posted August 28, 2006 10:45 AM              

quote:

---

None of the current heads of Arab states made the list of the 10 most popular public figures. While subject to future fluctuations, these Egyptian findings suggest the direction in which the region is moving. The Arab people do not respect the ruling regimes, perceiving them to be autocratic, corrupt and inept. They are, at best, ambivalent about the fanatical Islamists of the bin Laden variety.

---

The irony of this is that many Americans also want a change in government because they also perceive the present heads of government ( both Democrats and Republicans ) to be autocratic, corrupt and inept. Maybe all the chaos in the world at this time in history is ushering in a new world order afterall but not the NWO that the present governments and corporate powers in the world want. Instead a NWO designed by the people of the world and the vast majority of peoples in the world just want to live their lives in peace without government control and interference in their lives. A NWO also designed by God instead of governments where there truly is freedom, justice and respect for our fellow human beings no matter what race, religion or nationality they are.

A friend of mine in England recently told me in her email, " I still believe that the world is in a state of limbo, where one stage is ending but the next hasn't arrived, which always brings chaos and confusion. Isn't it times like these that faith is tested? Its easy to have faith when we aren't being tested and its right to have doubts but I personally believe that everything is happening as it should. Times are changing and people are scared of change which is why I think there's a feeling of doom."

I think she is right and everything that is taking place in our world today points to this. It will be "a rough birth" because the powers that be want to hold onto to that power and control at all costs.

The 'New Middle East' Bush Is Resisting

By Saad Eddin Ibrahim

08/23/06 "Washington Post" -- -- President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be quite right about a new Middle East being born. In fact, their policies in support of the actions of their closest regional ally, Israel, have helped midwife the newborn. But it will not be exactly the baby they have longed for. For one thing, it will be neither secular nor friendly to the United States. For another, it is going to be a rough birth.

What is happening in the broader Middle East and North Africa can be seen as a boomerang effect that has been playing out slowly since the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001. In the immediate aftermath of those attacks, there was worldwide sympathy for the United States and support for its declared "war on terrorism," including the invasion of Afghanistan. Then the cynical exploitation of this universal goodwill by so-called neoconservatives to advance hegemonic designs was confirmed by the war in Iraq. The Bush administration's dishonest statements about "weapons of mass destruction" diminished whatever credibility the United States might have had as liberator, while disastrous mismanagement of Iraqi affairs after the invasion led to the squandering of a conventional military victory. The country slid into bloody sectarian violence, while official Washington stonewalled and refused to admit mistakes. No wonder the world has progressively turned against America.

Against this declining moral standing, President Bush made something of a comeback in the first year of his second term. He shifted his foreign policy rhetoric from a "war on terrorism" to a war of ideas and a struggle for liberty and democracy. Through much of 2005 it looked as if the Middle East might finally have its long-overdue spring of freedom. Lebanon forged a Cedar Revolution, triggered by the assassination of its popular former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri. Egypt held its first multi-candidate presidential election in 50 years. So did Palestine and Iraq, despite harsh conditions of occupation. Qatar and Bahrain in the Arabian Gulf continued their steady evolution into constitutional monarchies. Even Saudi Arabia held its first municipal elections.

But there was more. Hamas mobilized candidates and popular campaigns to win a plurality in Palestinian legislative elections and form a new government. Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt achieved similar electoral successes. And with these developments, a sudden chill fell over Washington and other Western capitals.

Instead of welcoming these particular elected officials into the newly emerging democratic fold, Washington began a cold war on Muslim democrats. Even the tepid pressure on autocratic allies of the United States to democratize in 2005 had all but disappeared by 2006. In fact, tottering Arab autocrats felt they had a new lease on life with the West conveniently cowed by an emerging Islamist political force.

Now the cold war on Islamists has escalated into a shooting war, first against Hamas in Gaza and then against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is perceived in the region, rightly or wrongly, to be an agent acting on behalf of U.S. interests. Some will admit that there was provocation for Israel to strike at Hamas and Hezbollah following the abduction of three soldiers and attacks on military and civilian targets. But destroying Lebanon with an overkill approach born of a desire for vengeance cannot be morally tolerated or politically justified -- and it will not work.

On July 30 Arab, Muslim and world outrage reached an unprecedented level with the Israeli bombing of a residential building in the Lebanese village of Qana, which killed dozens and wounded hundreds of civilians, most of them children. A similar massacre in Qana in 1996, which Arabs remember painfully well, proved to be the political undoing of then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres. It is too early to predict whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will survive Qana II and the recent war. But Hezbollah will survive, just as it has already outlasted five Israeli prime ministers and three American presidents.

Born in the thick of an earlier Israeli invasion, in 1982, Hezbollah is at once a resistance movement against foreign occupation, a social service provider for the needy of the rural south and the slum-dwellers of Beirut, and a model actor in Lebanese and Middle Eastern politics. Despite access to millions of dollars in resources from within and from regional allies Syria and Iran, its three successive leaders have projected an image of clean governance and a pious personal lifestyle.

In more than four weeks of fighting against the strongest military machine in the region, Hezbollah held its own and won the admiration of millions of Arabs and Muslims. People in the region have compared its steadfastness with the swift defeat of three large Arab armies in the Six-Day War of 1967. Hasan Nasrallah, its current leader, spoke several times to a wide regional audience through his own al-Manar network as well as the more popular al-Jazeera. Nasrallah has become a household name in my own country, Egypt.

