Hasta La Gadget!

In a recent article in The Independent, Patrick Cockburn made a number of wide and questionable assumptions relating to Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the recent crisis in Iraq.

However, to Mr. Cockburn’s credit, at least he didn’t pretend to be unbiased in his argument, as he made it clear from his first few words that he had reached his own conclusion that Riyadh is indeed involved with ISIS.

Indeed, his article leaves no room for misinterpretation as he doesn’t begin it by asking “if” Saudi Arabia is complicit, but rather asking “how far is Saudi Arabia complicit?”

Whilst making a few interesting points throughout his argument, I am afraid my right honorable colleague has – intentionally or unintentionally – left out too many basic facts and focused far too heavily on hypothetical assumptions which are far away from the realities on the ground.

To start with, Mr. Cockburn seems to have based his whole article on the views of Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief who retired ten years ago and he himself has admitted that he had “no inside knowledge obtained” ever since.

Furthermore, at the heart of Mr. Cockburn’s article is a questionable quote which he was told was attributed to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former head of Saudi Intelligence.

“The time is not far in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God Help the [Shiites].’ More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them,” Prince Bandar reportedly told Sir Richard Dearlove sometime before the 9/11 attacks.

Without confirming the accuracy of this rather cryptic quote, which was mentioned in what seems to be a private conversation more than 13 years ago, and without knowing the context it was said in, how could any reasonable person make the assumption that it serves as evidence that connects Saudi Arabia to ISIS, a terrorist organization which only began its surge in recent months?

Since we are speculating, why can’t we assume that Prince Bandar was actually warning the Shiites as to the consequences of the Iranian regime supporting militant groups? After all, nobody understands the bitter cost of doing so as much as the Saudis and Americans following their support of jihadists in Afghanistan.

Follow the money

Mr. Cockborn also believes that it sounds “realistic” that “substantial and sustained private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar” have played a central role in ISIS’ advance. He also endorses claims that authorities may have turned a blind eye to this.

Now, assuming that there are a number of ISIS sympathizers among Saudis isn’t an unwarranted claim. In fact, we regularly hear of, and report on, different Saudi ISIS militants being arrested, killed or defecting on the news.

However, endorsing a view that the Saudi government has turned a blind eye to financing this horrendous group, which has been officially classified by Riyadh as a terrorist entity since March, is not only unfair but a major disservice to the readers of The Independent.

Leaving aside Saudi Arabia’s clear and firm official statements and positions regarding this matter, one only needs to review the number of cases and convictions linked to charges of financing terrorism in Saudi courts to understand just how seriously this matter is handled in the kingdom.

If this wasn’t the case, why else would David Cohen, the U.S. Treasury Department’s under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, NOT mention Saudi Arabia in his recent public statements last April where he specifically singled out both Qatar and Kuwait as financers of Islamist terrorism and extremism?

The truth is, not only were the Saudi government efforts combating terrorist-funding commended internationally on various occasions, but even some critical independent analysts and think-tanks have stated that it was “a misconception that the kingdom does not get in the way of private Saudi financing of terrorist groups.” On that note, read: “Saudi Funding of ISIS,” by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Lori Plotkin Boghardt.

Combating terrorism… and stereotypes!

Of course, none of the facts above were mentioned in The Independent’s article which also seems to ignore the reality that for years, it was Saudi Arabia that was at the forefront of combating terrorism, both militarily and financially.

Furthermore, the insinuation that the Saudis only started to care when terrorism started hitting them at home is nonsense. What is equally important to know is that Saudis did not first bear witness to terrorism on 9/11 either!

Indeed, Osama bin Laden was stripped of his nationality long before 9/11 and he, along with his aides, were chased and some of them faced trial and were executed. Today, thousands of al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked individuals are locked up in Saudi prisons as a result of the bravery and sacrifice of the kingdom’s security forces.

Another stereotype that Mr. Cockburn seems to subscribe to is that given that Saudi Arabia is a Sunni powerhouse, and the Shiites are a minority in the region, it simply MUST have links to anti-Shiite militias.

“There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation,” he wrote in his article.

Well, if this is the case, then we could also simply assume that the U.S. government MUST have also had ties to Timothy McVeigh, just because the latter was also American.

More interestingly, should we also assume than the U.S. government also MUST have had ties to Bin Laden and the hijackers, since they also supported and nurtured him and his followers during the Afghan war against the Soviets?

More importantly, what Mr. Cockburn and his readers need to understand is that it is not only the Shiites that are suffering in the Middle East, but all minorities in the region. This includes Sunnis and Kurds in Iran as well as Christians in most Arab countries.

Maliki is the problem

What is interesting here is that the country which is leading the way today in oppressing minorities is the new Iraq which was brought upon us by the U.S., UK and the coalition forces.

This is where I would agree with what Mr. Cockburn says in his article; that the rise of the likes of ISIS “do not happen spontaneously.”

Indeed, under Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – who the West insisted on supporting – the Sunnis are targeted and marginalized, the Kurds want a separate state more than ever and a large number of Shiites – including a many senior clerics – oppose Maliki’s authoritarian practices and have called for him to leave and make way for a new government.

Instead of blaming the Saudis for ISIS’ surge, I urge both Mr. Cockborn and Sir Dearlove to read a recent Washington Post piece titled “Why we stuck with Maliki – and lost Iraq” by America’s longest serving official in Iraq, Ali Khedery, to understand exactly what went wrong after the 2003 war.

