Posts tagged ‘America’

April 8, 2017

US Strike in Syria: Failed Strategic Attempt or Previously Planned Strike?

by mkleit

On Wednesday the 6th of April 2017, two days before the US strike on Syria, a Syrian opposition member called an Arab diplomat saying “America will conduct an attack on Shouairat airport (Homs).” The latter transferred the news to a Syrian diplomat that, in turn, transferred it early Thursday to the Syrian command.

This is what the Security Specialist Vadislav Sheurgen said, and added “The US informed Russia previously through diplomatic channels with its plans to target Syria, and in turn, Russia informed its Syrian counterpart to evacuate its soldiers and equipment.”

In return, other Russian officials confirmed that they knew nothing about the US strike before it happened, and Moscow described what happened as an “aggression on a sovereign state”, and it announced that it will enhance Syria’s aerial defenses and halting cooperation with the US that prevented aerial conflicts over Syria.

What are the background information before the happenings of Friday dawn?

The US airstrike came before any true and objective investigation was made for the claimed “Khan Shikhoun Chemical attack”. Moreover, it didn’t get any international accreditation from the UN’s security council nor the US Congress, which means president Donald Trump needed to hasten the strike.


The first vital question is “why this hastening”?

First of all, because the media outburst that was caused by the death of the children prepared the globe for that, exactly like what happened post-9/11 in 2001 (despite the slight difference). Trump must’ve taken the global emotional opportunity and present himself as a humanitarian hero. So in that case, there’s no need for an investigation, with the accusation ready and decision already made.

Second, Trump wanted to strike the Syrian airport after two hours from dinner with the Chinese president, to send a strong warning message to China, saying “if you don’t stop North Korea, our missiles and jets are ready to do the same thing that we did in Syria”. For the past weeks, POTUS has been sending warning after warning to North Korea, whom performed Ballistic missiles tests a while ago, and said that if “China doesn’t move, he will do so himself to stop North Korea… and all options are open”.

But the question here is: did Trump inform his Chinese guest about the strike? That’s unknown, but the Chinese reaction was bound by calling all sides of the conflict for negotiations and stressed on political solutions, denouncing usage of barred weaponry. This means that China didn’t have its usual reaction, such as its Russian counterpart, and did not denounce the strike that didn’t have the security council’s approval.

Third, the strike came one night after the failure of the security council to take a unified decision concerning the chemical attack issue. Trump wanted to say that he doesn’t give any importance to the international coalition, especially that he has been supported by several nations, especially Arab Gulf states, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel. Unlike when Bush invaded Iraq with the opposition of France.

Fourth, the repercussions that the US airstrike on Mosul made, which killed tens of civilians, started to receive international condemnation, even calls to open a serious international investigation.

The key question here is “did the strike happen by mistake or was there someone who needed in get Trump involved into other options?” but the hastening of the strike on Syria was aiming to divert attention from Mosul’s “massacre” and shed light over Syria.

Fifth, the US strike came in midst of investigations with the Trump administration concerning cooperation with Russians, and there were several pressures being made and accusations of spying by some of the people close to Trump.

Sixth, the US strike also came after a meeting between both Iran’s and Russia’s presidents, where the latter two signed several military agreements with their Chinese counterpart.



After this, Trump would have two options left:

He, either, continues the battle with regional forces (Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia) to put pressure on Iran, Hezbollah, and tries to halt Russia, or he goes to negotiations and mutual understanding, especially that his secretary of state, Rex Tellerson, will visit Moscow soon.

This US intervention in Syria is the first major military development since the Russian direct intervention, with means that the war in Syria has shifted from its local and regional players to its international ones.

Washington wants to set a foot directly in North or Eastern Syria, through political, military, and security methods, and it’s impossible that Trump will retreat from that, and Russia will never back-down from Syria because that would damage its role in the ME region, as well as cause a national security threat.

Keep in mind that days before the US strike, there was a blast in St. Petersburg’s metro station, the Russian opposition moved on the ground, and the Russian Ruble price went down. Iran also sees that its retreat from Syria will cause great damage on its security, politics, and coming elections.

July 14, 2016

Three Men Shot In Virginia While Streaming Live On Facebook

by mkleit



A Facebook live stream ended abruptly on Tuesday when three men listening to music inside a car in Norfolk, Virginia, were suddenly shot, authorities said.

Police said three men — two age 27 and the other age 29 — were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment, with two suffering life-threatening injuries.

In a statement Wednesday morning, police said two of the men were “doing better, but one is still listed in critical condition.”

“During the shooting incident, one of the men inside the car was broadcasting a live video to Facebook,” police said. “This video has been confirmed to be of the actual shooting incident.”

The video, posted on Facebook by T.J. Williams, shows the trio smoking in a car while listening to music. After about five minutes, a string of gunshots are heard and the camera falls to the ground.

After the gunshots stop, a man can be heard saying, “Call an ambulance, please.” Moments later, a person is heard again asking for an ambulance and providing an address.

A man is then heard repeatedly telling another person to “stay calm, stay relaxed.” He says to “stay with me. They’re all good — we called the paramedics already.” He continues to talk with the presumably injured victims until the ambulance arrives, saying “they are breathing and keep focused on me.”

After about 10 minutes, emergency responders can be heard in the background.

The video continues to roll for more than an hour until the phone appears to run out of battery.

June 9, 2016

مواقف المرشحان الرئاسيان كلينتون وترامب حول أبرز القضايا في البلاد

by mkleit

تستعد المرشحة الديمقراطية للانتخابات الرئاسية هيلاري كلينتون لمواجهة منافسها الجمهوري دونالد ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية، والتي تنطلق في شهر تشرين الأول من السنة الحالية.

