Saudi Arabia: Trouble Taming the Tiger

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about heroin and other addictions. This follows this post about LGBT homosexuality.This follows this post about Planned Parenthood in light of Kamala Harris's raid. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

In Brief... World News Review

Saudi Arabia: Trouble Taming the Tiger

 by Cecil Maranville, Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

For decades, Saudi school children have been taught anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

For decades, Saudi school children have been taught anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda. It was no fluke that 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. A recently released Saudi intelligence poll shows that Osama bin Laden could have had thousands more volunteers. Taken just weeks after 9/11, the survey found that 95 percent of Saudi Arabians from ages 25 to 41—with college educations—supported the terrorist.
Clearly, the long-held premise that terrorists are poor and uneducated is no longer true.
Even Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah recently let slip an anti-Semitic remark, saying in a news conference after a terrorist attack on a Saudi oil refinery that the Jews were to blame. MSNBC reported the crown prince's statement: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean… It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”
The Saudi interior minister followed with this absurd claim: “Al-Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism” (Andrew L. Jaffee, “Saudis Blame Jews for Terror,” June 19, 2004).
Coming from average citizens, these statements would be unsettling. Coming from the head of the government and a chief aide, they are deeply disturbing.
Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were undoubtedly in keeping with the thinking of the Arab peoples of the 1950s. It seems natural for poor people to hate the prosperous. Slandering others—especially Jews—undoubtedly seemed harmless. Strengthening nationalism through denigrating other nations that were traditionally unpopular was the easy way, and the Saudi government chose the easy way.
It allowed, encouraged and funded the radical Islamist Wahhabi sect. When the sect evolved into a threat to the sprawling self-indulgent Saudi royal family, the government continued funding the Wahhabis as virtual protection money. “We will fund you to take your radical actions to other countries; just leave Saudi Arabia alone” seems to have been the understanding.
For the very same terrorist attack that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah blamed the Jews on Saudi TV, the Saudi government told the Western press that the culprits were al-Qaeda: One message for the folks at home; another for the West. That is, the government has wanted it both ways: anti- and pro-American.
In this cozy little world, back in 1990 Osama bin Laden (living in Saudi Arabia at the time) actually offered his forces to the royal family to help it remove Saddam Hussein's invading troops from Kuwait.
Throughout the decades of teaching little children to hate the United States and Israel—throughout the decades of funding radical Islamic ideas—Saudi Arabia was also an ally of the United States. It made that plain to all Arabs by allowing a U.S. base on its soil in the 1991 Gulf War.
Now the tiger has returned home to attack its keeper. The Saudi's duplicity began to backfire after the United States pressured the kingdom to expel bin Laden in 1994. His al-Qaeda terrorists are now attacking Saudi Arabia from within.
So, we have a truly bizarre phenomenon: Anti-Semitic, anti-American terrorists are attacking Saudi Arabia for being pro-America and therefore pro-Israel, while the Saudi government officials blame the Jews (and therefore America) for the terrorists' attacks.
The Saudis are sitting on a ticking bomb—a nation of people schooled in prejudice and terrorists who no longer honor their protection money. