The Syrian National Council is not representative of the Syrian people.

That is precisely why it exists outside of Syria, is operated by Syrians who have fled the country with the help of precisely every nation whose interests are vested in toppling Assad and replacing the nation’s government with a western-satellite.

Leader of the SNC Mr. Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib has just resigned because he believes there is too much Islamist influence on the council as well as foreign influence from nations like Qatar.

Ironic, because nations like Qatar, in other words the entire Gulf region including Saudi Arabia, is a western-satellite, designed to strategically serve the West’s economic and geopolitical interests.

The following excerpt comes from BBC:

The SNC chose US-based Islamist Ghassan Hitto to head the alternative administration, which is intended to govern rebel-held areas from inside Syria.

Does that say Islamist?

Wait, I thought the U.S. feared Islamists. I thought it killed Islamists…

Oh but this is Syria…

Pemex Oil Explosion Raises Question


Why does Mexico, which is supposed to be a democracy, run a STATE-owned oil company known as Pemex? Does this not violate Western traditions of free markets and liberalism?

Ah, I get it. In this case, state-socialism in foreign nations is beneficial to the West. Pick and choose, you know?

Zionism vs. Judaism


If I get a permanent tattoo on my back saying I love Jewish people then proceed to criticize Israel and all zionist entities, you think I’d have a better shot, lol? Maybe then I wouldn’t be labeled an anti-semite.

Separate Israel from Judaism. Separate Judaism from Zionism. Separate Islam from Islamism. Separate Christianity from Fundamentalists. Separate everything from everything. Break down words.

Judaism is a religion. Jews are followers of that culture, religion, etc. Zionism is a philosophy arguing for the recreation of Israel, and like all philosophies, there are opposing perspectives. Whether or not Israel should exist is a normative question — I would answer it should not, because its creation negated the HUMAN RIGHTS of human beings, men, women, and children in Palestine.  Now that it does exist, as an extension of Western Corporate interests guised by “pseudo-religious fundamentalism” and “fear-driven, conservative and authoritative politics”, and it continues to lobby around the world to justify its existence, people continue to die, war and famine continue to break out, and fundamentalism becomes rampant.

Look, at the end of the day, we all know the different between Jews and Zionists. We all know that every “group” of people has good and bad in it. I have many Jewish friends that I love, but I will tell you, that my position on Israel has not ever changed because it is rooted in moral philosophy.

The existence and continued expansion of Israel violates universal morals, human rights, and natural law.

The conflict now lies between the Arabs and the Israelis. The Arab people are struggling to prove to the world their ability to be free, democratic and just. The Israelis do whatever they can to weaken them, be it through funding terrorists or propaganda. And yet, all the while, innocent people lose their lives.

Ah, the wonders of the world.

Nationalism in the Middle East: Iran, Syria, and the West


In the days of President Harry Truman, relations between the United States and the Middle East weren’t so sour.

In 1952, everything changed.

The United Kingdom was planning to depose the newly democratically elected prime minister of Iran: Prime Minister Mossadegh. He is the man seated in the photograph above.

Mossadegh had quickly become the archenemy of the UK.

Tensions worsened when he began making calls for the nationalization of Iranian oil.  For so long, foreign nations, or colonialists, as they were called, had been exploiting the Iran’s vast oil wealth, leaving the majority of the population extremely impoverished (All the Shah’s Men, Kinzer).

Through the sly tactics of English government officials,  the United Kingdom convinced the Americans to tag along. The key word was communism, which was all the Americans needed to hear.

After the Cold War however, it became increasingly clear that communism was not the threat. It was a much deeper issue.

For centuries, the West exploited countries for their resources. Nations like Iran, Syria, and countries outside the Middle East like Venezuela and Cuba, did not embrace communism simply to spite the West. On the contrary, they were doing the exact opposite. Iranians and Syrians alike began making the same demands that their American counterparts made in their early history – that they be granted the right to collect the fruits of their labor and to profit off the wealth of their natural resources. Both of these demands are fundamental principles of free market economics.

Ironically though, the U.K., with the help of the U.S., did what ever they could to prevent these countries from doing just that. They did this by conducting covert coup d’etats and assassinations. They financed monarchies and even bribed foreigners to stir uprisings in their own countries (All the Shah’s Men, Kinzer).

What is even more ironic is that the countries stirring these uprisings, namely the U.K. and the U.S., tout Western principles of freedom and democracy, while, simultaneously, investing in movements led by Islamic fundamentalists and tyrannical monarchies abroad.

In Iran, for example, one Islamic cleric turned against the popularly elected leader Prime Minister Mossadegh. A day later he received $10,000 from the CIA.

Incidents like these are scattered throughout the twentieth century. They only serve to illuminate the truth behind the politics of the Middle East. Even more so, they force me to question the current chaos gripping the Middle East today.

I ask myself questions like, who is behind these Arab protests? Are they really genuine? And why are countries like Saudi Arabia not being scrutinized for their brutal suppression of pro-democracy protests in Bahrain?

Perhaps it is for the same reason that the U.K. orchestrated the coup d’etat against Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1952 – to preserve their grasp on the oil wealth of the Middle East.

Iran & the West: The Showdown Continues Part II


Recently, a close friend of mine sent me an article about Iran and its deteriorating relationship with the West. The following is an excerpt from that article.

Notwithstanding these setbacks, Khamenei remains steadfast. Preserving the ideological order of the Islamic Republic is more important for the supreme leader than crossing the nuclear Rubicon. For a leader who, in the words of John Milton, prefers “to reign in hell than serve in heaven,” surrender is political suicide. In the eyes of this custodian of political Islam, surrounded by a culture of complacency and mendacity, a Pyrrhic victory is divine providence.

Against this backdrop, Washington’s belief in the ability of sanctions to curtail Tehran’s atomic ambitions proves credulous. Iran’s nuclear defiance is ideological and thus cannot be resolved by coercion. Rather than repeating the failed policy of pushing the supreme leader into a corner, the Obama administration should aim for piecemeal solutions that would allow for a face-saving compromise. The goal should be to decelerate Iran’s perilous nuclear activities and put it under rigorous international monitoring until cooler heads prevail in Tehran.

In response, I said the following:

 Very interesting. I think this approach is better than what a Republican approach would be. Still, I fear that sanctions will exacerbate things. I think fear is still being used to convince people that Iran is a threat, the same way the public was convinced that Iraq was a threat. To be honest, I think that if a country threatens U.S. Corporate interests – not government interests; those are very different – it automatically becomes categorized as a “nuclear” threat. This is the only way to garner enough public support to ensure that a foreign endeavor is not met with public outrage.

What are your thoughts?

Is Iran really a direct threat to the U.S., or is Modern Iran simply responding to centuries of imperialism that took the country back to the Middle Ages?