http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=speeches Mon, 20 May 2013 10:03:21 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=speeches Sat, 18 May 2013 04:08:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a49_1368839197 spliffer Nick Vujicic wants you to feel good about yourself. In "No Arms, No Legs, No Worries!" Nick encourages audiences to focus on the positive and realize their true potential. The video is a compilation of two of Nick's presentations in Australia, one to junior high school students, the other to upper elementary students and their mothers. Nicholas James Vujicic (born 4 December 1982) is a preacher and motivational speaker who was born without arms or legs due to a rare disorder known as Tetra-amelia. He struggled throughout his childhood to come to terms with his disability, and at seventeen started his own non-profit organization, Life Without Limbs. After graduating from university, Vujicic began his travels as a motivational speaker. At present, he regularly gives speeches on subjects such as disability, hope, and finding meaning in life. Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=105380289669352 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a49_1368839197 spliffer No Arms, No Legs, No Worries! No Arms, No Legs, No Worries, Nick Vujicic Fri, 17 May 2013 10:31:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0c_1368800021 m16carbine How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution By Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith As the Arab world's bloodiest conflict grinds on, Qatar has emerged as a driving force: pouring in tens of millions of dollars to arm the rebels. Yet it also stands accused of dividing them - and of positioning itself for even greater influence in the post-Assad era. FT investigation by Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith A short drive from the rising skyscrapers of Doha's West Bay, emblems of the once-sleepy Qatari capital's frenetic growth, the three-starred flag of the Syrian revolution can be seen fluttering over a modern villa guarded by police cars. The villa is the new Syrian Arab Republic embassy in Qatar , representing not the regime of Bashar al-Assad , but opponents fighting for his removal. It is the only such embassy in the world, inaugurated by a Qatari minister two months ago with the usual diplomatic pomp, after hard lobbying by Qatar led the 22-member Arab League to hand over Syria's seat to the opposition. The diplomats working inside have recourse to neither a government nor a bureaucracy to serve Syrians abroad, lacking even the means to renew a passport. "Maybe soon," mutters a hopeful junior diplomat. But Qatar is not a country that allows details to get in the way of ambition. The opening of the embassy was a theatrical expression of this small, massively rich country's single-minded lurch into Syria's crisis . When it comes to backing Syria's rebels, no one can claim more credit than the gas-rich Gulf state. Whether in terms of armaments or financial support for dissidents, diplomatic manoeuvring or lobbying, Qatar has been in the lead, readily disgorging its gas-generated wealth in the pursuit of the downfall of Assad. Yet, as the Arab world's bloodiest uprising grinds on into its third year, Qatar finds itself pulled into a complicated and fractured conflict, the outcome of which has a decreasing ability to influence, while simultaneously becoming a high-profile scapegoat for participants on both sides. Among the Syrian regime's numerous but fragmented opponents the small Gulf state evokes a surprisingly ambivalent - and often overtly hostile - response. In the shell-blasted areas of rebel-held Syria, few appear to be aware of the vast sums that Qatar has contributed - estimated by rebel and diplomatic sources to be about $1bn, but put by people close to the Qatar government at as much as $3bn. However, a perception is taking root among growing numbers of Syrians that Qatar is using its financial muscle to develop networks of loyalty among rebels and set the stage for influence in a post-Assad era. "Qatar has a lot of money and buys everything with money, and it can put its fingerprints on it," says a rebel officer from the northern province of Idlib interviewed by the FT. Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar's minister of state for foreign affairs, and the point man on Syria, dismisses this criticism as nothing more than noise. "We're a state, we're mature ... If we were concerned about what people say, we wouldn't be here today and Qatar wouldn't be as prosperous." But Qatar's role in Syria seems uncharacteristically prominent for a country that lacks the diplomatic experience and traditional heavyweight status of a more discreet Saudi Arabia. To some extent, the fact that Qatar is so exposed reflects the reluctance of western governments to intervene in Syria. However, for Qatar, Syria is also the culmination of an opportunistic foreign policy which saw Doha become the unlikely backer of other Arab revolts in north Africa - and a friend of those who emerge as winners, in most cases Islamists. Qatar's ruling family, the al-Thanis, have no ideological or religious affinity with the Islamists - they are simply not choosy about the beliefs held by useful friends. Qatar has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia's Islamist al-Nahda party, which won the first elections after the popular revolts. Some politicians in the region believe the emir is trying to position himself as the "Islamist Abdel Nasser", as one Arab politician put it, referring to the late Egyptian president and the Arab world's only true pan-Arab leader. Most of Doha's neighbours in the Gulf are hostile to the Islamist trend in the region, but this is of little consequence to a state that takes pleasure in being contrarian. Nor are the al-Thanis embarrassed by the contradictions of an autocracy cheerleading for revolution. "The Qataris say if there's a tsunami coming your way you ride it, not let it hit you," says a western diplomat describing Qatar's attitude towards Islamists. It is this kind of dynamism and risk-taking at an executive level that has enabled Doha to act as a regional power only a few years after being a diplomatic nobody. But the military stalemate of the Syrian uprising, in which more than 70,000 people have died, has also revealed the recklessness and political impotence that ultimately undermine Qatar's objectives. "The Qataris are overextended - their system runs on a few people at the top, and there isn't much in terms of a bureaucracy," comments another diplomat. In the case of Syria, those key players have been the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, his son and crown prince, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, the prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, plus Attiyah, the minister for foreign affairs. As the Qataris have attempted to unite the political opposition by championing the formation of the Syrian National Coalition (the main front) they have been accused of dividing it - just as their efforts to shape a fragmented rebel army into a more coherent form by helping to unify the brigades under one command have contributed to its incoherence. Not all of the criticism is fair. Partly it is driven by the irritation of many Arabs, at both state and street level, with what they see as an ambitious, nouveau riche state overreaching itself. "You can criticise them for hijacking the opposition but who else is helping?" acknowledges an independent-minded Syrian opposition member who, like many others in the region who were interviewed for this article, requested anonymity. But the disapproval levelled at Qatar is pervasive. A senior rebel commander who has dealt with the Qataris suggests that Doha should look long and hard at why its role has also sparked so much animosity. "After two years it is time for everyone involved in Syria to review their actions and engage in self-correction," he says. . . . For Sheikh Hamad, the 61-year-old emir who has ruled Qatar since 1995 after deposing his father, the road to Damascus has involved a spectacular U-turn. It wasn't long ago that Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma were regular visitors to Doha, as guests of the emir and his second wife, Sheikha Moza. Qatari institutions were big investors in Syria, with a $5bn joint holding company set up in 2008 to develop everything from power stations to hotels. The emir also championed the international rehabilitation of Assad during his gradual ostracisation by the US, Europe and his Arab peers; Sheikh Hamad was instrumental in restoring Syrian relations with France in the years before the uprising, when he counted the former president Nicolas Sarkozy as a friend. Back then Syria was part of an alliance - with Iran and Lebanon's Hizbollah - that seemed on the ascendant, and Qatar, with typical pragmatism and opportunism, saw a chance to ride the wave as well as to moderate Assad's policies. When the Syrian revolt erupted in March 2011, Qatar, like Turkey, reacted cautiously; Al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned television channel, was criticised for downplaying the first protests. Behind the scenes, both the emir and crown prince Sheikh Tamim advised Assad against a military solution. But when prime minister Hamad bin Jassim went to visit Assad a month after the outbreak of protests, it became clear to Qatar that the Syrian hardman wanted "to kill people", as bin Jassim recently recalled at a Brookings Institution meeting. One person who influenced the emir's thinking at the time is Azmi Bishara , a prominent former Arab Israeli MP, exiled in Qatar (like many other Arab dissidents) after the Israeli government accused him of passing information to the Lebanese group Hizbollah during Israel's onslaught on Lebanon in 2006 - a charge Bishara denies. An adviser to the emir and the crown prince, Bishara has become something of a court intellectual in Doha. He is said to have been involved in the formation of the Syrian National Coalition, now the main opposition umbrella group, and to have been used to "test" opposition figures. He, too, had known Bashar al-Assad well, but then became an avid enthusiast of Arab revolts and the people's thirst for democracy. Writing in July 2011, Bishara said that Assad could have stayed in power had he led the reforms that people wanted: "The regime chose not to change, and so the people will change it." (Bishara was not available for comment.) Although the emir did not make his position public until Saudi Arabia