: Analysing the war In Iraq and the Middle East with Dr Franics A Boyle
http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/050107Boyle.htm
He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his 'enemies', equipped him for atrocities - and then made sure he wouldn't squeal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/311206secrets.htm
Jan 9, 2007
Like I Was Saying This Morning!
Bush's Rush to Armageddon
George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help.
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
