SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: philv who wrote (13973)1/12/2007 11:02:24 PM
From: philv  Respond to of 22250
 
This guy lets Bush have it with both barrels.

movies.crooksandliars.com



To: philv who wrote (13973)1/13/2007 5:28:49 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 22250
 
Re: Bush has some support ..... Toby Blair thought Bush's "surge" plan was a good idea.

Tony Blair's problem is that he fancies himself as a modern-day TE Lawrence --a Tony of Arabia... bent on screwing the Arabs a second time... I guess the Brits view the (impending) war on Iran as an Arab Revolt redux --clue:

Useful historical matches:

Ottoman Empire >> Iran
Ottomans >> Iranians
Ottoman-German Alliance >> Iranian-Chinese Alliance
Hejaz Railway >> Shia Crescent
Medina >> Iraq
Auda Abu Tayi >> Moqtada el-Sadr

Arab Revolt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the Arab Revolt of 1916. For the 1936 revolt, see 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

The Arab Revolt (1916–1918) was initiated by the Sherif Hussein ibn Ali with the aim of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman Turks and creating a single unified Arab state spanning from Aleppo in Syria to Aden in Yemen.

[...]

Background

[...]

The Young Turk Revolution began on July 3, 1908 and quickly spread throughout the empire, resulting in the sultan's announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of parliament. The constitutional era was disrupted by the Countercoup (1909), which aimed to dismantle the constitution and restore the monarchy of Abdul Hamid II. The dethroned Sultan attempted to regain the Caliphate by putting an end to the secular policies of the Young Turks, but was in turn driven away to exile in Selanik by the 31 March Incident and was eventually replaced by his brother Mehmed V Resad.

In the elections held in 1908, The Committee of Union and Progress, managed to gain the upper hand against the rival group led by Prince Sabahaddin, more liberal in outlook, bearing a strong British imprint, and closer to the Palace. The new parliament comprised 142 Turks, 60 Arabs, 25 Albanians, 23 Greeks, 12 Armenians (including four Dashnaks and two Hunchas), 5 Jews, 4 Bulgarians, 3 Serbs and 1 Vlach. Ottoman politics changed and discrimination against non-Turkish inhabitants increased.

World War One

[...]

The Ottoman Empire took part in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, under the terms of the Ottoman-German Alliance. Many Arab nationalist figures in Damascus and Beirut were arrested, then tortured and executed by the Ottomans[*]. The Arabs were also threatened by the construction of the Hejaz railway, which helped move Turkish troops deep into Arab areas (the railway was actually finished under the old Sultan, but its effects became more noticeable under the CUP government).

Because of these reasons, Sherif Hussein, as the head of the Arab nationalists, entered into an alliance with the United Kingdom and France against the Ottomans around June 8, 1916 (the actual date is a bit uncertain). The Arab forces were led by his sons Abdullah and Faisal. The British government in Egypt immediately sent a young officer to work with the Arabs, this man was Captain T.E. Lawrence, known now as Lawrence of Arabia.

Lawrence's major contribution to the revolt was convincing the Arab leaders (Faisal and Abdullah) to co-ordinate their actions in support of British strategy. He persuaded the Arabs not to drive the Ottomans out of Medina, instead, the Arabs attacked the Hejaz railway on many occasions. This tied up more Ottoman troops, who were forced to protect the railway and repair the constant damage.

In 1917, Lawrence arranged a joint action with the Arab irregulars and forces under Auda Abu Tayi (until then in the employ of the Ottomans) against the port city of Aqaba. Aqaba was of interest to the British as a supply base for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force as well as the Arab revolt. On July 6, after an overland attack, Aqaba fell to Arab forces. Later in the year, the Arab warriors made small raids on Ottoman positions in support of General Allenby's winter attack on the Gaza-Bersheeba defensive line (see the Battle of Beersheba). Allenby's victories lead directly to the capture of Jerusalem just before Christmas 1917.

1918: The End of Fighting

In 1918, the Arab cavalry gained in strength (as it seemed victory was at hand) and they were able to provide Allenby's army with intelligence on Ottoman army positions. They also harassed Ottoman supply columns, attacked small garrisons, and destroyed railroad tracks. Perhaps due to these attacks, Allenby's last offensive, the Battle of Megiddo (1918), was a stunning success. The Ottoman army was routed in less than 10 days of battle. Australian Lighthorse troops marched unopposed into Damascus on September 30, 1918. T.E. Lawrence and his Arab troops rode into Damascus the next day[citation needed] to receive the surrender. At the end of the war, the Egyptian Expeditionary Force had seized what is today Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, large parts of the Arabian peninsula and southern Syria.

Casualties

It is estimated that the Arab forces involved in the revolt numbered around 5,000 soldiers; by comparison the British had over 240,000 dead/wounded during the Battle of the Somme.

The main contribution of the Arab Revolt to the war was to pin down tens of thousands of Turkish troops who otherwise might have been used to attack the Suez Canal, allowing the British to undertake offensive operations with a lower risk of counterattack.

Conclusion of Hostilities

[...]

The United Kingdom agreed in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that it would support Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans. The two sides had different interpretations of this agreement. In this event, the United Kingdom, France and Russia divided up the area in ways unfavourable to the Arabs under the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Further confusing the issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. The Hedjaz region of western Arabia became an independent state under Hussein's control, until the early 1930's, when it was absorbed by Saudi Arabia.

en.wikipedia.org

[*] Monday, 14 February, 2005

Explosion kills former Lebanon PM

Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has been killed in an apparent assassination in west Beirut.


The blast, which reports say killed about nine people and injured 100 others, may have been a car bomb.

It went off beside the derelict St Georges Hotel on the seafront, causing widespread damage.

The killing comes at a time of rising tension between Syria, Lebanon's political master, and members of the opposition, a BBC correspondent says.
[...]
news.bbc.co.uk

Tuesday, 21 November 2006

Lebanese Christian leader killed

Pierre Gemayel, a leading anti-Syrian Lebanese minister and Maronite Christian leader, has been killed in the capital, Beirut.


Mr Gemayel, 34, was shot in his car in a Christian suburb and rushed to hospital, where he died.

His death comes amid a political crisis in Lebanon, following the resignation of six pro-Syrian cabinet members.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said such killings would not intimidate the country.
[...]
news.bbc.co.uk



To: philv who wrote (13973)1/13/2007 5:46:27 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Follow-up to my previous post:

Some Arab observers, too, have smelled a rat... they know they would have only themselves to blame should they let themselves fall for another "Arab Revolt" (against Iran):

New Year imperatives
The Arab world must be careful not to get trapped between Israel and Iran as America re-articulates its regional policy, writes Hassan Nafaa*

[...]

To me, the most dangerous thing that can happen in the next two years is for Israel and the US to succeed in instilling the fear among Arab governments and predominantly Sunni societies that Iran has embarked on an expansionist project with the aim of creating a "Shia crescent" opposed to Arab interests, and in using this fear to rally a regional coalition against Iran. For some time Washington has been trying to promulgate the idea that Iran heads an "alliance of extremists" that includes Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and that what is needed to confront it is an "alliance of moderates" -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It takes no great feat of intelligence to understand that Israel will be America's natural candidate to lead the "moderates". Nor does it require great imagination to foresee that if this scenario comes into being, the Arab world will become sharply polarised between Iran and Israel, and that whichever of these two sides wins, the Arabs will come out losers.
[...]

weekly.ahram.org.eg



To: philv who wrote (13973)1/13/2007 6:12:52 PM
From: sea_urchin  Respond to of 22250
 
Phil > Tony Blair thought Bush's "surge" plan was a good idea

thisislondon.co.uk

>>Blair dismissed as 'delusional' after defending his policy on Iraq

Blair: Public must not get weary of war in Iraq

Tony Blair was ridiculed as "delusional" yesterday as he tried to justify his policy of military intervention and said it must continue after he leaves Downing Street.

In a valedictory speech on defence, the Prime Minister issued a blunt message to his expected successor Gordon Brown that spending on the armed forces should increase.

And he insisted that British forces must remain "warfighters as well as peacekeepers", warning that the war on terror he launched with President George Bush could last a generation.

In response to a barrage of criticism from serving and retired generals over commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Blair told them they would be "horrified" by the alternative - Britain reduced to a peacekeeping role in the world.

His remarks were described as outrageous by MPs from all three main parties, who said it was obvious the catastrophe in Iraq had diminished Britain's standing in the world.

Lord Garden, a former assistant chief of defence staff, said Britain could simply not afford to be a "mini-America" intervening around the world. He accused Mr Blair of trying to shackle Mr Brown, who is expected to succeed him when he steps down as Prime Minister later this year, to his controversial policies.

The Tories said Mr Blair was able to claim defence spending had remained constant only once contingency funds provided for Iraq and Afghanistan were taken into account. Without them, it had fallen to 2.2 per cent of national income, from 2.5 per cent six years ago. Almost 2,000 troops, one aircraft carrier, four destroyers, six frigates and 13 RAF squadrons had been lost since 1997, they said.

Labour MP John McDonnell, who will launch a Left-wing challenge for the Labour leadership when Mr Blair steps down, said: "These are the delusional ramblings of a Prime Minister who has used British military forces to allow him to strut the world stage and who has made the most catastrophic foreign policy mistakes since Suez by taking us into Iraq and Afghanistan."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "The Prime Minister does not seem to have learned the lessons of Iraq.

"Without United Nations authority the military action was illegal and severely damaged Britain's reputation. This will be the Prime Minister's legacy."
<<