بعد فوز كلينتون بالترشيح الشبه رسمي للحزب الديمقراطي (لم تصل إلى العدد المطلوب من المندوبين حتى الآن، بل وصلت بأصوات المندوبين الكبار والذين يستطيعون أن ينقلوا أصواتهم إلى منافسها بيرني ساندرز)، فإن كلينتون تستعد لخوض المرحلة الثانية من الانتخابات في مواجهة المرشح الجمهوري الذي حسم معركته في حزبه سابقاً، دونالد ترامب.

ورغم أن ساندرز يعقد الآمال على الفوز بترشيح الحزب رسمياً خلال مؤتمر الحزب في الشهر القادم، فإن كلينتون واثقة من دعم الحزب لترشحها لأنها تعتقد أنها “الأجدر بمنافسة ترامب” بحسب أحد تصريحاتها الشهر الماضي في إحدى جولات الانتخابات التمهيدية.


ولكن كلينتون وترامب مختلفان بشكل كبير في أسلوب معالجة أبرز القضايا على الساحة السياسية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية الأمريكية. التالي هو آراء ترامب وكلينتون في بعض الملفات الداخلية والخارجية:

حول الهجرة:

كلينتون تعارض ترحيل 11 مليون مهاجر غير مسجّل، بينما ترامب يؤيد، بالإضافة إلى نيّته بناء جدار ما بين المكسيك والولايات المتحدة لمنع المهاجرين من اجتياز الحدود، حين قال” سندع الناس (المكسيكيين) تدخل، ولكن ستدخل بشكل قانوني… وسنجعل المكسيك تدفع ثمن ذلك”. ومن ناحية التعامل مع المسلمين الأجانب، فكلينتون تعارض أن تضع شروطاً إضافية للهجرة على القادمين من الدول الإسلامية، بينما ترامب يؤيد.

حول الحرب على الإرهاب:

ترفض كلينتون زيادة ميزانية الجيش الأمريكي، وطالبت لإنشاء لجنة لبحث أساليب التخلص من بعض المصاريف. أما ترامب، فيؤيد رفع نسبة مصاريف الجيش، ولكنه يشجع على جعل “الآخرين بالقيام بمحاربة الإرهاب”. إضافة إلى ذلك، يرفض المرشحان وجود قوات أمريكية في أي مكان في العالم لمحاربة الإرهاب، ويؤكدان على ضرورة مراقبة المواطنين الأمريكيين لتحديد الإرهابيين في الولايات المتحدة.

وفي الشأن السوري، يرفض المرشحان خوض معارك مباشرة مع تنظيم داعش الإرهابي، بيد أن كلينتون تطالب بإسقاط نظام الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، ولكن ترامب يعارض تلك الفكرة. ولكن بالرغم من هذا الإختلاف، فإن الطرفان يوافقان على التعامل مع الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين لمحاربة داعش.

ضبط انتشار الأسلحة:

تؤيد كلينتون وضع شروطاً متشددة لحيازة أي سلاح، إضافة إلى البحث المعمق في خلفية الشخص الذي يريد شراء سلاح من أي نوع، باستثناء الأسلحة الرشاشة التي تعارض وجودها على رفوف المحال التجارية. بينما ترامب يعارض أي شروط إضافية، وهو الذي كان يعارض انتشار الأسلحة بشكل كبير مع بداية دخوله الساحة السياسية في السنوات الماضية، ولا يمانع التساهل في مسألة البحث المعمق وبيع الأسلحة الرشاشة. 


قال ترامب في إحدى مناظراته أنه سيكون “أفضل رئيس لخلق الوظائف في التاريخ”، ولكن المرشح ذو الأصل الألماني يعارض رفع الحد الأدنى للأجور ورفع نسبة الضريبة على أغنياء الولايات المتحدة، ولكنه يؤيد رفع نسبة الضرائب على الشركات الدولية ذات الأصل الأمريكي. الأمر الذي توافق عليه كلينتون أيضاً، ولكنها تعارض ترامب من ناحية عدم وضع ضرائب على الأغنياء ورفع الحد الأدنى للأجور.

وقد حصدت كلينتون 2203 صوتاً من المندوبين العاديين و574 من المندوبين الكبار، بمجموع 2777، وهي تحتاج إلى 2383 صوتاً لنيل الترشيح الرسمي للحزب الديمقراطي. بيد أن منافسها، السيناتور ساندرز (لديه 1828 صوتاً من المندوبين العاديين و48 من الكبار بمجموع 1876)، لم يفقد الأمل، نظراً لقدرة المندوبين الكبار نقل أصواتهم من طرف إلى آخر، وهو يعوّل على دعم المندوبين الكبار له لنيل كافة الأصوات الـ2383 والفوز بترشيح الحزب.

October 11, 2015

How The US Uses (Takfiri) Extremists

by mkleit



Many doubts, questions, and dilemmas have arisen concerning the contradicting conduct of the West while dealing with extremist movements. The West exploited these movements in Afghanistan during the late 1970’s, opposed them in the Arabian Peninsula in the nineties, and then launched war against them in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. However, in 2011, the West returned to taking advantage of these extremist groups and we are currently faced with a rather vague Western connection with Isis.

The reason behind the doubts and different points of view is that analyses are based on relatively rigid mental paradigms which fail to proceed in accordance with the flexibility and pragmatic segmentation of the cowboy mentality. On the other hand, the alignment of extremist groups in many instances with the West has induced powers which oppose these groups to accuse them of treacherous conduct.

This is accurate, but it is accomplished through the Western scheme of indirect control of these groups. This indirect control is due to the ideological and strategic disorder which extremist groups suffer from, and the disapproval which those in their infrastructure, supportive environment, and their mustering forces maintain toward any connection with the United States- let alone full alliance with America. This is what the inconstancies in relations from 1979 up until this day indicate.