broke its silence over Syria in August 2011, the conviction took hold in Qatar throughout that bloody first summer that Syria's was as much a revolution as anywhere else in the region. Following the pattern of the other Arab uprisings, Qatar's instinct was to bet on the opposition. In January 2012, the emir told a US television network that Arab troops should be sent to Syria "to stop the killings". Doha's leaders were particularly emboldened by the revolt in Libya, where Qatar had played the lead Arab role in the Nato-led intervention. Although they knew that Assad's downfall would not be as easy as Muammer Gaddafi's, they expected western partners would eventually step in on the side of the opposition. One senior Qatari official suggested in late 2012 that Syria would go the way of Libya, but over a much longer term. Assad's removal, after all, served the strategic purpose of weakening Iran, his closest regional ally. So far at least, this gamble has proved a miscalculation. "We didn't want to take the lead. We begged a lot of countries to start to take the lead and we'll be in the back seat. But we find ourselves in the front seat," lamented prime minister bin Jassim recently. Even within the Arab world, Qatar found much stronger resistance to action than was the case with Libya. "Before we get disappointed by the west, we should ask ourselves as an Arab nation what we've done - it is an Arab issue in the first place," says Attiyah, the minister for foreign affairs. In the years before the Arab uprisings, Qatar had cultivated its role as a mediator, capable of talking to all sides on the divisions that polarised the Middle East. It hosted the US's biggest military air base in the region, while maintaining cordial relations with Iran; it held contacts with Israel while simultaneously backing the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon's Hizbollah. On Syria, Qatar soon emerged as one of the few angry voices at Arab summits, pushing for a tougher line. "In Syria, Qatar became an active protagonist," says a western diplomat. Having worked to become a kind of Norway of the Gulf, he adds, it also wanted to be "the Gulf version of the UK and France, and you can't be both at the same time". . . . Ahfad al-Rasoul is a source of envy among other brigades fighting in Syria. A relatively new player put together from several fighting groups, it is often linked to the gas riches of Qatar. Ahfad al-Rasoul is one of the few fighting coalitions in Syria that can be considered "effective", boasts Khaled, a smartly dressed, laptop-carrying "liaison" officer for the group, interviewed by the FT in southern Turkey, near the Syrian border. Not so, says Abu Samer, a commander from a rival group, who complains about shortages of weapons and ammunition. "If I was getting 15 per cent of what they're getting, I'd do a lot," he grumbles. Though Khaled insists his battalion's good fortunes are thanks to a mix of funding sources, others such as Abu Samer see the hand of Qatar at work. Supporting the armed rebellion was the inevitable next stage of Qatar's deepening involvement in Syria. By early 2012, as peaceful protests gave way to an armed opposition, Qatar was scouring around for light weaponry, buying arms in Libya and in eastern European states, and flying them to Turkey, where intelligence services helped deliver them across the border. At first, say people with direct knowledge of the arms shipments, Qatar worked through Turkish intelligence to identify recipients, and then, as Saudi Arabia joined the covert military effort, through Lebanese mediators. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, says that between April 2012 and March this year, more than 70 military cargo flights from Qatar landed in Turkey. Elizabeth O'Bagy, an analyst at the US Institute for the Study of War, which has published extensive studies of Syria's fragmented rebel movement, says that as the conflict progressed, the Qataris worked through members of the exiled Muslim Brotherhood to identify rebel factions that should be supported. For example, she says, that is how they linked up with the Farouq brigades, one of the largest and more mainstream factions. Meanwhile, opposition sources say the Qataris have also sent their own special forces to find insurgent groups, and people involved in the weapons business say a Qatari general has been the point man on arms deliveries, travelling to the "operations" room that was set up first in Istanbul and then in Ankara. However, it is difficult to point to rebel brigades that are exclusively Qatari-funded or backed. Ahfad al-Rasoul, for example, is also thought to be receiving support from Saudi Arabia. Equally, the erratic and limited nature of weapons shipments means that even recipients of Qatari support are not always aware of Doha's role. Mahmoud Marrouch, a young fighter from Liwaa al-Tawhid, the rural Aleppo group that is believed to have been a major recipient of Qatari arms, says Qatar is like the rest of the world - promising weapons but not delivering. What the fighters have, he says, was seized from regime bases, or purchased on the black market. "The Qataris and the Saudis need a green light from America to help us," he adds. A rebel leader in the northern Aleppo province, who works with Liwaa al-Tawhid, says he has also received a Saudi intermediary who goes around rebel-held areas distributing funds. "Groups get funding from both Qatar and Saudi Arabia and they deceive sponsors sometimes," comments O'Bagy. Indeed, if Qatar is, as its detractors say, seeking to build up a proxy force in Syria to implement its regional agenda, it is doing so in an environment which is not conducive to either loyalty or cohesion. With so many different outside sources of sponsorship and no stable organisational structures, rebel groups lurch from alliance to alliance and continually rebrand themselves in the search for support. Ironically, although the relationship between Riyadh and Doha has long been characterised by mutual suspicion, in many ways they have worked very closely on Syria. However, a crucial division over the Muslim Brotherhood has undoubtedly led to the pursuit of divergent agendas on the Syrian battlefield, with harmful consequences for an opposition in desperate need of unity. For the Saudis, the handful of secular rebel factions, plus the Salafi groups that espouse a stricter Wahabi Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, are vastly preferable to the Brotherhood, a more organised political group and therefore a greater political threat. "The Saudis say 'No to the Brotherhood,'" says Riad al-Shaqfa, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qataris, on the other hand, are "playing a positive role", though Shaqfa insists that his group's funding is from its own members, not from Doha. Khalid al-Attiyah denies any tensions with Saudi Arabia, saying co-operation is much closer than people assume, with daily consultations. However, rebel sources and analysts say that by September last year, the rivalry had intensified to the point where the Qataris and Saudis were creating separate military alliances and structures. As complaints poured in from opposition leaders and western officials, the two states agreed to bring the structures together under the supreme military command, headed by the western-backed general Selim Idriss . However, commanders who work with Idriss say that neither country is following through with its promise to bolster the supreme military command, instead continuing to work independently. One reason could be that the Gulf states worry that their limited supplies would be distributed too broadly by the supreme command, instead of reaching only the most effective factions. But the behaviour has bred resentment. "Qatar and Saudi Arabia ... are playing out their rivalries here, they are dividing people," says Abdul Jabbar Akaidi, the head of the Aleppo revolutionary military council. Speaking from one of his bases on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, he adds: "People will remember those who gave without having an agenda. The Syrians are clever, they know when there is an agenda." . . . By late 2012 a new factor was emerging in Syria, one that had the potential to complicate Qatar's relationship with the west. The extremist group Jabhat al-Nusrah was gaining ground, playing a prominent role in dislodging the regime from military facilities in northern Syria. In December, the US felt sufficiently alarmed to add Nusrah to its global terrorist list. Concerned that Qatar's level of tolerance for radical Islamists was higher than theirs, western governments also wanted safeguards in place to ensure that weapons did not end up in the hands of jihadi groups like Nusrah. The problem, says one former senior US official, was that "the Qataris felt it didn't matter who you give to, what's important is to bring down Bashar." According to him, the objective in Washington became "to keep the Qataris from doing whatever they want". So the US instituted a "consultative process". Two "operations" rooms that oversee weapons deliveries were set up, one in Turkey, the other, more recently, in Jordan. They include representatives from nearly a dozen countries. The Qataris, says the former US official, were co-operative. Yet allegations that the Qataris have - directly or indirectly - helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much, although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group's funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments. Yet even with the "consultative process" in place, leakage might be inevitable, whether through the funding of rebels or through the massive charitable contributions from the Gulf that reach Syria. "Because the Free Syrian Army groups work so closely with non-FSA groups these weapons are spreading just because they are fighting side by side - and maybe the groups trade arms with each other as well," says Eliot Higgins, who examines and records weapons used in the Syrian conflict on his well-followed Brown Moses blog. Attiyah says Doha has never backed Nusrah, and blames the international community's inaction on Syria for allowing it to flourish. "Is it the Security Council's delay in taking a firm resolution against Bashar al-Assad and his regime that has made emerge? In my opinion, yes," he says. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, the prime minister, is even more dismissive of allegations of Qatari support for extremists, joking in his Brookings presentation that such rumours are spread by jealous neighbours to tease Qatar. Beneath the quips, however, are signs that Qatar's influence over military supplies to the rebellion may be waning, as its role in weapons deliveries takes second place to that of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has more developed networks to source weapons and it has been working closely with Jordan to bolster rebel groups in southern Syria that are not tied to Nusrah. . . . Many Syrians have probably never heard of Mustafa Sabbagh, though he is considered the most powerful man in the political opposition. The owner of a building material and contracting company, the 48-year-old secretary-general of the National Coalition lived in Saudi Arabia for much of the past decade. He doesn't make many speeches, or issue statements, but he does oversee the coalition's budget, to which the Qataris are the biggest donors, and is responsible, as one western official says, "for writing the cheques". While seen by both friends and detractors as a shrewd man who appealed to Qatar officials' business-minded attitude, Sabbagh has come under criticism for supposedly using his position to control the opposition and further Qatari influence. Tensions between him and some of the secular members of the coalition exploded into the open recently after the controversial election of an interim prime minister, Ghassan Hitto , in March. The row over Hitto's appointment was so bitter it caused tension between Qatar and Saudi Arabia and pushed the Saudis to become more active in opposition politics, which they had largely left to the Qataris. According to pro-Saudi opposition figures, negotiations are now under way to resolve the dispute. Qatar's involvement with Syria's political opposition has generated even more controversy than its support of rebel groups. The dissidents are a fractious assortment of cliques, but they play an important role in shaping international policy. While it was Turkey that helped form the first credible opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Council , in August 2011, Qatar quickly embraced it and contributed to its funding. The SNC, however, fell victim to infighting, which gave the Muslim Brotherhood, the only organised bloc within it, the greatest influence. As secular voices began dropping out of the SNC, western nations, led by the US, pressured the Qataris to help form a broader opposition based on an initiative proposed by Riad Seif, a well-respected Syrian dissident. The new body, the National Coalition, was announced in Doha in November 2012. It was no secret that Qatari officials were less convinced of the need to improve the SNC. Their view appeared to be that dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood was neither as great as claimed, nor an issue. A former US official who tracked the process of the creation of the coalition said dealing with the Qataris at the time was like a "war of attrition". However, claims of Qatari dominance of the opposition persisted, even after the coalition was created. True, the Muslim Brotherhood was no longer the main component, but a new bloc of more than a dozen members, brought in by Sabbagh as representatives of local communities in Syria, sparked new disagreements. It was seen as another bloc that was loyal to Qatar. Each of these members was supposed to represent a local council in Syria's different provinces, and together the councils received $8m from Qatar soon after the formation of the coalition. Qatar was also the first - and possibly the only - country to provide funding for the coalition budget, to the tune of $20m, and it delivered the first $10m out of a pledged $100m package for the organisation's new humanitarian assistance unit. In an interview with the FT, Sabbagh said that the Qatar label that has stuck to him is inaccurate and unfair. Peppering his words with praise for Saudi Arabia's contribution to the Syrian cause, he says his relationship with Qatar is confined to what he calls "logistics" support for a business forum that he founded after the revolt against Assad broke out. The forum had mobilised funds from merchants inside and outside Syria to support the Free Syrian Army. Sabbagh insists that the representatives of local councils that he invited into the coalition were an attempt, even if imperfect, to raise the representation of people inside the country in the main opposition front. "It's inevitable because there are no elections. It was an experience that needed maturing," he says. Attiyah, meanwhile, says he has no closer relationship with Sabbagh than anyone else in the coalition. He also points out that the coalition with its various components, including the local representatives, was not created by Qatar alone but with the help and blessing of Arab and western officials. . . . In Syria itself, the number of dead continues to rise and Bashar al-Assad is still stubbornly clinging on to power. Whether Qatar's venture into Syrian opposition politics will have any returns will depend on whether Syria survives as a country - something that is by no means assured. Perhaps for the Qatari emir, the demise of Assad will be sufficient satisfaction. In theory, Qatar could also emerge with multiple points of influence through Islamists and loyal brigades. But it has already created many enemies inside Syria, and not just among pro-regime supporters. So torn apart is the fabric of Syria's society, and so radicalised and suspicious its battered population, that the Qataris are more likely to find that they are neither thanked - nor even wanted - there. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0c_1368800021 m16carbine How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution syra, syrian civil war, qatar Fri, 17 May 2013 05:43:54 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1368783199 buoymarker http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/chris-matthews-sours-on-obama-164095.html President Obama "obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch," Chris Matthews said tonight. Yes, you read that right: The MSNBC host who in 2008 felt a " thrill going up my leg " after hearing Obama speak has grown disenchanted. Tonight's episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News. ( Watch POLITICO Junkies: Obama's week of damage control ) "What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft," Matthews said. "So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive." I agree to the terms and conditions this is for information content http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1368783199 buoymarker Chris Matthews sours on Obama thrill is gone, chris mathews, obama, executive, failure Thu, 16 May 2013 17:09:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28a_1368738408 SunniLebanese Syria crisis threatens Palestinian refugeesPro- and anti-Assad factions seek support of Palestinians in Lebanon's refugee camps as tensions there rise over Syria. Zak Brophy Last Modified: 16 May 2013 10:49 The Palestinian community in Lebanon is socially vulnerable and politically divided Beirut, Lebanon - The Palestinian refugee camp of Shatila is perilously wedged along one of Lebanon's many sectarian fault lines. Black Islamic flags adorn the lampposts when approaching this small slum from Sunni strongholds to the north, while expansive Shia ghettoes border the camp immediately to the south. In recent months, an increasing number of clashes have erupted in and around Shatila, as rival Lebanese factions fight for the loyalty of the socially vulnerable and politically divided Palestinian camps. The Syrian civil war and rising Shia-Sunni discord in Lebanon are exacerbating the pressure. "These are concerted efforts to provoke a response," explained Fathi Abou al-Ardat, secretary for the Fatah movement and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Lebanon. On May 12, clashes - described by local residents as the most intense fighting yet - erupted between groups inside Shatila and neighbouring Shia communities. Volleys of gunfire were exchanged for several hours, and the army encircled the camp with armoured personnel carriers. "We know the Palestinians are divided and some groups are exploiting that to stir things up here. We are not taking the bait, but these groups have to know that if they push too hard we will run all over them like we did in 2008," said Abu Ali, a resident of the Rihaab district, a predominantly Shia neighbourhood on the edge of Shatila. Palestinian refugees struggle in Lebanon Although Shatila was founded as a Palestinian refugee camp, many non-Palestinians now live there as well. Ahmad, a 20-year-old Shatila resident with little education and scant work prospects, reasoned: "Us Sunna reacted strongly and started to boil over when we saw the killing in Syria. This caused clashes with Shia because they are helping with the slaughter of our people there." Losing faith Syrian President Bashar al-Assad comes from the Alawite sect - an offshoot of Shia Islam - and the powerful Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah supports Assad. Like many of his peers, Ahmad has lost faith in the traditional Sunni leadership and places his trust instead with more religiously conservative and combative leaders such as Sheikh Ahmad Assir, who have been trying to garner support from predominantly Sunni Palestinians. "There are more and more of us prepared to follow Assir," said Ahmad. "More and more people are becoming increasingly religious. Everyone is preparing himself for what may come." The Palestinian camps in Lebanon consist of basic, overcrowded homes, their people victims of decades of war, neglect and abuse. In Shatila, the buildings are so cramped that sunlight is a rare commodity. The smells of garbage and sewage foul the air and unemployed youth fill the cramped alleys. "We are seeing increased efforts to recruit from our youth. There is desperation and anger here, so whatever they pay they will find people to say 'yes'. They think we are cheap," said Ayman Zaher, a youth worker in Shatila. All of the major Palestinian political parties have adopted, and until now managed to maintain, a policy of neutrality in Lebanon regardless of their stance on the conflict in Syria. However, in Ein el-Helweh, the largest and most populous camp in Lebanon, armed groups such as Jund al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and Asbat al-Ansar have found a safe haven under the protective wing of powerful local families. Their number of followers may not be huge, but their hard-line ideology and links to like-minded movements in Lebanon and Syria make Ein el-Helweh a particularly worrying flashpoint for Palestinians and