21-Nov-13 World View -- U.S. and Afghanistan agree on pact

[John]

21-Nov-13 World View -- U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact

China relents and sends 'Peace Ark' hospital ship to Philippines

** 21-Nov-13 World View -- U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e131121


Contents:
U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact
China relents and sends 'Peace Ark' hospital ship to Philippines
Was Tuesday's suicide bombing in Beirut Lebanon self-inflicted?


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, John Kerry, Iraq,
Hamid Karzai, Beirut, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran,
Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
China, Peace Ark, Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines, Ikea

[NoOneImportant]

With the Beirut Iranian Embassy bombing being attributable to Hezbollah - regardless of Debka's credibility - It starts to look like I need to start taking notes in the Middle East regarding who does what to whom, and when.

When the Fordow enrichment facility was bombed removing 3000 active centrifuges from Iran's enrichment program, it was naturally believed that the Israelis were the most probable responsible party. With Prince Bandar's contention, to the Russian's, that Saudi Arabia is able to control Caucasian terror, forces that might jeopardize a peaceful Russian Olympic Games, the contention that the Israelis, and no others, might be responsible for Fordow, might be revisited, and questioned. With the events - from Debka, certainly a source that needs to be questioned - stating that Hezbollah is the responsible source for the Beirut Embassy bombing, almost everything coming out of the Middle East's recent past needs to be reevaluated, and more closely questioned in the future.

In the best of times murder is a way of life in the Middle East, with lying being the normal course of human interaction. There are starting to be so many antagonists that a score card is necessary to assess who did what to whom, and when. There appears to be an ever increasing slide toward chaos taking place in the Middle East, with greater and greater difficulty in determining who is responsible for what. Anyone who has ever been in a position where lying is the routine method of human communications quickly comes to the conclusion that the only way to be sure of the truth is to: listen to what they say, but then watch what they do. With enough stress people will tell you whatever they "need" to tell you at the moment - in the Middle East that stress might be considered simply being awake - ; but, whether they are lying or not, what they do will always reflect what they really believe - listen to what they say, but then watch what they do to determine reality. Living like this makes life quite difficult, as paranoia is one of the major byproducts of adopting this method of analysis, as everything must be questioned, and evaluated.

So what unusual is happening in the Middle East? One might just as easily ask: so what isn't; but what can't be ignored is that something has happened to cause Iran to exhibited an extraordinary external change of position. Iran will now do what, until recently, what was unfatomable; not only will they meet with the Great Satan, but will discuss their nuclear ambitions? As John has noted in his articles, this is more than just a simple change of verbiage, although the verbiage, in Islamic circles, is telling. What the Iranians are doing may represent earnest change on their part, or perhaps their nuclear program was always something in place only to be bargained away at the appropriate moment. In any case the question is why, and why now? It may be simple duplicity necessary to buy the time to complete Iran's nuclear bomb fabrication, or the change may be in earnest. If the change is real, what has happened to alter a 25 year recalcitrant Iranian antagonistic position towards America and Israel? A position that remained unaltered even in the face of a U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why, and what has caused Iran to have "changed?" Almost at the same moment that Iran gets "religion" and decides to become a responsible international player, at that moment those wonderful people who gave you the 1981 Marine barracks bombing get a conscience and decide to withdraw from Syria after 10s of thousands of innocent deaths? An unrestrained Saudi Arabia might be something to be feared by the Shi'a Iranians, and indeed the Saudis might have found it easier to perpetrate the Fordow bombing than the Israelis, and may have had as much to gain by disabling the Fordow facility as the Israelis. The Saudis control the wellspring of Islam - Mecca - and might conceivably be able to galvanize/organize a united entire Sunni world against Iran; and with that Sunni organization comes a nuclear armed Pakistan who might conceivably pass a nuclear device or two onto the Saudi controlled Sunni terror network - a network that no one is even really sure exists, Prince Bandar's assurances aside - for actual use in Iran. But the Saudis may see it as the only way - given Iran's world wide history of terror - to assure that they - Saudi Arabia - are not at the top of any nuclear armed Iranian terror hit list. Any such move would be quite scary, and not just for Iran. Although there is no historical precedent for something so radical - Prince Bandar's comments to the Russians, with recent Iranian, Hezbollah actions, and Debka contentions, give cause for consideration.