According to the preliminary results of a recent public opinion survey of 1,700 Egyptians by the Cairo-based Ibn Khaldun Center, Hezbollah's action garnered 75 percent approval, and Nasrallah led a list of 30 regional public figures ranked by perceived importance. He appears on 82 percent of responses, followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (73 percent), Khaled Meshal of Hamas (60 percent), Osama bin Laden (52 percent) and Mohammed Mahdi Akef of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (45 percent).

The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic. And among the few secular public figures who made it into the top 10 are Palestinian Marwan Barghouti (31 percent) and Egypt's Ayman Nour (29 percent), both of whom are prisoners of conscience in Israeli and Egyptian jails, respectively.

None of the current heads of Arab states made the list of the 10 most popular public figures. While subject to future fluctuations, these Egyptian findings suggest the direction in which the region is moving. The Arab people do not respect the ruling regimes, perceiving them to be autocratic, corrupt and inept. They are, at best, ambivalent about the fanatical Islamists of the bin Laden variety. More mainstream Islamists with broad support, developed civic dispositions and services to provide are the most likely actors in building a new Middle East. In fact, they are already doing so through the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, the similarly named PJD in Morocco, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine and, yes, Hezbollah in Lebanon.

These groups, parties and movements are not inimical to democracy. They have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics, probably too well for Washington's taste. Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. The rest of the Western world must come to grips with the new reality, even if the U.S. president and his secretary of state continue to reject the new offspring of their own policies.

The writer is an Egyptian democracy activist, professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo, and chairman of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

posted August 28, 2006 12:08 PM            

"The Bush administration's dishonest statements about "weapons of mass destruction"

Bush made no dishonest statements about Iraq's WMD. The entire world, including the intelligence services of most nations on earth...including the nations of the Middle East believed Saddam had WMD. Indeed, WMD has been found in Iraq...about 500 specific WMD weapons. Further, Iraqi's themselves, including a General in Saddam's Air Force says Saddam's stocks of WMD were transferred to Syria...just before the invasion. One bullsh*t allegation down the tubes...and the very same one Mirandee continues to make...with no proof whatsoever that it's true.

"Through much of 2005 it looked as if the Middle East might finally have its long-overdue spring of freedom. Lebanon forged a Cedar Revolution, triggered by the assassination of its popular former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri."

Lebanon did not forge it's Cedar Revolution in a vacuum. The United States insisted Syria withdraw military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and had the US military forces next door to make it stick. In fact, were it not for the United States and Britain, Syria would still be occupying Lebanon today...instead of Syria's proxy terrorist group, Hezbollah.

Hezbollah in Lebanon did NOT organize and form a plurality in the Lebanese government. This is just utter blathering bullsh*t. Hezbollah has a couple of cabinet level ministers in the Lebanese government and perhaps a few representatives. That is in no way a plurality

"On July 30 Arab, Muslim and world outrage reached an unprecedented level with the Israeli bombing of a residential building in the Lebanese village of Qana, which killed dozens and wounded hundreds of civilians, most of them children."

More blathering bullsh*t. The so called massacre at Qana turned out to be an entirely staged propaganda ploy by Hezbollah...as the pictures from western and local press sources proved. The photographer responsible for many of those pictures has lost his job and over 900 of his pictures were pulled from the media website. Further, western media sources who ran with the propaganda stories coming off the lips of Hezbollah agents got a huge black eye over the staged photos and the stories which so called journalist wrote about them

"In more than four weeks of fighting against the strongest military machine in the region, Hezbollah held its own and won the admiration of millions of Arabs and Muslims."

This guy is not to be taken seriously. In a few weeks of fighting...and using minimal ground forces against Hezbollah, the IDF pushed Hezbollah back about 20 miles from the Lebanese/Israeli border, destroyed their munition dumps, destroyed about 3/4 of their longer range missiles Syria and Iran had given them, destroyed their command and control infrastructure and wiped most of those who stuck around to fight in the area off the map. One wonders how many more "great victories" Hezbollah can afford to participate in.

"The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic."

The pattern is clear that there are many in the Middle East who subscribe to the terrorist practices of al-Qaeda. No matter what denials they may give because the tactics and goals of Hezbollah and Hamas are exactly the same tactics as al-Qaeda's..which is to make war by deliberate attacks on civilians and that's the very definition of terrorism. Neither am I going to buy into the bullsh*t that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda are civilians as some here would like to assert.

"These groups, parties and movements are not inimical to democracy. They have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics, probably too well for Washington's taste."

These are the very same groups with exactly the same mindset who are attempting to overthrow the duly elected government of Iraq. Funded and armed by Iran and Syria they are joined at the hip in terrorism so no blather about democrat systems are going to fly. Islamic Theocracy, not democratic or representative government is their goal

Some people never leave Fantasy Land long enough for reality to catch up with them.

posted August 28, 2006 12:15 PM              

I think that (the quote from your friend) is very insightful and I believe it 100%.
You can feel this "unrest"... fear and tension underneath the surface seems to be everywhere because people are apprehensive of the future. I liked your friend's birth analogy because even with the pain and turmoil of the present, I think it is headed somewhere positive (eventually).

As far as the article on the middle east, the outcomes of the free elections HAVE been quite a surprise. I am sure each country is different but I wonder who is being represented in the voting. For example, in how many countries do women get to vote, and if it is allowed, how many are actually participating?