Another factor which has spurned these doubts is the vehement self-defense which the “takfiris” display when they are accused of having connections with the United States or with any countries which adhere to America or revolve around it.

The examination of the course of this movement leads to a specific model which displays how the relation with Isis is controlled by Western powers with the United States at their head. This model is composed of three aspects:


1) Commission 2) Steering 3) Restraint

Each one of these aspects forms a set of tools which The US select according to the time and condition they deem as most appropriate. They do not necessarily benefit from all of these aspects in a simultaneous manner.

1) Commission

This policy depends on assessing which geographical area is most suitable for the movement of extremist groups, but under the condition that these movements do not pose a threat on American interests and that they also provide a strategic advantage. This policy is fulfilled according to circumstances and through certain means which are chosen according to time and place. There are five essential means.

1) Ensuring geographical domains: Weakening a country’s control in the target region through commotions, political turmoil, political settlement, and national uprising – as was the case in Syria in 2011, and Mosul in 2014.

2) Securing logistical pathways: Ensuring roads for extremists to reach target regions whether these pathways are by land, sea, or air. They also provide visas and even means of transportation in order to reach the area of conflict. They used Egypt, Pakistan, and Yemen as transits during the war on Afghanistan in 1979, and Turkey and Jordan during the war on Syria in 2011

3) Allowing financial aid and armament: Giving approval to their allied powers which wish to support extremist groups with money and weapons whether directly or indirectly (through certain institutions and weapon dealers). Rationing and organizing financial aid is done according to the time which ensures the imposition of a strategic course upon extremist groups.

The United States might also resort to direct weapon provision in some cases of tactical exceptions, such as throwing weapons and equipment from the air to Isis fighters in Kobani more than five times, and presenting this act in the guise of “a mistake”.

4) Transport: Expelling extremists from the countries which are harmed by their presence or from countries which desire to take advantage of them.

5) Facilitating the work of preachers: Allowing extremist preachers to fulfill their activity of spreading extremist ideology and mobilizing “takfiris” in the areas of transference, at departure, and at arrival. Extremist preachers are also allowed to spread their views on satellite TV stations and through different media.

2) Steering

This policy is based upon exerting an effort in media, mobilization, and in the field of action in order to direct the strategic priority of extremist groups toward movement in a certain sphere only, to target a specific enemy, or even to change the strategic and tactical course at a certain stage. All of this is done according to circumstances, requirements, and capacity.

The United States is very active in this domain with the aid of its regional and international allies. It achieves its aim through nine principal means.

1) Specifying the “preferable enemy”: the US have created “stars” among the “takfiri” environment for their own purposes and interests. They shed light on commanders or convenient extremist factions through inserting them on the list of terrorism. They focus on them in the media and select them in a way in which their prominence on the political scene leads to regional and international political achievements. For example, at the beginning of the war on Iraq, Colin Powell proclaimed that the enemy of the United States was al-Zarqawi. The US media machine placed him under the spotlight in a way where he became a prominent figure on the scene, and the conflict considerably shifted to internal Iraqi strife.

This is what Israel did a few months ago when it imposed on Jabhat Nusra to assign certain commanders in charge of control of the positions along the Jolan Heights- under threat of military intervention.

2) Assassinating commanders: Targeting extremist leaders who pose a threat on American or Western national security, or leaders whose regional influence negatively affects the scheme of steering and exploiting. For example, assassinating Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-‘Awlaqi, and most Qaeda commanders in Yemen.

3) Arabian and International Media: Delivering ideological and provocative concepts which aggravate extremist groups and urge them to head to a certain target region to fight the side which America chooses.

4) Saudi Arabian clerics: The Saudi Arabian religious institution is performing a central role through issuing fatwas which declare jihad in a target region.

5) Security Breaches: Recruiting, sending “Islamized” Western men to fight, the role of Arabian secret services, imprisonment, and attracting a supportive environment which is discontent with the conduct of the extremists. Prisons play a central role in recruiting commanders and prominent figures whether in an explicit or indirect way.

6) Taking command of conflicts: Handling the crisis in the target region in a way which achieves the goals of the United States, and preserving the controllable and exploitable extremist power through suspicious operations and different means of steering.

7) Causing a suitable environment of strife: Creating a setting of conflict in which the mustering forces of the extremist groups are presented as the targets, the oppressed, and the infringed upon – as in the case of Afghanistan and Syria.

8) Dividing the “takfiri” factions: Creating conflicts, tactical clashes in the field of combat, and producing a multiple set of goals and priorities through different means in order to prevent the formation of a unified power- as in the case of the clash between Isis and Jabhat Nusra in Syria.

9) Strategic Theorization: Presenting comprehensive strategic plans which represent the interest of the extremist scheme in the targeted geographical range. The security services infiltrates the Salafist jihadi virtual world and make their own Salafist websites, and in some cases they have the advantage of recruiting few ideologue under the coercion or persuasive instrument in the secret jails, those ideologue are capable of making the paradigm shift when needed.

3) Restraint

Takfiri factions strive to maintain their own agendas – in spite of the great influence of the United States and its agents – in order to preserve their rank among their mustering forces and political authorities. Western powers need to restrain takfiri groups in order to prevent them from crossing strategic or military limits, and they fulfill this through force or control of their incomes.

Regulation is based on six essential means:
1) Direct Confrontation: Carrying out direct military operations to strike at the critical takfiri forces or those which pose a threat, as in the case of Afghanistan in 2001 for example.

2) Limiting financial aid and armament: Monitoring the flow of money and weapons; the amount, type, and timing. They also uphold the limits which prevent the takfiris from becoming a threat while allowing them to act in a way which benefits the United States, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

3) Geographical Restraint: When necessary, the military forces of the United States or its allies fire at the posts where takfiris pose a current or future threat, as the coalition forces did when Isis fighters entered Irbil.

4) Providing a Geographical Substitute: If takfiri groups increase in number or if it becomes hard to control them or their actions, a new battlefield is provided which forms a vent for emotional and military zeal. The most prominent example is allowing Isis forces to engage in fighting in Mosul.

5) Steering through the Media: Provocations in the media contribute to maintaining military and political zeal to achieve the intended and previously specified goal. Thus, it becomes difficult for the leaders of takfiri factions to turn around on the intermediate range.

6) Assassinating Commanders: This was explained among the aforementioned means of steering. The best example on resorting to this course of action during operations of restraint is the assassination of Al-Zarqawi when the United States became suspicious that he had pledged allegiance to Bin Laden and that he had restored the struggle against America as his main priority.

terrorist Abu Mes'ab al Zarqawi

terrorist Abu Mes’ab al Zarqawi


The usage of these means was fulfilled in different circumstances and course of events. In Afghanistan in 1979, the United States had previously designated the course of events. The National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had formulated a plan to bring Islamists to Afghanistan, to lure the Soviets, and to trigger a long term exhaustive struggle between them.

The second example was after the eleventh of September when the United States resorted to means of restraint in the face of takfiri groups which had left Afghanistan in search of a range of movement. A clash of interests ensued and resulted in the war on Afghanistan in 2001 and the operation of complete security restraint in Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, the zeal of these takfiri groups was directed toward Iraq in 2003 under the banner of fighting America only to be steered toward internal strife.

After that, the great operation to engage in Syria commenced and it is still continuing. The takfiri factions had envisioned in their consciousness and political cognizance an old enterprise in that country. One of the results of this operation was the emergence of Isis whose military effort has been steered once again toward Iraq- in limited mutual interests which the United States has not allowed to cross their specified sphere. Now, Isis is heading toward targeting Saudi Arabia which induced the international coalition to strike it.

Art of the Possible

The United States, its allies, and its regional adherents have adopted this three dimensional policy. This is due to the deep hostility which Arabian and Islamic nations hold toward America, the inability of the US army to engage in the battlefield for military and economic reasons, and the steady growth of powers which oppose America and Israel. Thus, the need for substitute armies able to accomplish strategic and tactical missions arose.

The second reason is the difficulty in engaging in direct combat with takfiri groups which Bin Laden had been temporarily able to drive toward fighting the far enemy in the late nineties and the new millennium, and the need which arose after September eleventh to return these groups to their favorite ideology of targeting the near enemy and regional foes.

Thirdly, Western powers were most of the time in need for an excuse for military intervention. They were also in need of signing long-term agreements (in security, economics…) with the terrorist takfiris. This is why they enabled the takfiris to be present- in order to justify intervention as in the case of Iraq in 2003.

Fourth is the need of America and Western countries to import the takfiri individuals who are active on their soil and to get rid of them.

Regional allies have other concerns – the most important which is the need to vent the internal pressure which these takfiri movements of revolutionary quality pose, and to solve jurisprudential issues when dealing with takfiri groups which lessen their excommunicative speech against certain regimes when they find a suitable range of movement abroad.

On another level, Arabian and Islamic countries need to get rid of the organizational structures of the takfiris or to weaken them as much as possible through driving them toward areas of conflict and strategic ambushes, as Saudi Arabia did in 2003 when it imported its dilemma with Qaeda to Iraq and got rid of that great predicament. The final motive for countries which are involved in the strategy of indirect control has to do with the regional aspect- they make use of takfiri groups to accomplish political regional goals, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

The nature of the takfiri groups is the reason why they have a tendency to be under this strategy. They are hostile and excommunicate everyone, even one another. Thus, they are prone to be steered in any possible direction. Due to the intellectual and jurisprudential differences among takfiri groups, and the lack of a unified command and strategy, they have a tendency to be infiltrated and to be steered in different directions. They also suffer from great vulnerability in security and this has facilitated the endeavors to recruit agents and secret intelligence infiltration.

They are also faced with a major problem which is financial aid – they lack an independent Islamic country which provides them with the money they need. This is why they depend on countries which exclusively adhere to the United States such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Pakistan. On the other hand, due to the security and political pressure exerted on takfiri groups, they are usually in search of any available outlet- especially since their speech carries very ambitious goals in comparison with their ability and narrow range of movement.

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

Courses of Action and Achievements

The main cases in this strategy are Afghanistan 1979, Iraq 2003, and Syria 2011. These cases have been generally successful in accomplishing their main goal which is transformation as much as possible of the threat which takfiri movements pose into a chance, and to take advantage of their blood-thirsty and destructive nature for the benefit of strategic US enterprises. They were successful in Afghanistan which the Soviets left, and they were successful in kindling sectarian and ethnic turmoil in Iraq in 2003. Currently, the United States has benefitted from these takfiri groups in Syria through destroying a great deal of the infrastructure of that country which is central in the allegiance of resistance. Israel has benefitted in creating an obstructive line on the border of the Jolan Heights which is formed of the Jabhat Nusra forces. In Iraq today, Isis represents a case which we wait to discover its outcomes and strategic courses.

On the long term, this strategy has been successful in shifting the military effort of takfiri groups away from directly targeting the West. In Afghanistan, the enemy was the Soviet Union, and in the period after that the targeting of American interests commenced up until the eleventh of September. Steering and indirect control were successful in Iraq in making American interests a secondary priority for takfiri groups in opposition to the priority of targeting other regional powers. As for Syria, American interests became completely distant from takfiri attacks, and Isis has almost fully eliminated attempts to target American interests. The main concern has become the geographical region- to establish the state of Isis, expand it, and to preserve its lands.

The profound and structural results show that America has been able to prevent takfiris from being active in regions where they pose threats on American interests. As a result of wide American domination, takfiri groups have not been able to move in an effective way which has influential political results anymore. They are only able to do so when there is no opposition to US interests which means where the US are at an advantage due to their presence. Thus, these takfiri groups – in an objective way- have become a part of the American scheme. With time they have avoided all regions vital to the United States and are active in less crucial areas.

August 21, 2014

خمسة أسباب علمية وراء وحشية «داعش»

by mkleit

وضع الأستاذ في علم النفس في كلية «ترينيتي» في دبلن، والمدير المؤسس لمعهد «ترينيتي» للعلوم العصبية، إيان روبرتسون، 5 تفسيرات علمية للوحشية التي يمارسها تنظيم «داعش»، موضحاً أنه بينما يري الكثيرون قطع الرؤوس والأعمال المتطرفة الأخرى أمور غير وارد القيام بها، فإن هناك عدة عوامل يمكن أن تجعل من أي شخص «شخصية متطرفة».

1.«الوحشية» تولد «الوحشية»

الجزء الأول من الجواب قد يكون بسيطاً، يتمثل في أن «الوحشية» تولد «الوحشية»، كما أن الثمة المشتركة بين الأشخاص الذين تعرضوا للمعاملة بالقسوة، هي القسوة والعدوان وعدم التعاطف.

في معسكرات الاعتقال النازي، على سبيل المثال، كان العديد من الحراس الأكثر قسوة سجناء في سجون «كابوس» سيئة السمعة، الأمر الذي يعني أن الضحايا غالباً ما يستجيبون للصدمة بأن يتحولوا هم أنفسهم إلى جناة.

2.الاندماج في «المجموعة»

تحول الضحية إلى جاني ليس السبب الوحيد الذي يؤدي إلى «الوحشية»، ففي حالة انهيار الدولة، ينهار معها النظام والقانون والمجتمع المدني، ويبقي الحل الوحيد للبقاء هو «المجموعة»، بصرف النظر عن الاعتبارات الدينية أو العنصرية أو السياسية أو القبلية أو العشائرية، ويظل البقاء معتمداً على الأمن المتبادل الذي تقدمه المجموعة.

الحرب غالباً ما تربط الأشخاص في مجموعات، هذه الروابط تخفف الشعور بالخوف والضيق الذي يشعر به الفرد حينما تنهار الدولة، كما أنها توفر أيضاً الثقة بالنفس للأشخاص الذين يشعرون بالإذلال من فقدانهم لمنازلهم ومكانتهم في المجتمع.

في هذه الحالة تندمج الهويات الفردية والجماعية نسبياً، وتصبح تصرفات الأشخاص تعبيراً عن المجموعة أكثر ما هي تعبر عن إرادة الشخص نفسه. وحينما يحدث ذلك، قد يقوم هؤلاء بأشياء مرعبة لم يتخيلوا يوماً القيام بها، ويصبح ضمير الفرد ضئيل نسبياً داخل المجموعة. ومن ثم تقع مسؤولية «الوحشية» علي المجموعة أكثر من الفرد.

ويظهر ذلك بوضوح هلى وجوه مقاتلو «داعش» الذين يتسابقون في الظهور علي عربات، يلوحون بالأعلام السوداء، بابتسامات عريضة على وجوههم بعد ذبح من لا يعتنق الإسلام.

ولأن الهوية الفردية تكون ذائبة إلى حد كبير في هوية المجموعة، يصبح الفرد أكثر استعدادًا للتضحية بنفسه في المعركة، أو القيام بالتفجيرات الانتحارية.


التفكير في المذابح التي تحدث بين السنة والشيعة في العراق وسوريا يعكس حقيقة مرعبة، تتمثل في أنه داخل المجموعة، يتم تعزيز فكرة القبلية، وكراهية كل من هم خارج مجموعتهم.

وحتى حينما يكون العنف ضد المجموعات الأخرى مدمر للذات مثلما هو واضح بشكل مأساوي في الشرق الأوسط، فإن المجموعات التي تقوم على أسس دينية تظهر عداءاً ضد معارضيها أكثر من المجموعات التي لا تقوم على أساس ديني.


يري روبرتسون أن الانتقام «يعد قيمة كبيرة في الثقافة العربية، ويلعب دوراً في استمرارية الوحشية». ويولد الانتقام المزيد من الوحشية في دوامة لا تنتهي، لكن الأكثر من ذلك، أن الانتقام قد يكون حافز قوي، لكنه مخادع أيضاً، لأن الانتقام من شخص ما يضخم المشكلة ويؤدي إلى استمرارها.


يرتكب الأشخاص الذين ينتمون إلى مجموعات بأفعال وحشية إذا سمح لهم قادتهم بالقيام بذلك، خاصة إذا كانوا هؤلاء الأشخاص يرغبون في التضحية بأنفسهم لصالح المجموعة. فمقاتلو «داعش» يذبحون المسيحيين واليزيديين العزل لأن قادتهم أخبروهم أن هذا هو الشيء الصحيح الذي ينبغي عمله. والقادة، على أي مستوي من القبيلة إلى الدولة، هي المسؤولة عن الوحشية، والمشكلة تكمن في أن القادة يستطيعون إنهاء الوحشية، أو تشجيع الوحشية، وعندها لن يستطيع أي شيء الوقوف ضدها.


المصدر: المصري اليوم

November 13, 2011

World intrigued by “Occupy Wall Street” movement – By Reuters

by mkleit

(Reuters)Tahrir Square in Cairo, Green Square in Tripoli, Syntagma Square in Athens and now Zuccotti Park in New York — popular anger against entrenching power elites is spreading around the world.