Lebanese alike. "There is so much pressure on the camps and they are ready to explode, especially Ein el-Helweh, which could go off before there is a wider conflict in Lebanon. There is so much provocation from the Islamist groups there and I'm not sure if the PLO can keep a lid on it," warned Mutuwalli Abu Naser, a Palestinian journalist and playwright from Yarmouk camp in Damascus, who now lives in Lebanon. SpotlightIn-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria Syrian influence On the other side, Hezbollah and its allies have also been working to secure the allegiance of Palestinians in Lebanon. Until withdrawing its troops from Lebanon in 2005, the Syrian government was influential in many of the camps through various Palestinian allies. Since the Syrian withdrawal, Hezbollah has by-and-large maintained Syria's leverage in the camps, even though the stance of several Palestinian groups has shifted since the start of the Syrian uprising. "Hezbollah works by a very low profile without making noise, because they work with the Palestinians from a security background, not a political one," explained Edward Kattoura, a political analyst at Pursue, a Palestinian think-tank. Many of the Palestinian camps are located in Hezbollah-dominated areas, especially in Beirut, South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Recently, Shaker Berjawi - a Sunni "strongman" in Beirut who earned his battlefield stripes in the Lebanese civil war - decided to move the headquarters of his pro-Syrian Arab Movement Party to the edge of Shatila, indicating the importance of the camp's support. While maintaining a local influence over the years, he has switched political allegiances numerous times, and he is now aligned with the Hezbollah-led camp. "It seems people use us as mercenaries, whether it be for one side or the other. When he opens up his office at the entrance to the camps, he is sending a message that the camps are part of his fight," said Kattoura. 'Sacrificial lamb' But many Palestinians in Lebanon are driven by nationalist rather than sectarian sensibilities, and the camps may be able to stay out of internal Lebanese conflict. "Most of Lebanese have a view of the camps as a source of militia fighters and criminals. There is destitution and desperation, it is true, but in fact they are much less sectarian than most of Lebanese society," said Moe Ali Nayel, a Lebanese writer and activist who regularly works in the camps. "The Palestinians are used like a sacrificial lamb in Lebanon. Lebanese groups like to have Palestinians up front and then the blame can be put on us. " - Marwan Abdulal, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine And the Palestinians' time in Lebanon has cruelly taught them while their loyalty is dear, their blood is cheap, whether it be the massacre at Sabra and Shatila at the hands of Christian militias in 1982, the "War of the Camps" from 1985-87 between the Shia Amal Movement and Palestinian refugees, or the bombardment of Nahr Bared camp by the Lebanese army in 2007. "The Palestinians are used like a sacrificial lamb in Lebanon. Lebanese groups like to have Palestinians up front and then the blame can be put on us," said Marwan Abdulal, member of the political bureau for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Palestinian camps can hope to stay detached from the conflict in Lebanon as long as the fighting is constrained to the prevailing pattern of intermittent local clashes and firebrand speeches. However, should the situation escalate, residents will be hard pressed not to get dragged into the affray. "It will be very difficult for the camps to stay aside if this descends into a serious fitna ," warned the PLO's Fathi Abou al-Ardat. "The general atmosphere, the speeches, all of it is setting the stage for a fitna . In reality, it is already here." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/20135791049958517.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28a_1368738408 SunniLebanese Syria vis a vis the Palestinians in Lebanon in case you were wondering Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Palestinians, FSA, SAA, Hezbollah Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e5_1368633297 m16carbine Extract from Damascus Courts the West: Syrian Politics, 1989-1991 , pp. 3-6, by Daniel Pipes. Today, the author of the 1991 article currently prefers Assad Jr. to his alternative. Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991) Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein have much in common. They are about the same age (Saddam was born in 1937, Assad in 1930) and come from minority backgrounds. Both grew up in an impoverished countryside with a twentieth century tradition of exporting people to the cities. Both experienced Egyptian prisons and have effectively ruled their countries since about the same year (1972 for Saddam, 1969 for Assad). Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors. In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be &quot;used routinely&quot;; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails &quot;almost a research center for torture.&quot;) Though life in Syria is an iota better,^ the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet. The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety. While Saddam and Assad both engage in international brinkmanship, only Assad can reliably locate the brink. Saddam displays an increasingly uncontrollable streak of impatience and has a terrible sense of timing (the invasion of Kuwait could not have occurred at a worse moment from the Iraqi point of view); Assad is infinitely deliberate and has a most refined timing (the seizure of Beirut in October 1990, fifteen years after Syrian military involvement in Lebanon began, was a political masterpiece). More broadly, Saddam Hussein showed in 1990-91 that he may be one of the worst strategists and tacticians of history; in contrast, Assad rightly prides himself on his skills as a military planner. Like his adopted namesake, the lion, Assad is a patient operator. He probes his opponents' weaknesses, waits for the right moment, chooses the most advantageous field of battle, and strikes. In this way, Assad has defeated one enemy after another-the Muslim Brethren, Lebanese militias, American troops in Beirut, Israelis in south Lebanon, and Iraqi armed forces. Observers are in agreement as to his impressive skills. Thus, Annie Laurent and Antoine Basbous see his main characteristics as &quot;patience and a taste for secrecy.&quot; Dov Tamari concludes that &quot;the Syrian regime has demonstrated patience and restraint on the one hand, persistence and stubbornness on the other.&quot; Imagine-to take this comparison one step further-that Assad ruled in Baghdad, and that he wanted to bring Kuwait, with all its wealth and coastline, under his control. What would he have done differently from Saddam? Everything. He would have prepared the way years ahead of time by hosting Kuwaiti dissident movements in Baghdad and laying repeated but elliptical claims to Kuwait. When the time was right, he would have solicited an invitation from bona fide Kuwaiti leaders to send Iraqi troops into Kuwait. Rather than seize the whole country, he would have taken only some slices of it (the Rumayla oil field, Bubiyan and Warba Islands) and worked to get his allies and agents into power. The outside world would surely have protested, but Assad's salami tactics would have allowed him to take Kuwait without sustained armed opposition. In the end, just as everyone acquiesced to his seizure of Lebanon, so they would have gone along with his control over Kuwait. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also extracted an interesting 2005 interview with Der Spiegel where Bashar al-Assad discusses Saddam and the differences with his father. It's also interesting in showing the difficult situation Bashar inherited from his father, and his allusions to the Algerian Civil War (1991-2002) , which is similar to how he views his current crisis. SPIEGEL: Mr. President, there are tentative movements toward democracy here and there in the Arab world. But there is little evidence of that in Syria. Why not? Assad: Well, it just happens that the Arab states develop at different rates and under different historical conditions. Egypt, for example, has not experienced as many coups as Syria. Besides, Cairo signed a peace treaty with Israel, whereas we remain in neither a state of war nor a state of peace with Israel. Incidentally, our development only began a few years ago, so of course expectations will vary widely. But the main issue is that we in Syria have at least opened up a dialogue about it. SPIEGEL: But it's taking longer than many would like. Assad: The pace of our development depends upon the challenges that we must face, which we cannot always influence. For example, we have to deal with foreign powers meddling in our internal affairs. SPIEGEL: You mean the Americans' demands for more democracy and for putting an end to support for terrorists? Assad: The more meddling there is, the slower the pace of development in Syria. After all, the democratic process should pervade the entire country. Naturally, the unresolved Middle East conflict also slows down development. And then there is the question of what should be our greatest priority -- political development or economic growth. SPIEGEL: Are they mutually exclusive? Assad: There is a tremendous gulf between the two objectives. To promote growth, we urgently need help from the European Union. For many of the Syrians I meet, poverty is a far greater concern than the outlook for a democratic constitution. Besides, there is also terrorism, which stands in the way of democratic development. We simply have to act as quickly as possible to keep things moving forward. SPIEGEL: But you don't exactly make it easy for your fellow Syrians. Political parties are permitted, but they are immediately prohibited as soon as they form, while members of the opposition are arrested. Assad: But you've been talking to opposition leaders in our country. If we were to arrest them all, there wouldn't be enough space in our prisons. SPIEGEL: Most members of the opposition with whom we spoke have spent many years in prison. Assad: But now they're out again. You can't simply equate the situation in the West with the situation in our country. Take religion, for example. In Great Britain, an author published a book in which he claimed that Jesus Christ had children. Such statements don't trigger civil unrest and bloodshed in Europe. But write similar statements about Islam