spinbadz own

@ MySA.com:

Oh, those poor, innocent prisoners such as Samir Kuntar rotting away in Israeli prisons, allegedly snatched from Lebanon, for whose deserved freedom Hezbollah is valiantly fighting. Who is Samir Kuntar?

Smadar Haran Kaiser, writing in the Washington Post three years ago, described what happened to her husband, Danny, and her 4-year-old daughter, Einat, when terrorists from Lebanon launched an attack on the northern Israeli town of Nahariya in 1979:

"As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar."

I'll see your Iraq and raise you Iran

"It doesn't take much imagination to realise what the Middle East would be like if the radical groups were able to operate under the cover of an Iranian nuclear umbrella."

- Joschka Fischer

Henry Kissinger stressed today on Fox News that Iran has a couple of weeks to sort out whether it will risk the ire of the US by continuing a nuclear-isation policy.

A couple of weeks.

He appeared to say it quietly, in the stock delivery style of the well-known former US Secretary of State, but there was no mistaking the earnest behind his words.

There are obvious reasons to be concerned about the likes of Ali Khameini or the satanically tonsiled Ahmadinejad getting their fingers close to a nuclear launcher.

Yet, is there more to it? What specific things might an old Cold Warrior like Kissinger be concerned about?

Two items posted on MEMRI (here and here, for the moment) put recent Iranian manoeuvring - and the Israel-Islamist conflagration - in a post-Soviet context:

“Russia is repositioning itself vis-à-vis the U.S. as a highly influential superpower in the Middle East as well as in Europe, where it is the primary supplier of oil and natural gas.”

Whipped out of 1980s Afghanistan -“by a religious Sunni popular militia armed with large quantities of sophisticated weaponry, with Saudi and American support”- the new Russia has resurrected itself, by joining the tactics they could not beat:

“Today, this same mode of warfare (as used against the Soviets in Afghanistan) is being utilized to great effect by Hizbullah, a religious Shiite popular militia which is armed with large quantities of sophisticated weaponry, with Iranian and Russian support ...

“Russia has not only been the backbone of the Iranian nuclear program; it is also providing the primary diplomatic umbrella for Hizbullah and Iran's activities ... (even claiming) ... that there is no connection between Iran and Hizbullah.”

Russia, which does not include Hizbullah or Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations, has persistently opposed, and continues to oppose, the imposition of sanctions on nuke-bound Iran.

No censure of Iran was implemented at the recent G8 meeting (in Russia). This was a significant victory for both the Iranian purchaser and the Russian seller of nuclear plant and technology. A look at the time-line of events relating to the Iranian nuclear adventure and leading into the G8 meeting is very illustrative of this:

“(O)n June 6 Iran was ... presented with an ultimatum: either agree to give up uranium enrichment ... or Iran's nuclear dossier will be referred back to the U.N. Security Council ...

As Western pressures increased, Iran's threats … grew in their severity.

“On June 16, it was reported that a military pact had been signed between Iran and Syria, in which Iran agreed to defend Syria against Israeli attack, to fund weapons purchases from Russia, China, and the Ukraine.

(The pact, according to some sources, also provides for the transport of weaponry from Iran to Hizbullah via Syria)

“On July 2, … Hamas … which receives significant support from Iran (and from Syria), carried out (that, kidnapping) attack on Israeli soil …

(The green light for the attack almost certainly came from Syrian-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshal)

“On July 12, Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who is in charge of Iran's nuclear dossier, was forced to (meet) Javier Solana … In the meeting, he repeated Iran's position that it will only give its answer to the ultimatum on August 22, 2006. In response, Solana announced, on behalf of the "5+1," that the Iranian nuclear dossier would be referred back to the Security Council. Larijani then ... (met) ... with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

“On that same day - July 12 - Hizbullah carried out an attack on Israeli soil in which it kidnapped two soldiers and killed several. … and the current local, conventional crisis was ignited.

That Hizbullah attack was the first invasion across the "blue line" - the Israel-Lebanon border outside the disputed Schebaa Farms segment - in 6 years since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

At the G8 meeting, on July 15, said “local, conventional crisis” was observed in unified fashion by organization members. This provided what MEMRI sees as a micro-victory - and simultaneous macro-defeat - for US President Bush:

“In the current crisis, Israel and the U.S. are confining themselves to the regional arena and the conventional level, whereas Iran and Russia are acting on all levels and in all arenas …

“The G8 Summit ... was to discuss the Iranian nuclear program and the steps to be taken against Iran. On the eve of the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that "bringing excessive pressure on Iran regarding the nuclear issue would [only] lead to a dead end …

“(Russia) even defended Iran's right to defer its response until the end of August ... (and) defended ... Hamas and Hizbullah ...

“Russia thus positioned itself as the superpower which is the patron of the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah-Hamas bloc …

“On the regional level, Iran - with the help of its proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah - has already become a regional power which America's traditional allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some of the Gulf states) fear but are unable to oppose. It is likely that, in the future, Iran will be joined by other Arab countries like Sudan, Yemen and Qatar, which, through its Al-Jazeera TV channel, is already increasing Iran's influence among the Muslim masses.”

Not mentioned in this MEMRI depiction is Iraq. Iraq under Saddam provided a buffer to Iranian influence as well as a steadily massive crude supply offshore. Now the US swims against the tide of heavily armed agitation there, much of it kept aflame - literally - by Iranian money, Iranian weaponry, Iranian agents (said to be operating openly and swarming across the border at will) and radical Shi'ite rhetoric.

The newly resurgent Iran of 2006, whose leader is so bellicose in calls for the liquidation of Israel, is on course to have both long-range missiles, as well as nuclear weapons to combine with them, very soon.

Sitting comfortably behind this is the Putin regime. With the inflation of the radical Shi'ite balloon has come a place at the global poker table for the old Soviets. Isn't this, however, a dangerous game for the Russians to have staked itself (and us all) in?

They are claiming to be a legitimate mediator between the Middle East protagonists, and it's true that their leader sometimes makes noises supporting Israel's right to exist and defend itself - while doing little or nothing to liquidate the broadleft mantra they originated, the one about Zionism and racism being "two sides of the one coin", even though the new Russian regime, unlike the Soviet Union, has no pretensions to being itself other than a largely distinctive national-cultural (and even religious) entity akin to the enemies they once despised.

Russia's Persian partners take the "Zionism is racism" mantra to its thuggish and hypocritical extreme.

How much real leverage does Russia have over them? How long can it last? Does Putin - now a kind of entrenched dictator - have any real interest in bringing pressure to bear upon Iran vis-a-vis the US free market ally Israel?

For Putin, this past few days must have seemed like a kind of festive devil's coming out.

Previously written off - at least in the public arena - as historic US roadkill, his KGB-originated government is exerting control over a newly centralised Russian oil industry, even as international prices skyrocket and the western hold on supply of that market-essential substance continues to slip around Iraqi sands.

Now OPEC heavyweight Venezuela, whose loud-mouthed and anti-Semitic leader Chavez was fawned upon recently by the arms-supplying post-KGB satrapy in Belarus, is announcing that he's about to conclude an arms deal (with Russia) that will give his small Latin American country the most powerful air force in South America - as well as Kalashnikov factories to arm itself and its buddies with.

In such ways the Putin power and money quotient is presently magnified, but surely the Russian leader must foresee that, just as the US policy in Afghanistan came back to bite it on the behind, Russian sponsorship of Iran may yet head the same way.

I'm sure Kissinger was firmly aware of such things when he emphasized that Iranian deadline for discontinuing with nukes.

Faced with a ideologically bankrupt pack of hyenas with no common interest other than a bloodlust for pieces of the US lion, it is in both the US interest and the interests of all peaceful and democratic governments, that such deadline shouldn't be treated lightly.

The Ayatollah Khomeini applied the term to the United States, and it seems reasonable to look to the Qur’an to see what he meant.

Satan is depicted in the Qur’an. There he is neither imperialist nor exploiter, nor murderer nor destroyer - though the US is seen as all those things in Islamist eyes. In the Qur’an Satan is a seducer: "the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men" (Qur’an CXIV, 4, 5).

Bernard Lewis (“The Crisis of Islam”) believes the accusation that degeneracy and debauchery is inherent in the American way of life is the most powerful anti-Western charge in the Islamist indictment sheet.

It has been so since before the Iranian revolution: since the 1950s writings of Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb in fact.

Qutb’s name may not - yet - be well-known nor -spelled in the West, but is revered and iconic through the ranks of Hamas, Qaeda, Hizbullah, LeT, JI and all places infidels are valued only as exploding tickets to paradise. Qutb spent 2 years in the United States (in the 1950s) on a study mission on behalf of the Egyptian government.

He returned with insights such as those regarding church hall dances “where people of both sexes meet, mix and touch”, held under the very eyes of ministers “who even go so far as to dim the lights to facilitate the fury of the dance … (T)he dance is inflamed by the notes of a gramophone (and) the dance hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.”

All noted with disgust and condescension. Also quoted by Qutb to support his condemnation of American debauchery are the Kinsey Reports. The terms “a good time” and “fun” are cited untranslated in his work as the shameless ideals most sought by Americans ... and those catered for by their churches.

It's tempting to imagine the power of Qutb's words and views in a western context. He being only one ideologue amongst squillions - like a Malcolm X to American Muslims, perhaps.

However, the Middle East reality is not quite like that. A UN-authorised report on Arab Human development compiled by Arab intellectuals in 2002 estimated that the accumulative total of books - in the Arab world and translated into Arabic - since the ninth century is about 100,000. That's about the average number that Spain translates into Spanish in a single year!

So opinions as powerfully expressed as Qutb's, particularly when they so nicely complement the views bankrolled by Wahabbi or radical Shiite petrodollars, can be assumed to have a fairly profound effect. More so on a population dismayed by the economic gulf between themselves and western countries, a fact brought home by satellite television pictures that visit them on a daily basis.

Little wonder, some say, that alcohol-stacked nightclubs and hotels are regarded as legitimate targets by exploding Islemmings, and that freedoms and equal rights afforded to females are seen as part and parcel of Western “debauchery”. One can easily imagine how the current debate over gay marriage rights must play in Islamist world.

Keep in mind that Usama Bin Ladin, he whose enormous image now adorns Gazan walls as Nasrallah's does Lebanese and Saddam's once did Iraqi, is said to have demanded in his 7-point "Letter to America" of 2002/11, at #2 spot (right after the demand that the US "embrace Islam"), that the US stop its "oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery".



***************************

The Australian's (November 03, 2006) "Cut & Paste" section provided part of a transcript of a television interview (British author Martin Amis, with ABC Lateline's Tony Jones) in which the interviewee talked about the influence of Qutb:

JONES: You clearly don't think the word terrorism adequately describes the Islamist assault on the West. You've coined your own word, horrorism. Why?

Amis: It's a nice distinction, I think. When you are on your sleigh going through Siberia and you hear a wolf howl, that is fear or concern. When the wolf is pounding after your vehicle, then that's terror. And horror is when the wolf is actually there. I think Islamism has turned up the dial of terror, so it becomes horrific. That is their single achievement so far...

(The roots of Islamism) begin with Sayyid Qutb, this amazingly repressed and lustful thinker, so called, who came to America in 1948-49 and didn't like it. I think Islamism is the death agony of imperial Islam, the final twitch in that exploration, but I also think it was very much connected with the formation of the state of Israel and the defeat of six Arab armies simultaneously. I think this was the final straw (in) Islam's dreams of regaining its primary place on the planet, which it enjoyed for a good two or three hundred years...

Jones: You say Sayyid Qutb effectively wrote the Mein Kampf of Islamism. Within it, there are interesting psychological traits which emerge and you exploit them in your essay (The Age of Horrorism, published in The Guardian) to describe a man who appears to be both obsessed with and repulsed by Western sexual mores. How significant do you think those issues were for him and how do those themes go into Islamism today?

Amis: I think it lies very close to the heart of it. The patriarchal superiority of the male is the last bastion of Islam and it's that which horrifies them about modernity. You may be interested to know that in training camps in Afghanistan you'll spend the morning learning about suicide bombing and the afternoon will be spent with acids and asphyxias and so on. But the rest of the day is propaganda about how women are, as your mufti (Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali) pointed out, the troops of the devil. Instilling hatred of women is the other twin pillar of the Islamist project.

Jones: You seem to be suggesting that (Qutb's) mind, in effect, was poisoned by a few encounters with American women.

Amis: Well, yeah. I mean, it's hilarious ... It's almost as if self-examination of any kind is unmanly, unvirtuous, unrighteous. There he is clearly boiling with lust for these wanton American women. He is always talking about their bursting hips and their bulging breasts ... and when he does write about it, he goes into a kind of frenzy of hellfire, although he died a virgin. It is embarrassing to say so, but it does seem to be male insecurity on steroids.

Israel's Gaza incursion is being portrayed by the usual suspects in the media as a grotesque overreaction to the kidnapping of a single soldier. Much graver issues are actually involved. Some of the key elements are touched on in an item by Richard Baehr published today.

In spite of pulling out all settlers and troops from Gaza nigh a year ago, says Baehr, Israel's relationship with the Palestinians has - significantly - deteriorated.

Anger and mendacity overwhelmed potential opportunities for good, as in the following case:

Bill and Melinda Gates provided the money to purchase the Israeli greenhouses in Gaza to turn them over to the Palestinians upon the Israelis' disengagement ... so that an enormously productive agricultural business could form the basis of a new Palestinian national economy ... Turn over the greenhouses, is exactly what the Palestinians did, in the first days after the Israelis left, destroying or removing virtually every usable piece of machinery and equipment, either for scrap, or as a futile angry gesture against the former Israeli occupation.

Meanwhile, at the southern end of Gaza:

The Egyptians promised to guard the Rafah crossing ... to prevent smuggling of weapons into Gaza and presumably also to prevent terrorists and their weapons from coming into Sinai from Gaza and continuing the Al Qaeda attacks that have ... damaged the Egyptian tourist economy.

But this effort has also been a disaster. More weapons have come into Gaza from Egypt in 11 months than in the previous 38 years under Israeli occupation. These weapons include strellas that can be fired to bring down jets flying into or out of Ben Gurion Airport, if smuggled into the West Bank.

Since the Israeli withdrawal the Palestinians have fired well over 500 rockets at Israeli towns - that is, at towns in Israel proper, not settler towns in the territories. Says Baehr:

" The rockets now have improved accuracy and longer range, and various terror groups in Gaza are trumpeting that they now have chemical weapons to use against Israel as well."

These trumpeteers have the strong backing, of course, of a Hamas-dominated parliament elected in a landslide victory following the Gaza withdrawal. The Hamas electoral victory, says Baehr,

was not merely a protest against Fatah and Arafat's decades of thievery and corruption, grotesque as this has been ... There were real Palestinian reformers on the ballot, who won but 2 seats out of 132 in the Palestinian parliament, while Hamas won 72. Palestinians knew who they were electing with Hamas and what their agenda was concerning Israel. A vote for Hamas was not a vote for good government and clean streets.

The writer concludes that the present imbroglio is likely to compound and worsen as time marches forward:

Some of the older Palestinians, tired after 50 years of fighting with nothing to show for it, have seemed more willing to compromise, and the new much more numerous younger generation of Palestinians are implacable Israel haters. With a birth rate of 6 children per family in the West Bank, and almost 8 in Gaza, and a median Palestinian age of 15 or 16, this next generation is very large. It was steeped in vicious anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda during the recent intifada, and under the wing of Hamas in much of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, will likely be ready for jihad and war against Israel for as long as their leaders call for it.

What does a country do in the face of such circumstances - continually and indefinitely turn the other cheek? Perhaps, if the country is big and big-hearted enough to do so, but one has to keep in mind that in Israel's case there is not a tremendous amount of cheek left to turn:

More than 60% of Israel's Jews live in a thin strip of land by the coastal plain, less than 75 miles north to south and 10 miles wide, smaller in size than ... Rhode Island.

Further, despite the scattered applause of (some) libertarian elites in the western world when Israel has withdrawn from various territories, there is the reality that the young people of Gaza, Lebanon and many other places interpret such withdrawals as signs of weakness and encouragement to advance and further radicalise a genocidal jihad.

We have seen that Iran-backed Hezbollah swallowed control of southern Lebanon after Israel withdrew from there.

Baehr says 15,000 missiles now point Israel's way from there, with the missile-keepers champing at the bit to let them fly. What happens when their Iranian masters and allies get a nuclear bomb?

What does one do in such circumstances?

There seem to be no good or easy answers, and a strong incursion, led by the new Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - to deal front and centre with an ugly and mortal reality - may be the very best option available.

Football strikes back



SMH July 8, 2006

In his first comments since the World Cup began, Frank Lowy argues the taxpayers' contribution was money well spent.

AUSTRALIA has just experienced a rare episode of sustained national unity, with millions transfixed by the unfolding drama of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

The way the Socceroos performed, and the professionalism behind the scenes, make it hard to believe the game was on its deathbed a couple of years ago.

But those involved in the revival of the sport remember those dark days well and know the job has only begun.

Football now faces a 10-year journey to establish itself as a viable mainstream sport in Australia.

Only with continual hard work and a united front can we build on the remarkable World Cup experience and unleash the game's full potential.

But so far, so good. Very good.

Given this, it was curious to read the rugby league writer Roy Masters's article last Saturday describing the Government's contribution to football as a "net loss".

Only the most bigoted devotee of another code could quibble about the contribution the Socceroos and the new football administration have made to the country in such a short time.

And when such a devotee also happens to be a member of the Australian Sports Commission, which plays a critical role in determining government grants each sport receives, the motives behind his article become questionable.

The Government's decision to back football was brave. There had been many false dawns and there were no guarantees it would be different this time. But that investment has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the taxpayers, who Masters wrongly suggests are spoiling for a fight over funding for football.

Has any other government program got more bang for its buck than the investment in the revival of football?

Who else, other than Masters, has questioned its value? No one.

Our performance in Germany not only boosted our national spirit but gave us a new world presence. What this means for the Australian "brand" around the world is beyond measure.

Everyone has generously supported football's revival. It was good to see players and commentators from other codes wishing us well. The AFL's chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, and other AFL identities repeatedly said there was room enough in Australia for all football codes. They saw the success of football as a healthy development that was good for the country.

With the old ethnic rivalries behind us, football has become a symbol of a new Australia, and the game, which has the potential to advance our national interest in Asia and the world, has begun to flourish.

Amid this optimism, success and goodwill, Masters alone feels he must rain on the parade. But why?

It's only natural that after the near-death experience of the sport, followed by such rapid success, people are itching to write the history. And there will be many versions.

Now is not the time for me to write a full account, but some things need saying. Football's success has many fathers.

There were those from the old Soccer Australia and the state and territory administrations who saw reform was necessary and got behind the revival. Just one example during the critical months of 2003 was Tom Doumanis from NSW.

There was strong political leadership from the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Sport, Rod Kemp, supported by the Opposition sport spokeswoman, Kate Lundy, and all premiers.

There was the critical contribution of David Crawford, Bruce Corlett, Kate Costello, Mark Peters and the late Johnny Warren who formed the review committee that prepared the report upon which much of the reform was based. That committee was supported by the Australian Sports Commission, led by Peter Bartels.

Then came my appointment as chairman, and the board I established of influential business and sporting identities. Some nine months later John O'Neill agreed to become chief executive officer following his highly successful career with rugby.
The old game, with its ethnic divisions, vested interests and financial failures, had to be put out of its misery.

I made it clear to the Government that while the Crawford Review had provided a blueprint for the job ahead, I needed the right "tools" if I was to have any hope of getting the job done inside three years.

I would need a new board and administration.

But, most importantly at first, I would need "seed capital" from the Federal Government to move the game from bankruptcy to the point at which it could begin to build credibility and attract sponsors.

After cleaning up the past, in the first year of operation we had a deficit of $4 million.

The first six months involved furious activity to wind up the old Soccer Australia. We needed a clean sheet. We even changed the name, from "old soccer" to "new football."

Several leading accounting and bankruptcy experts, including my deputy chairman, Brian Schwartz, then with Ernst & Young, worked together, in some cases pro bono, to create the new legal structure.

At the same time we had to tear up some existing contracts that stood in the way of progress. The goodwill shown by sponsors, particularly Qantas and Channel Seven, in co-operating in this was further evidence that people saw the revival of football as being a project in the national interest.

The World Cup qualifiers were looming. After a series of poor performances by the Socceroos we took the tough decision to replace Frank Farina with Guus Hiddink just a few months before our do-or-die matches against Uruguay. To his lasting credit, Farina accepted the decision with dignity and was supportive.

We needed new constitutions for the state football bodies. We had to develop the plan for the new national competition — the Hyundai A-League. We had to develop a match schedule for the Socceroos which generated revenue for the game and a competitive environment. We had to start building corporate support and sponsorship.



Another priority was to restore credibility with FIFA, and John Coates played a crucial role.

But we couldn't start without first creating financial stability. This is why government seed capital up front was crucial, and I spoke to dozens of people to ask for help in making football's case to government, at the Sports Commission and at the political level.

This was no simple exercise. It took months of detailed negotiations, all based on independent reports by Ferrier Hodgson and others which had looked into the financial mess that was the old Soccer Australia, and ahead at what was needed to kick-start the reforms.

At the end of that process, Rod Kemp announced a package of $15 million - a $3 million grant for each of three years and a loan of $6 million, which was only drawn down to $4 million.

It was carefully tailored to meet the minimum requirements for the sport to get back on its feet.

It's important to note that not one cent of taxpayers' money has been spent on the A-League. Public funds were used only to fill the black hole left by the previous regime, and to support our national teams, as stipulated by the Sports Commission.
Against the $3 million annual grant to football in 2005-06, there was $5.1 million to rowing, $4.6 million to athletics, $5.3 million to swimming, $2.2 million to volleyball and $2.3 million to water polo. This year, cycling got $4.6 million and hockey $4.7 million. Each deserves support.

Comparisons of Sports Commission funding to other football codes are misleading. The other three football codes have all been "top-down" funded from the professional end of the game whereas this sport has traditionally been "bottom-up" funded by the grassroots, like other sports regarded as predominantly amateur.

The rescue package and any future funding arrangements for football must be viewed in the context that:

> At the time the current board took over, revenue and expense projections were prepared for the prospective three years. In many cases the revenue projections were aspirational and the expenditure projections conservative.

> We fund eight national teams (including men's and women's Olympic teams) which all compete internationally regularly. With our move to the Asian Football Confederation, most of our teams have to qualify for Asian, FIFA and Olympic events, which in some cases means qualification matches in two-year cycles. While the move to Asia is strategically fundamental for the development of the game, it does not come without significant cost, which was not forecast when we took over in September 2003.

> We operate in a true world market when it comes to recruiting world-class technical resources for our teams and opposition for so-called "friendly" matches. We have to compete with countries with a lot more money. We often pay in euros or US dollars when we generate the bulk of our revenue in Australian dollars. It would be nice not to have to look overseas for coaches and other technicians but we won't be in that position for several years. We face a massive task to build a national development system for coaches and players, from the grassroots to the elite level. It is only by doing this that we will build the depth we need to compete with the strong football nations.

All of us involved in football have high hopes for the sport. We want to see a thriving national competition, with more regular matches against our Asian counterparts and the Socceroos mixing with the best in the world.
We're striving for a financially successful, self-sustaining sport that delivers much more to the country than it takes. We think we've made a good start but it's early days and we need all the help we can get - from the fans, sponsors, and the Government.

Frank Lowy is the chairman of Football Federation Australia.