Many have been intrigued by the Occupy Wall Street movement against financial inequality that started in a New York park and expanded across America from Tampa, Florida, to Portland, Oregon, and from Los Angeles to Chicago.

Hundreds of activists gathered a month ago in the Manhattan park two blocks from Wall Street to vent their anger at what they see as the excesses of New York financiers, whom they blame for the economic crisis that has struck countless ordinary Americans and reverberated across the global economy.

I Can't Affor a Lobbyist

In the U.S. movement, Arab nations see echoes of this year’s Arab Spring uprisings. Spaniards and Italians see parallels with Indignados (indignant) activists, while voices in Tehran and Beijing with their own anti-American agendas have even said this could portend the meltdown of the United States.

Inspired by the momentum of the U.S. movement, which started small but is now part of U.S. political debate, activists in London will gather to protest outside the London Stock Exchange on October 15 on the same day that Spanish groups will mass on Madrid’s Puerta del Sol square in solidarity.

“American people are more and more following the path chosen by people in the Arab world,” Iran’s student news agency ISNA quoted senior Revolutionary Guards officer Masoud Jazayeri as saying. “America’s domineering government will face uprisings similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt.”

Chinese newspapers splashed news about Occupy Wall Street with editorials blaming the U.S. political system and denouncing the Western media for playing down the protests.

“The future of America stands at a crossroads. Presuming that effective measures to relieve the social mood and reconstruct justice cannot be found, it is not impossible that the Occupy Wall Street movement might be the final straw under which America collapses,” said a commentary in the Global Times.

“This movement has uncovered a scar on American society, an iceberg of accumulated social conflicts has risen to the surface,” said the commentary in the tabloid, which is owned by the Communist Party mouthpiece, the People’s Daily.


In Cairo, Ahmed Maher, a founder and leading member of Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement which helped to topple autocrat Hosni Mubarak, said it was in contact with several groups organizing the anti-Wall Street demonstrations.

“A few days ago we saw a banner in New York that said ‘This is Tahrir Square’,” Maher said, referring to the Cairo square that became the epicenter of Egypt’s revolution.

“The Arab Spring has definitely inspired the burst of protests in the United States and Europe.”

Others noted differences between Arab protesters and U.S. protesters, branded by one Republican presidential candidate as “anti-American” and so jealousy-ridden that they wanted to “take somebody else’s … Cadillac.”

“The Arab protests started with requests for reform but quickly transformed into demands for governments to leave, or at least their leaders,” said Abdulaziz al-Uwaisheg, columnist in Saudi daily al-Watan. “The American protest is against specific policies … It did not ask to change the government.”

Spanish media have devoted daily coverage to Occupy Wall Street, dubbing participants “Indignados in Manhattan,” with left-leaning newspapers saying the U.S. protesters were inspired by Spain’s own disenchanted youth-led grouping.

“Occupy Wall Street is one more branch of a global movement,” said Veronica Garcia, a 40-year-old lawyer involved in the Spanish demonstrations.


Blessed are the Poor

While Spain’s “Indignados” have poured much of their anger so far on politicians, Garcia said Saturday’s Madrid march was likely to focus more on bankers.

In London, which was hit by rioting and looting by disaffected people in early August, protesters were using social media like Facebook and Twitter to plan their Stock Exchange protest on Saturday.

The Occupy London protest aims to draw attention to “the economic systems that have caused terrible injustices around the world,” according to their website.

“Bankers have got off scot-free whilst the people of this country are being punished for a crisis they did not create,” a statement on the website said, echoing the chant taken up by U.S. marchers: “We are the 99 percent.”

Unions, which organized protests against austerity moves in debt-stricken Greece, welcomed the New York protests.

“It’s optimistic because we haven’t seen such protests before,” Greek public sector unionist Despina Spanou told Reuters. “There is no coordination so far because most of this is spontaneous, but we cannot rule anything out.”

Newspapers around the world have sought to identify the true motor of discontent driving the Occupy Wall Street movement, with the Korea Herald seeing an historic dimension reflecting the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam War rallies.

“But perhaps the closest historical parallel is with the Populist movement of the 1890s, which, like Occupy Wall Street, was a broad, economics-driven revolt that targeted a predatory class of corporate capitalists – the robber barons of the Gilded Age,” the newspaper said.


Japan’s Kyodo news agency ran an interview from New York with organizer Kalle Lasn who said he hoped that “Occupy Wall Street” would inspire Japan’s jobless youth.

“Is there some beginning of some kind of ‘Occupy Tokyo’ or ‘Occupy Marunouchi’, something like that happening in Japan right now or not?” Kyodo quoted Lasn as saying, referring to the Marunouchi business district in


The Occupy Wall Street protests across the United States with their focus on banking bailouts and unfairness appeared to present a dilemma for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The protests support one Kremlin agenda by underscoring the economic troubles of Moscow’s Cold War foe, but could also send a signal encouraging street protests — not what Putin wants as he heads toward a second stint as president in a March vote.

This July, Putin said the United States was “acting like hooligans” in the global economy. In Aug

ust, he said the United States was living beyond its means “like a parasite.”

Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have not spoken publicly about the protests, but state-run TV stations they use to shape opinion seem to have found a way around the contradiction.

Footage of crowds protesting against perceived corporate greed and government connivance echo

Occupy The World

ed the emphasis on U.S. economic inequality that was a Soviet-era propaganda staple.

Such footage may also back up Putin’s argument for a tight state rein on

Russia’s corporate world –

– and his colorful depictions of the United States as a flagging, sometimes dangerously irresponsible financial power.