in Syria and you might see bloody uprisings. SPIEGEL: What does that have to do with real opposition in Syria? Assad: When we put someone on trial, we're not trying him as a person. Instead, what concerns us is that he does not attack the population's religious and ethnic structure. The umbrella of stability must not be damaged. We gave the go-ahead for the formation of parties two months ago, and we are currently taking a very close look at these parties. I certainly don't dispute the contention that we do not have a well-developed system of political parties yet. I simply wanted to show you where we have to be cautious. SPIEGEL: What exactly are you afraid of? Assad: Developments like those in Algeria since 1991. At that time, the government misjudged the people, and the Islamists threatened to assume power. To this day, the Algerians are paying the price for this miscalculation with their own blood. SPIEGEL: Look at the example of Riad Seif, a self-made businessman and member of the Syrian National Assembly. He criticized the omnipotence of the monopoly and was sentenced to five years in prison. Assad: He questioned the unity of the nation, and we happen to have a law that calls for penalties for those who assail the mosaic of the various ethnic and religious groups. SPIEGEL: Wasn't Seif merely questioning the distribution of power? Assad: No, no one is put on trial for attacking me personally. But assaulting the composition of Syrian society is simply too explosive. SPIEGEL: Journalists, too, are prevented from doing their work and sometimes even thrown in prison. When will you have true freedom of the press? Assad: We have never locked up anyone because of his personal opinion. SPIEGEL: A correspondent for a large Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, was recently sent to prison for several months. Assad: That's a different issue. Under Syrian law, a journalist is not allowed to report on military matters. This may be wrong or right, but that's just the way it is. SPIEGEL: You said that fighting poverty is more important than democracy. Does this mean that you intend to emulate the Chinese model: economic liberalization without political reforms? Assad: When I say that the economy takes priority, it certainly doesn't mean that we relegate political reforms to the back seat. The economy may have taken priority in the last five years -- that's because it is important to improve the general standard of living. It's a dangerous thing when someone gets up in the morning and has nothing to eat. If I say to that person, &quot;I intend to allow you to have political parties,&quot; how will he responsd? We don't care if this is the Chinese model or something else. Our actions reflect the needs of our country. SPIEGEL: When will there be a recognizable democratic multiparty system in Syria? Assad: It took us five years to achieve a societal dialogue. Now we are in the second phase, in which we begin discussing parties. It won't happen that quickly. For example, the same process took three years in Morocco. SPIEGEL: Will it happen before the 2007 general election? Assad: It's very likely, but you just can't make long-term predictions in our corner of the world. I cannot afford to make mistakes. Instead of jumping forward too quickly and possibly falling on our faces, we prefer to divide our tasks into smaller steps. SPIEGEL: How do you propose to prevent the Algerian model -- the formation of religious parties that are democratically elected, but then act undemocratically? Assad: Once again, we cannot apply Western standards to development in the Orient. In Germany, you may have a religious Christian party, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), but it has effectively assimilated itself into the fabric of the country. In return, your history prevents you from having any large nationalist parties. Our experience has shown us that the situation in Syria became stable because the entire society is secular. We must preserve that. SPIEGEL: In many of his speeches, United States President George W. Bush has complained that freedom must all too often take a back seat to stability. Do you feel he is addressing you with these comments? Assad: Freedom and democracy are nothing but instruments, just like stability. The goal is called progress and growth. Anyone who puts freedom ahead of stability is hurting growth. Besides, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Iraq aren't exactly models of freedom. SPIEGEL: Washington sees you as a sort of &quot;Saddam-light.&quot; Assad: There were real hostilities between the regime of Saddam Hussein and that of my father. Fifteen thousand Syrians lost their lives in these conflicts. Whereas I involve people from outside the party in the decision-making process, Saddam only permitted his own opinion. If we had taken the approach Saddam took in Iraq, I wouldn't feel safe walking on the street with my wife and children. Saddam was constantly in hiding. The fact that there are people who criticize me doesn't mean that people hate me. SPIEGEL: Your father supported the first President Bush in the 1991 Gulf War. You, on the other hand, were a vocal critic of the war in 2003. Assad: The first war was about the liberation of an Arab people suffering under occupation. The more recent war led to the occupation of an Arab country. There's a huge difference. SPIEGEL: Do you sympathize with the insurgents who are fighting the occupation troops and the new government in Iraq? Assad: There are terrorist operations in Iraq that claim the lives of innocent people; those we reject categorically. But there is also a resistance movement, and that's a different issue altogether -- a completely normal issue. SPIEGEL: Are suicide attacks a legitimate weapon against the occupation forces? Assad: Even the religious scholars disagree on that question, but I have the impression that most are in favor of these attacks. But this is a hypothetical debate. A person who is absolutely determined to blow himself up isn't about to ask you or me for our opinion. This debate is a waste of time. SPIEGEL: The American government has accused you of facilitating access to Iraq through Syria for the insurgents. Assad: It also accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction. But seriously, if you ask Americans whether they've been successful at sealing the border with Mexico, they'll tell you that it's a very difficult proposition. We've made it very clear to the Americans that it's impossible to completely control our border with Iraq. But we also tell them that the war itself is what's causing the chaos. It's not exactly fair to make a mistake yourself and then start blaming others for it. SPIEGEL: The American government has classified Syria as a &quot;rogue nation.&quot; Are you concerned that Washington plans to remove you from office? Assad: Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e5_1368633297 m16carbine Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991 article) Assad, Syria, Syrian Civil War, Islamism, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Hafez Mon, 13 May 2013 23:41:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron By Juliet Eilperin and Zachary A. Goldfarb , Updated: Monday, May 13, 8:09 PMInternal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show. IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists. Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names. In one instance, however, Ron Bell, an IRS employee, informed a lawyer representing a conservative group focused on voter fraud that the application was under review in Washington. On several other occasions, IRS officials in Washington and California sent conservative groups detailed questionnaires about their voter outreach and other activities, according to the documents. "For the IRS to say it was some low-level group in Cincinnati is simply false," saidCleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firmFoley &amp; Lardner who sought to communicate with IRS headquarters about the delay in granting tax-exempt status to True the Vote. Moreover, details of the IRS's efforts to target conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012, far earlier than has been disclosed, according to Republican congressional aides briefed by the IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration -(TIGTA) on the details of their reviews. Then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee who stepped down in November, received a briefing from the TIGTA about what was happening in the Cincinnati office in May 2012, the aides said. His deputy and the agency's current acting commissioner, Steven T. Miller, also learned about the matter that month, the aides said. The officials did not share details with Republican lawmakers who had been demanding to know whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups, Republicans said. "I wrote to the IRS three times last year after hearing concerns that conservative groups were being targeted," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Monday. "In response to the first letter I sent with some of my colleagues, Steven Miller, the current Acting IRS Commissioner, responded that these groups weren't being targeted." "Knowing what we know now," he added, "the IRS was at best being far from forth coming, or at worst, being deliberately dishonest with Congress." As new details emerged Monday, Democrats and Republicans alike decried the agency's actions as an unacceptable abuse of power. In a news conference Monday, President Obama said he learned of the investigating in media reports on Friday and has "no patience with it." "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous," Obama said. "And there's no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable." White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday that the White House counsel's office learned of an upcoming IRS inspector general's report on April 22 as part of a routine notification but had not received access to the report. On Capitol Hill, two Senate panels - the Finance Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - announced Monday that they will investigate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have been looking into reports of IRS attempts to single out organizations on the right for heightened scrutiny. Ways and Means has called IRS officials to testify Friday. "These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). "The IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny." Separately, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) introducedcompanion