I draw particular attention to the sentence which says that British Ambassador Sir John Jenkins lobbied strenuously against Maliki. However, it seems that the advice of the ambassador, as well as many other well-informed politicians and consultants, fell on deaf ears.

Clearly, Sir Jenkins knew better than to support Maliki who, among his questionable practices, was supporting terrorist Shiite groups and highly-controversial figures, such as the notorious Qais Khazali.

For those who don’t know him, Khazali is the leader of the Iranian-backed paramilitary group “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” (AAH) and was directly involved in the killing and kidnapping of U.S. soldiers and British civilians. He is Maliki’s Green Zone neighbor today, after the Iraqi prime minister oversaw his release from prison and arranged a new political career for him.

Furthermore, Prime Minister Maliki has done nothing throughout his tenure but consolidate power and he now effectively runs the country’s security, intelligence and defense apparatuses, interior ministry, finance ministry and influences the judiciary while leaving the doors wide-open for Iran to implement its own agenda in Iraq.

Mr. Cockburn and Sir Dearlove may try to point the finger at Saudi Arabia, however, the truth remains that the mess Iraq is in today remains Maliki’s responsibility and is the result of ill-advised decision making on behalf of mainly the Americans, and to some extent the British.

*This blog was originally published in Al Arabiya News

The bread and butter at Razza Pizza Artiginale is made by James Beard Rising Star Chef semi-finalist Dan Richer. He’s the chef behind the restaurant and might be more obsessed with bread and butter than any person on the planet. This video shows how he made his restaurant’s bread and butter the most delicious.

Read more…

Drinking is great, but there are so many drawbacks — the calories, the glass that’s cramping your dancing style, the half-hour wait for the buzz. Fortunately, Vapshot can solve all those issues (apart from the alcoholism) with its Vapshot mini…

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is considering imposing unilateral sanctions on Russia over its threatening moves in Ukraine, a shift in strategy that reflects the Obama administration’s frustration with Europe’s reluctance to take tougher action against Moscow, according to U.S. and European officials.

Until now, the U.S. has insisted on hitting Russia with penalties in concert with Europe in order to maximize the impact and present a united Western front. The European Union has a far stronger economic relationship with Russia, making the 28-nation bloc’s participation key to ensuring sanctions packages have enough teeth to deter Russia. But those same economic ties have made Europe fearful that tougher penalties against Russia could boomerang and hurt their own economies. After weeks of inaction, the officials say the U.S. is now prepared to move forward alone if EU officials fail to enact strong sanctions during a meeting Wednesday in Brussels.

The U.S. official cautioned that no final decisions would be made until after the European meeting. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly by name.

The White House’s willingness to punish Russia without European backing comes as the Obama administration faces criticism that its repeated warnings about tougher sanctions are little more than empty threats.

“Sometimes I’m embarrassed for you, as you constantly talk about sanctions and yet, candidly, we never see them put in place,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said during a Senate hearing on Ukraine with administration officials last week.

The U.S. and Europe have levied coordinated sanctions on Russian individuals and companies connected to Moscow’s alleged destabilization in Ukraine. Obama administration officials argue that those penalties have had an impact on Russia’s economy, citing International Monetary Fund statistics showing a downgrade in Russia’s growth this year.

However, officials have acknowledged that the sanctions have not have an impact on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision-making in Ukraine.

State Department spokesman Jen Psaki said Tuesday that if Putin “cares deeply about his people, about the economy, his own country” the sanctions would shift his calculus.

Obama and European counterparts have vowed to take even broader sanctions targeting Russia’s lucrative energy and defense sectors, as well as access to financial markets, if Moscow failed to quell tensions with Ukraine. But it is unclear what the new package of U.S. sanctions would include.

During a Group of Seven meeting in Brussels in early June, Western leaders warned Russian President Vladimir Putin those penalties could be levied within a month if Russia did not meet specific conditions, including recognizing the results of Ukraine’s May 25 election and start a dialogue with President Petro Poroshenko, ending support for the pro-Russian insurgency in eastern Ukraine and stopping the flow of arms across the Russian border.

The end-of-June deadline the West outlined for Putin came and went with little follow-through from Russia, yet no penalties were levied by the U.S. and Europe.

Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the West’s failure to follow through on its threat of sector sanctions has raised a “credibility question” for the Obama administration.

“I think the bluff has now been fully called,” Conley said.

If Obama moves forward with unilateral sanctions, he’ll face opposition from the private sector. U.S. businesses have been pressing the administration to hold off on sanctions that could put them at a disadvantage in the global economy.

“It’s not clear to us that breaking commercial ties with the Russia partners, consumers gets anyone to where they want to be,” said Gary Litman, vice president for international strategic initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and John-Thor Dahlburg in Brussels contributed to this report.

This telling quote is from the Dish, the film about man’s first steps on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.

Scientist Cliff Buxton, played by Sam Neill, said his late wife encouraged him with quotes like this one.

I love this take on regret because it makes you want to shoot for the moon, and that’s precisely what my friends are going to do.

She and her husband, in their forties, have decided to travel through Indonesia to find the perfect spot to plant their roots.

They don’t want to wait until they retire, because they might not be healthy enough to make the trip.

Mind you, this is not an independently wealthy couple. They’re just adventuresome and hell-bent on living a regret-free life.

My friends know they will have to be quick on their feet so they have several ideas for businesses they could start. They don’t want to set anything in stone because they believe the right opportunity will find them.

Not this is courage, the antithesis of regret.

Watch our inspiring video at www.gratitudereport.com.