What isn't far fetched is that after the U.S. Syrian debacle, Saudi Arabia will no longer be restrained, or influenced by America - as punctuated by the Saudis refusing to accept their seat on the U.N. Security Council.

But then again what do I know: listen to what they say; then watch what they do.

[Guest]

The Saudi's do not control the Chechen rebels. The Chechen rebels are not a single group; the Chechen resistance is made up of several different groups (most which are run locally and have little, if any connections to foreign governments or groups). The main Chechen rebel group is openly hostile to Saudi Arabia. Who knows if Price Bandar actually even made those comments-we are going by secondary sources. The Russian government would like people to believe that the Chechen rebels are funded, armed, controlled, and lead by foreigners (even made up of foreign volunteers) from completely outside of Russia. The Russian government has been trying to discredit the Chechen resistance for over two decades. They have failed to do that. The Chechen resistance is homegrown. It does not require foreign funding, foreign volunteers, or foreign leadership.

Who knows if they really bombed the embassy or not? I really don't know. Lying is the norm in the ME for many different groups-the israelis being one of them. The israelis could easily be responsible for the embassy bombing in Beirut.

[NoOneImportant]

That was my understanding before the comments by Bandar, and Debka.

Debka has always been a source that as been questionable, but feeds the paranoia, and provides useful information both discretely, and as an information aggregator. The Chechens correspondingly have always been quite independent - perhaps derived from their descent from the Cossacks -, savage, and unpredictable. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has always appeared to be a savage, creative, bold, and a dutiful soldier of Iranian direction - they appear, externally that is, to be disciplined, dedicated, courageous - they will stand and fight - and are well trained. If not completely in sync with Iran, at least in the past they have differed quietly - avoiding public discord. Differing with Iran, I would think, would be a gradual thing, and the Beirut bombing is hardly gradual - you can't get a whole lot more public than blowing up the Iranian Embassy in Beirut; and were Hezbollah responsible, it certainly would signal an end to the training, and money pipe that has run for years from Tehran to Beirut. I don't see that Israel gains much from covertly bombing the Iranian Embassy, and if they wanted it done they certainly could have done it from 30,000 feet, without jeopardy. The Syrian resistance is plausible, but I perceive that they would have been screaming from the roof tops that they did it - for the PR. Whoever did it, the message to the Iranians is clear: we can get you anywhere....

I can't figure out what Bandar would think that he would get from such a comment to the Russians. If patently false it would be quickly verified as false and marginalize him - perhaps that's the objective, as he could then say virtually anything he desired in public and arouse no serious concern; but who wants to be marginalized, and to what end? Who would trust anything he had to say after such an outrageous statement? Or perhaps it was for general consumption to broadcast to the uninformed that he - the Saudis - have a reach further than in reality they have, and that they will no longer be passive. If what he said is true it provides limited time to be useful - now until the summer - and makes them - the Saudis - responsible for any Olympic terror event, and compromises/indicts the Saudis in covert terror on a scope much broader than the Middle East.

And I continue to ask myself regarding Iran, what's changed? Their bewailing Sunni terror leads me to think that there are events beyond common knowledge that have taken place, and are continuing to take place in Iran. I find myself returning, perhaps in error, to Fordow, the single largest "terror" event widely known to have taken place in Iran, with its associated loss of life - purported to be 240 nuclear scientists, and technicians killed. A year before Fordow - Nov. 2011 - there was a very large explosion that killed Brig. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, along with 16 other Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp members at a military site outside Bidganeh, about 25 miles from Tehran. The large explosion at the facility - a rocket development/munitions storage facility - was designated by Iran as an unfortunate "accident" - but in retrospect was it?

[Guest]

Chechens are not descended from cossacks. Chechens are an ancient people with their own language and culture. Chechnya is their ancient land. The Russians are the foreign invaders. The Chechens want to freedom. For Chechens, this war is liberty or death. As long as one Chechen breathes, the war will continue.

Who knows what Bandar really said outside of the people in that room? I wonder if he really said exactly that to begin with? I know the Saudis do not control the Chechen rebels. I just wonder what was actually said in the meeting. Then again, what does it really matter to the average Chechen in Chechnya? Their struggle will go on-with or without anyone's help.