At the same time, news footage often focusing on outspoken, outlandishly dressed participants in the U.S. protests appeared aimed at lending the crowds a circus-like look that could be to discourage Russians from trying this at home.

The Chinese, however, have not been so subtle, using the movement to fire repeated broadsides at the capitalist system.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement was sparked by the extreme disparity between the rich and the poor,” the Hong Kong Economic Journal said in its editorial.

“Now it looks like the spark is being turned into a great fire that is spreading to other countries.”

British commentators were not so convinced by such an apocalyptic vision. Giles Whittell in the London Times, highlighting the movement’s lack of a coherent agenda, came to the conclusion in a headline that it was: “Passionate but Pointless.”

(Reporting by Charlie Zhu in Hong Kong, Andrew Hammond in Dubai, Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Marwa Awad in Cairo, Catherine Hornby in Rome, Michael Martina in Beijing, Antoni Slodkowski in Tokyo, Peter Griffiths in London, Tracy Rucinski in Madrid, Renee Maltezou in Athens, Steve Gutterman in Moscow, David Cutler in London; Writing by Peter Millership; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

October 15, 2011

«يا شعوب العالم انتفضي»

by mkleit

يوم دوليّ لاستعادة الديموقراطية الحقيقية
قبل أيام من دخول تظاهرات «احتلوا وول ستريت» الأميركية شهرها الثاني، ستشهد اليوم أكثر من 700 مدينة حول العالم تظاهرات شبابية تريد استعادة الديموقراطية الحقيقية من يد النخبة المالية التي سبّبت الأزمة الاقتصادية ونالت أموال دافعي الضرائب. تظاهرات يدفعها النجاح الذي تشهده التحركات الأميركية والصحوة العربية التي بدأت في كانون الأول الماضي، ولا تزال مستمرة، وحركة «الغاضبون» الإسبانية التي لا تزال في الشارع. هل سيتمكن الناشطون الذين يقفون وراء المشروع من حشد أعداد في تظاهرات اليوم؟ وهل ستشهد المدن الأوروبية عدوى الانتشار السريع للاعتصامات الأميركية؟ وهل ستتحد الشعوب في وجه الطغمة المالية؟

ديما شريف

«يا سكان العالم انتفضوا في 15 تشرين الأول». إذا سمع الناس النداء فسينتفضون اليوم في 719 مدينة، في 71 دولة، مشاركة في حملة «متحدون للتغيير العالمي» التي أطلقها ناشطون على الإنترنت. حملة استلهمت نجاح حركة «احتلوا وول ستريت» التي بدأت منذ أسابيع في مدينة نيويورك في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وامتدت إلى مدن أخرى، إذ أصبح مثلاً موقع «»، غير الرسمي، الذي يعنى بتنظيم مواعيد التظاهرات الأميركية، يهتم بجداول التحركات في أكثر من 1300 مدينة أميركية، فيما يتابع موقع «» الساحات التي يجب على المتظاهرين احتلالها حول العالم. ويتابع موقع «» تفاصيل حراك اليوم العالمي (إلى جانب صفحة على فايسبوك وحساب على تويتر ويوتيوب) مع خرائط توضح الأماكن التي ستنطلق منها التظاهرات، وملصقات للطبع في لغات عدّة للاستخدام أثناء التظاهر والاعتصام. وبعد الولايات المتحدة، تبدو إسبانيا أكثر دولة سيتظاهر فيها الناس، وفق خرائط الموقع، بسبب الأزمة المالية التي تعيشها.