bills Monday that would require the IRS to fire any employee found "willfully" violating "the constitutional rights of a taxpayer," according to statements by both lawmakers. The bills also would make them criminally liable for their actions. Even as Obama vowed that his administration "will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this," however, the IRS offered no new information on how it selected which groups to single out for scrutiny. The White House is legally barred from contacting the IRS about a tax matter, under a prohibition adopted after the Watergate scandal. And although it can contact the Treasury Department about tax issues, neither Treasury nor the IRS can disclose specific taxpayer information. The IRS can release information about a petition for tax- exempt status only after it has been approved. Obama is not in a position to remove Lerner, a career official who can be terminated for cause only under normal civil service proceedings. The IRS has two political appointees: the commissioner, who serves a five-year term, and the chief counsel. As the IRS came under broader political attack Monday, more details surfaced on how the exempt-organizations division struggled to determine which nonprofits should receive "social welfare" status after the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. That decision, which allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend un-limited amounts of money on elections, opened the door for groups to accept undisclosed contributions as long as their "primary purpose" was not politics. In a Jan. 9, 2012, letter to the Richmond Tea Party, IRS specialist Stephen Seok asked questions including "the names of the donors, contributors and grantors," as well as the size of the contributions and grants, and when they were given. Richmond Tea Party President Larry Nordvig, whose group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2009 and received it in July 2012, said the extended inquiry had "a very chilling effect" on how much money the group could raise because its donors preferred anonymity. The Wetumpka Tea Party of Alabama experienced a two-year delay after submitting its initial application. Becky Gerritson, a 44-year-old stay-at-home mother and the group's president, said the IRS sent a questionnaire asking for the names of all volunteers, donor identification and contribution amounts, the names of any legislators its members had communicated with directly or indirectly, and the contents of all speeches its members had made, among a long list of other details. "I was outraged," Gerritson said. "Being an election year, I felt like it was intimidation." The group did not provide the information. Approval came only after the group sought help from the American Center for Law and Justice, which threatened a lawsuit against the IRS, Gerritson said. Although some of the groups were explicitly labeled "tea party" or "patriot," others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act - known by many as Obamacare - or the integrity of federal elections. In a June 3, 2011, letter to the IRS, Mitchell questioned the agency's motivations for delaying recognition of one of her clients who had filed nearly two years earlier, writing, "Is the opposition to Obamacare and the takeover of America's healthcare system by the government the reason that this application has been held up and not approved?" Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the Houston-based True the Vote, first filed for tax-exempt status in July 2010. At one point, Engelbrecht - who is still awaiting a determination from the IRS regarding her voting rights organization and a separate tea party group, King Street Patriots - said an IRS employee informed her: "I'm just doing what Washington is telling me to do. I'm just asking what they want me to ask." The IRS did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Josh Hicks and Julie Tate contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story_2.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups IRS, Obama Mon, 13 May 2013 23:32:42 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b5_1368501928 Detroit Iron May 13, 2013 3:45 pm by Paul Bedard Soledad O'Brien, recently yanked from her morning show "Starting Point" on CNN, plans to continue her focus on racial issues and is charging that whites are afraid of dealing with the nation's black-white division. O'Brien, just named a distinguished visiting fellow at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, told the school's Institute of Politics that she's often confronted by whites who want to take issue with her documentaries on race in America. "People would sometimes, when I give speeches, stand up and say, 'You know, I think your black America documentaries (are) divisive. I think like, you know, listen, we shouldn't think of ourselves as African-American. We're Americans, and everybody should stop separating themselves out,'" she said in a new video from the institute. She continued: "First of all, it's only white people who ever said that - 'if we could just see beyond race. If only people didn't see race, it would be such a better place, and you are responsible for bringing up these icky race issues, Soledad, you should just let sleeping dogs lie.'" O'Brien added: "I was like, again, 'OK, white person, this is a conversation you clearly are uncomfortable with, and I have no problem seeing race, and I think we should talk about race." O'Brien is an award-winning correspondent who hosted and developed " Black in America ," one of CNN's most successful international franchises. http://washingtonexaminer.com/soledad-obrien-ok-white-person-this-is-a-conversation-you-clearly-are-uncomfortable-with/article/2529512 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b5_1368501928 Detroit Iron Soledad O'Brien: 'OK, white person, this is a conversation you clearly are uncomfortable with' Soledad O'Brien, CNN, Harvard's Graduate School of Education Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:41:49 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21c_1366799836 star53 This ass hole needs taken out. BIRMINGHAM: Up to 25,000 British Pakistani men, women and children from across the UK gathered in Aston Park here to express their love for Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to call on the British government to introduce legislation that bars Islamophobes from insulting Islam under the garb of the freedom of speech. The participants, who also travelled from several parts of European cities, were led in a peaceful and colourful mile-long march by Hazrat Peer Alauddin Siddiqui. This is the fourth consecutive gathering for the biggest Melaad-un-Nabi (PBUH) of British Pakistanis in Britain but this year it was dedicated to "protect the honour and legacy of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH)". Speakers included interfaith leaders from Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and Jewish religions and parliamentarians from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats. Sardar Attique Khan, former Azad Kashmir prime minister, was the chief guest of the rally. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21c_1366799836 star53 Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam <span class="highlight">speeches</span> anti-Islam speeches,Thousands rally in UK,Pakistani men, women and children Mon, 13 May 2013 07:05:48 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b90_1368442730 Detroit Iron By Salena Zito - May 12, 2013 BELLE VERNON, Pa. -- The owner of a small gun shop here sits on a wooden stool behind a glass-topped counter filled with handguns. The only thing folks talk about when they come into this store is what Washington will do next to attack gun owners, says the man, dressed in a crisp white shirt, dark blue pants and a ballcap from a local paint store. "The story that is not being told is how afraid folks really are," he says, refusing to have his name published. He has lived through the turbulent '60s and '70s and served in Vietnam, he says, but none of that compares to the fear he sees in today's customers. "When you have not one, not two, but dozens of women well over 70 come in here to buy a gun, something is going wrong out there," he says. "It's not just little old white women - it's young people, white and black, affluent and struggling, who are worrying about the (government's) overreach and the need to protect themselves." As if on cue, a middle-aged black man walks in and is greeted with a hearty handshake. The man says he came in to pick up a gun he ordered the week before. The 65-year-old shopkeeper says everyone who walks through his door is concerned that the latest push for stricter gun laws will return to the congressional agenda, perhaps within weeks, despite his belief that Americans do not support the legislation as much as the Obama administration claims they do. His newest customer nods in agreement. President Obama made gun control a priority after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. After months of speeches that demonized the National Rifle Association, the gun bill failed in the U.S. Senate last month. Obama called that defeat "a pretty shameful day for Washington." Yet the overwhelming public outrage that he anticipated simply never materialized. A poll released by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center one week later showed only 47 percent of respondents were "disappointed" that the Senate failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. Part of the problem is how the bill was pushed by Obama and his political arm, Organizing for America: People who own guns were condemned in shrill, strident terms that puzzled people who own guns, and even those who don't. One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., insists he hasn't given up; he does near-daily cable news interviews, hoping to bring a gun bill back up for a vote. And Michael Bloomberg, New York's billionaire mayor, is dumping money into Pennsylvania for a television ad pressing folks to "demand" that their legislators support such a bill. Yet, last week, when Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns organization held a rally in Beaver County, fewer than 20 people attended; most were organizers of the event. It's not unusual for members of Congress to misread public opinion, either from personal bias or a simple cultural lag. Obama and the Senate's majority Democrats clearly did on this issue, for both of those reasons. Among history's more spectacular examples of this phenomenon was the repeal of Prohibition, according to historian David Pietrusza. "The 'driest' Congress ever was elected very late in the game, in 1928," he recalled, "but within two years, the tide had turned dramatically ... by November 1932, 98 'dry' House members and seven 'dry' senators met defeat." Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political scientist, theorized that it is in Republicans' interest to keep the gun issue alive for its potential value as a wedge issue in 2014 "and maybe even 2016." The gun shop's door opens to another customer, filling the air with the blare of an oncoming freight train's sequenced horn - long, long, short, long blasts, warning motorists of a train crossing Belle Vernon's Main Street, a few blocks away. Customers come and go from different walks of life, different ages, different genders, different ethnicities - a virtual social melting pot passing through one small gun shop, all echoing the same concern: fear that their way of life will be under attack again, and soon. Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/12/obama_democrats_misfire_on_guns_118376.html#ixzz2TAa9u248 Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b90_1368442730 Detroit Iron Obama, Democrats Misfire on Guns Democratic Party, Gun Control Sun, 12 May 2013 11:45:07 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e70_1368372631 Detroit Iron During a speech at the Iowa GOP's annual Lincoln Dinner, Sen. Rand Paul challenged possible 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton on her record as secretary of state during the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, saying it showed a "dereliction of duty and should preclude her from holding higher office." By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC NewsCEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Presidential elections start in Iowa. On Friday, Sen. Rand Paul put his stake in the ground for a possible run in 2016 by mocking the Obama administration and delivering a blistering critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The administration has been criticized for failing to provide security during the attack and for its characterization of the incident afterward. Speaking at the Iowa GOP's annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?" "It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause. Republicans' search for a candidate to deliver their first victory in a presidential election since 2004 began as Paul used the plum speaking slot to plant the seeds for his own possible bid. And he won his biggest applause by taking on Clinton, who's seen as the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Barack Obama. Paul was just elected to the Senate in 2010 and is perhaps best known as the son of the former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose two campaigns for president attracted a fervent, grassroots following that might translate to his son. But the Kentucky senator has been far from shy about stoking speculation about his own play for the Republican nomination in 2016. He told reporters earlier Friday that he had not made up his mind and would not decide until 2014. The fundraiser on Friday had unmistakable overtones of a presidential campaign, though the last one ended just six months ago. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, captured that sentiment best in his speech preceding Paul's: "The process of selecting the next leader of the free world begins in Iowa, and it's already begun." Paul's speech doubled at times as a comedy scene, as he seemed at ease before the crowd, stepping away from the podium, microphone in hand, to project a casual demeanor. He rattled off jokes about absurd pork-barrel projects, recalling the campaign style of Arizona Sen. John McCain as he ran for president in 2008. But Paul also used his closely watched speech to offer his own prescriptions about the path forward for the Republican Party, which has been suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis since Mitt Romney lost to Obama in last fall's election. On no issue is that crisis more clear than immigration. A bipartisan bill has advanced in the Senate to allow undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, but King and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, both railed against the proposal in their speeches before Paul's. Paul has spoken in favor of some kind of immigration reform, a dicey topic before this Republican crowd, and he acknowledged those disagreements. But he also tried to align himself with King and Grassley - two of the most stalwart opponents of immigration reform. "I'm also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968," he said, referencing the last time Congress passed a major immigration overhaul. "We were promised security, and it never came." But Paul also said there's a "chance could vote for the bill" if he can add amendments strengthening its border security measures. Paul also spoke about broadening the party's appeal, namely to Latinos, African Americans and young voters. "We're an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren't like us, don't look like us, don't wear the same clothes, that aren't exactly who we are," he said. "We're going to have to do something." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/11/18183010-rand-paul-challenges-hillary-clinton-in-key-iowa-speech?lite http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e70_1368372631 Detroit Iron Rand Paul challenges Hillary Clinton in key Iowa speech Sen. Rand Paul, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sat, 11 May 2013 01:59:24 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=028_1368251350 plokiju Second video: China Says Soil Study Results are "State Secrets" Not even good enough for dog food: Imported food from China loaded with chemicals, dyes, pesticides and fake ingredients (NaturalNews) Do you really know what's in all the food you're eating that's imported from China? If you don't, you're actually in good company: The FDA only inspects 1% - 2% of all the food imported from China, so they don't know either. Even when they inspect a shipment, they rarely test it for heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs or other toxic contaminants. Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute, added emphasis to this point as he testified this week in The House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats, saying, "We don't trust, for good reason, the Chinese to supply ingredients for our dog and cat food. Why should we trust Chinese exporters for the food that we are feeding our children and families?" It's a good question. Especially when, as Kastel adds, Chinese food is being routinely found to contain "unapproved chemicals, dyes, pesticides and outright fraud (fake food)." Heavily contaminated food from China As Natural News has already reported, food from China is frequently found to contain alarming levels of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury) and other contaminants. Politically, China is a communist dictatorship where freedom of speech is completely outlawed. Environmental regulations are virtually never enforced. The culture is one of total deception where lying, cheating, stealing or committing fraud to get ahead is considered completely acceptable -- because that's how government is operated there. The moral decay of China is directly reflected in the alarming dishonesty of the food supply. (Yes, a country's food exports will reflect its cultural and political philosophies. Freedom produces healthy food. Oppression and communism produces deceptive, deadly food.) And yet, even with all this being widely known, Chinese farms are rarely inspected by organic certifiers. "U.S. certifiers are unable to independently inspect farms and assure compliance to the USDA organic food and agriculture standards that are required for export to the U.S." explained Kastel in testimony. "These imports should not be allowed to reach our shore until and unless we have a system in place to assure consumers they are getting what they pay for. Just like U.S. grown organic commodities, the safety of these products must be rigorously overseen by independent inspectors." Counterfeit ingredients are the new norm in China Also testifying at the hearing was Patty Lovera, the Assistant Director of Washington, D.C.-based Food &amp; Water Watch. The news on food fraud out of China "is a steady stream of controversies ranging from adulteration with counterfeit ingredients like melamine in dairy products, to widespread outbreaks of animal diseases like avian flu, and high levels of pesticide residues," Lovera testified. "Just last week, news reports described a Chinese government campaign to break up a fake meat operation, leading to arrests of more than 900 people accused of passing off more than $1 million of rat meat as mutton." You are eating far more food from China than you think Why does any of this matter? Because you're eating far more food from China than you probably think. Not only do retailers like Whole Foods sell "certified organic" food grown in China, the vast majority of superfood powders sold in North America use raw materials purchased in bulk from China. Nutritional supplements, herbs and vitamins are often made using materials from China. Not everything from China is bad, but in our own lab tests here at Natural News, we've been shocked to discover just how frequently products from China are contaminated with metals, chemical solvents and pesticide residues. We have rejected dozens of suppliers in our own search for clean ingredients to use in our product formulations, and we've even had to send back product that showed up at our warehouse and simply didn't meet our stringent quality control requirements. (True fact: We recently had to return several thousand pounds of goji berries to one supplier after discovering the product failed our quality control review.) Massive organic food FRAUD In truth, what's really happening right now on a global scale is a massive organic food fraud. Food is grown in China and certified organic even though no U.S. inspectors even visit the farms. That food is then imported into the U.S. and almost never inspected. It's packaged and sold at top dollar in natural foods retail stores, emblazoned with the USDA Organic label. But nowhere along the way -- except in extremely rare cases -- is that food ever tested for heavy metals or other contaminants. This is why Mark Kastel correctly states this food can't even be trusted "for dog food," much less to feed yourself and your family. Make no mistake about it: China is a nation full of immoral, unethical liars and deceivers. (Taiwan, on the other hand, is very different and has a much stronger moral code as well as basic human decency.) Remember: I speak Mandarin Chinese. I've lived in the Chinese culture. I've traveled throughout Asia and even given numerous public speeches to Chinese audiences. At the same time, I've investigated and written about food and food safety for more than a decade. Very few people are as qualified to tell you the truth about what's really in your food coming out of China, and I can tell you that I don't trust it. In fact, the only way I will eat anything from China is if I subject it to extensive testing and verify that contamination levels are acceptably low. There are some great products out of China that are completely safe and healthy. Certain medicinal mushrooms, for example, are produced in China and are very clean. Some producers of goji berries are very honest and clean. There are no doubt organic growers who are producing very clean products in China, but these would be the exception, not the rule. By default, we must all now assume that anything from China is heavily contaminated. Almost universally, food grown in North America is cleaner and less contaminated. This isn't true 100% of the time, but usually so. Toxic Chinese agriculture puts honest U.S. farmers out of business The sad part about all this is that food from China is economically displacing U.S. and Canadian farmers who are generally far more honest and ethical in their farming practices. So while U.S. farmers are being put out of business for following the rules set by the EPA, FDA and USDA, the Chinese farmers are selling us contaminated, toxic "organic" food frauds produced by breaking all the rules! That's why I say grow local, buy local and eat local as much as possible. And until China cleans up its act on food contamination, do your best to avoid food from China. I don't trust it unless EVERY BATCH is comprehensively lab tested and those lab tests are made public. Props to Cornucopia's Mark Kastel for having the courage to lay a lot of this out in congressional testimony. Rest assured Congress will never ask me to testify on food contamination because I would describe a truth so horrifying that people would stop eating for days... P.S. The reason all your dogs and cats are dying from diabetes and cancer these days is because you're giving them highly toxic pet treats imported from China. They are loaded with toxic solvents and industrial chemicals that cause permanent liver and kidney damage, among other devastating side effects. You can find these toxic, colorful pet treats sold at all the major pet store retailers. They are selling you PET DEATH and making a tidy profit doing so. http://www.naturalnews.com/040266_food_fraud_China_heavy_metals_contamination.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=028_1368251350 plokiju Toxic Food from China a threat to US safety, and puts domestic farmers out of business Toxic, Food, from, China, threat, US, safety, puts, domestic, farmers, out, of, business Thu, 09 May 2013 04:06:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1368085759 DEADBEEF Absolutely first-class analysis of Syria. The first I have seen from the BBC that is not pro UK Government or pro terrorist. Perhaps the recent SAA advances are not an isolated event? My favourite term of all is "Men With Guns" ! Brilliant!. By Paul Danahar BBC Middle East bureau chief, Damascus. 9 May 2013 Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said that in a guerrilla war the rebels only had to not lose to win; however, unless a regular army was clearly winning, it was losing. The Syrian crisis has, for the time being, turned that maxim on its head. When the uprising began, the West and its allies in the Gulf expected it to last weeks or maybe months - but not years. Now, by hanging on this long, the regime in Damascus increasingly thinks that by not losing it is winning. That new confidence - along with what is believed to be a steady supply of arms from its supporters in Iran and Russia - is helping the regime to take back some areas which it had previously lost. In the capital Damascus, you can hear the sound of mortar fire as the regime slowly pushes fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) out of the parts of the city that it took the rebels months to get hold of. The situation in Syria is complicated. If you are not confused by what is going on there, then you do not understand it. However, to try to make the crisis less confusing to the outside world, policymakers, politicians and journalists have tried to boil it down to good versus evil: the FSA versus President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Rebels from al-Qaida affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra waving their brigade flag at Taftanaz in northern Syria. Photo: January 2013 The emergence of radical Islamist groups has further complicated the conflict And the regime has played its part - so far more than 70,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict. But to start to understand why this crisis is so intractable, two things must first be understood. 'Men With Guns' Firstly, the FSA - that you have been hearing so much about - does not exist. A better title would be MWG, or men with guns, because having guns and firing them in the same direction is the only thing that unites them. The word "army" suggests a cohesive force with a command structure. Almost two years after the FSA was created, that remains illusive. The situation has been further complicated by the introduction into the arena of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and armed criminal gangs. Secondly, the Syrian opposition's political leadership - which wanders around international capitals attending conferences and making grand speeches - is not leading anyone. It barely has control of the delegates in the room with it, let alone the fighters in the field. These two things can help explain why this crisis has so far shown no sign of being resolved politically. America is not acting because it does not know what to do or whom to do it with. Neither do the European countries. Having spent the last few days in Beirut and Damascus, talking to the international community, Western diplomats, FSA activists and Syrian regime supporters, it is clear that nobody knows how to end this crisis. That's just about the only thing all sides agree on. Saudi and Qatari 'meddling' The vacuum created by Western inaction has been filled by two of the Gulf states - Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are both sorely undemocratic states, they are not champions of democracy either at home or abroad. Qatar's Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani attends the opening of the Arab League summit in the Qatari capital Doha in March 2013 Qatar has viewed the upheavals of the Arab Spring as an opportunity to extend its influence So, why in Syria did we have a "free world" standing by and watching the democratic uprising being brutally crushed, when suddenly from over the horizon came the cavalry from the very un-free Gulf world to arm and support the aspirations of the people? This bit is simple - they did not. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are meddling in Syria for thoroughly selfish reasons. Freedom, democracy and human rights have absolutely nothing to do with why they are arming the rebels. President Assad's Alawite community is a splinter from the Shia faith - its closest allies are in Shia Iran. Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia hates Shia Iran, so it is using the war in Syria to try and weaken it. The Saudi interest in the conflict dates back 1,300 years to the split within Islam. That is where its ambitions over the outcome of the civil war begin and end. Qatar is more complicated. Nobody really understands the minutiae of the Qatari foreign policy - perhaps not even the Qataris. Small nations like to feel important and they like to have bigger friends. The Qataris are a tiny nation with lots of money. They are looking at the post-Arab Spring Middle East as a giant tombola, they are using their vast wealth to buy up as many of the lottery tickets on offer as possible because they just want to win something, somewhere. They might end up with a prize that is not nowhere near what they paid for it - but it will be theirs. It is the winning - not necessarily the quality of the prize - that counts. Qatar wants to have lots of grateful friends once the turmoil in the region is over who will hopefully look after them in the future. The only thing that is certain in Syria is who is losing: The Syrian people are losing. They are losing their lives, their homes, their wealth. Their children are losing their childhoods. 'Societal crisis' The Syrians are also losing Syria, because the longer this goes on the more society is losing what little sense of identity it has. "The country is moving from a political crisis to a societal crisis," is how one of the few genuinely knowledgeable people trying to manage this crisis explained events here to me. This societal crisis is manifesting itself in steadily increasing small acts of sectarian violence. Syrian Christians light candles before a mass marking the Palm Sunday on April 28 in Damascus The increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict is undermining Syrian society's sense of identity All across the country, every day, there are brutal events, none of which in itself is big enough to warrant the attention of international or local media, but each of which breaks another strand of this country's fragile weave of sects and religions. Each one is an act of revenge for an offence committed by another member of the victim's religious community. Women are being raped because they are Sunni or Alawite and their men are assumed to be involved in the fighting. Christian women are being hauled off buses and attacked by Salafist fighters for not covering their hair. Murders lead to revenge massacres. When will the Syria crisis end? God knows. God knows because this crisis is increasingly not about freedom but about religion. The Syrian war is turning into a sectarian conflict whose influence will spill beyond the country's borders. There was the chance at the beginning to stop that being the case. That chance has been lost. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22456875 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1368085759 DEADBEEF Syria's protracted conflict shows no sign of abating Men, With, Guns