Wall Street Revolution - Photo from al Akhbar Nespaper

لكن رغم أنّ الحراك الأميركي هو الأشهر اليوم، فقد سبقت الحملة التي أدت إلى يوم «السلطة للشعوب» في 15 تشرين الأول ذلك الحراك بشهور، حيث بدأ الأمر منذ كانون الثاني 2011 مع انطلاق الربيع العربي. فقد اجتمعت مجموعة من الناشطين الذين تأثروا بالصحوة العربية وإجراءات التقشف التي تفرضها الدول الأوروبية، وما عرف العام الماضي بـ«الثورة الإيسلندية الصامتة»، إذ استطاعت تلك الدولة الشمالية أن تتغلب على الأزمة المالية التي عصفت بها منذ 2008، عبر محاكمة المسؤولين عنها داخل البلد وصياغة دستور جديد ورفض رئيس البلاد التوقيع على قانون زيادة الضرائب على المواطنين، كما كانت تطلب المؤسسات المالية الدولية. أدت تلك الأحداث إلى إنشاء ما يعرف باسم تجمع DRY، من عبارة «¡Democracia Real YA!» الإسبانية، وتعني «الديموقراطية الحقيقية الآن». نظم التجمع في 15 أيار الماضي أول نشاط حقيقي له في ساحة «بويرتا ديل سول» في مدريد، فيما عرف لاحقاً بتظاهرات «الغاضبين» (los indignados) من إجراءات التقشف الحكومية (أكثر من 40 في المئة من الشباب الإسباني عاطل من العمل، وهو الرقم الأكثر ارتفاعاً في أوروبا).
منذ شهر عاد الزخم إلى المجموعة، إذ اجتمعت في مدينة برشلونة الإسبانية، بين 15 و18 أيلول، مجموعات ومنظمات مجتمع مدني وناشطون، وأصدروا بياناً يمكن اعتباره تأسيسياً لتعبئة الناس للتظاهر اليوم لأسباب عدّة، أهمها رفض سياسات التقشف التي تفرض في بلد تلو الآخر، بحجة الأزمة المالية التي لم يكن للشعب يد فيها. ويضيف البيان أنّه خلال الخريف الحالي ستكون هناك محاولة لإيقاف الحركات الراديكالية والديموقراطية في العالم العربي. ولذلك، يضيف البيان، يجب التحرك في 15 تشرين الأول لتعميم الممارسات الديموقراطية من الأسفل إلى الأعلى، ومن أجل بناء بدائل للأزمة الحالية. وبالفعل، إثر انتهاء اجتماع برشلونة، جرى تأسيس الموقع «» الذي يتابع الإعداد للتظاهرات حول العالم، تحت الشعار العريض «متحدون من أجل التغيير العالمي»، و«حان الوقت لنتحد، وحان الوقت كي يستمعوا إلينا، يا شعوب العالم انتفضي!».
ويقول البيان التأسيسي لحركة 15 تشرين الثاني المعنون بـ«لا شيء لنخسره، نستطيع ربح كل شيء»، إنّ المنظمات المشاركة ترفض التقشف كحل للأزمة الحالية، لأنّه يؤدي إلى إدارة استبدادية وغير ديموقراطية للثروات العامة. كذلك فإنّ رفض التقشف نابع من كونه يزيد عدم المساواة بين الناس، ويستهدف مباشرة نظام دولة الرعاية الأوروبي والحقوق الاجتماعية. ويرى المنظمون للحملة أنّ سياسات التقشف تكون مرجّحة للمصالح الاقتصادية والمالية الخاصة المسؤولة عن المسار الاقتصادي الذي أدى إلى الأزمة الحالية. أزمة ليست اقتصادية فقط بل سياسية، مع انفراط العقد الاجتماعي الأوروبي، وفضح الأحزاب السياسية التي لم تستطع أن تكون فعالة في إدارة الثروات العامة.
ويطلب البيان دمقرطة النظام الاقتصادي وبناء شكل جديد منه يسمح للجميع بالوصول إلى الدخل المناسب والحقوق الاجتماعية الأساسية. كذلك يطلب مساعدة الناس لا المصارف والمؤسسات المالية، كما حصل مع بداية الأزمة، ويستمر حتى اليوم.
ويطالب منظّمو التظاهرات بحرية الوصول إلى المعلومات والتعليم مقابل رفض الخصخصة والتسليع. ويرفضون كذلك الطريقة التي يعامل بها العمال المهاجرون بحجة ارتفاع نسبة البطالة، مع حرمانهم من حقوقهم وخفض رواتبهم، ويطالبون بمنحهم حقوقهم كاملة. ولا ينسى المنظمون التذكير بأهمية الديموقراطية المباشرة، واعتبار النموذج الحالي منها قد انتهى، فلا «أحد يمثلنا اليوم». ولذلك يعتبر يوم 15 تشرين الأول يوم المطالبة بالديموقراطية الحقيقية.
ولذلك أيضاً ستنطلق التظاهرات من الأماكن التي تمثل القوى التي «تقرر بالنيابة عنّا». ولن يكون اليوم يوم تظاهر فقط، بل سيكون يوماً تنطلق فيه الاستعدادات ليعرف الناس كيف سيقررون مستقبلهم.
وعلى الأرض، لن تكون التظاهرات أمراً مستجداً على ساحة بعض الدول، إذ إنّ الاعتصامات والاحتجاجات لم تهدأ في إسبانيا منذ أيار الماضي، وتواجه الشباب المعتصمون أول من أمس مع قوات الشرطة في برشلونة، التي لم تتورع عن ضربهم لإخلاء ساحة كانوا يعتصمون فيها. كذلك فإنّ الطلاب في تشيلي مستمرون في التظاهر منذ أيار أيضاً، احتجاجاً على نظام التعليم في البلاد الذي يسمح للمؤسسات الخاصة بالاستفادة في التعليم الثانوي، كما أنّ قسماً كبيراً من الجامعات يتبع للقطاع الخاص. كذلك، تدور معركة في كولومبيا بين الطلاب والحكومة بشأن إصلاح النظام الجامعي، وتوفي أحد المتظاهرين في مدينة كالي يوم الأربعاء، بعد مواجهات مع الشرطة.

Wall Street Revolution - Photo from Al Akhbar Newspaper

خريطة التظاهرات

في لندن يخطّط المتظاهرون لاحتلال مركز البورصة، وسيتجمعون بداية في ساحة باترنوستر قرب فرع لمصرفي «بانك أوف أميركا» و«غولدمان ساكس». أما في باريس، فيقول بيان المنظمين إنّ المتظاهرين لن يستخدموا العنف، لكنهم لن يتورعوا عن إغضاب الواحد في المئة الباقين (الطبقة المالية، على اعتبار أنّ الحركة تمثّل 99 في المئة من الشعب) بكل الوسائل. وهناك دعوة على موقع التظاهرات الفرنسية «» لاحتلال منطقة «لا ديفانس» التي يوجد فيها أهم الشركات في باريس، ابتداءً من الخامس من تشرين الثاني المقبل.
في برلين يخطط المتظاهرون للاعتصام أمام السفارة الأميركية، وهم تظاهروا أول مرة في 21 أيار الماضي، ثم نصبوا الخيم في ساحة ألكسندر في المدينة في 20 آب الماضي، حيث أزالتها الشرطة. وسيكون النهار البرليني حافلاً بالموسيقى والنقاشات في أماكن عدّة من المدينة ( في العالم العربي، من المفترض انطلاق تظاهرات في دول عدّة، منها مصر والسعودية (وفق موقع الحملة)، والمغرب، وتونس، والأردن (للقطع مع النيوليبرالية). وفي لبنان، كان النقاش دائراً حتى يوم أمس بشأن التحرك في وسط العاصمة، وأنشأ بعض الناشطين صفحة على موقع فايسبوك بعنوان «احتلوا سوليدير».



%d bloggers like this: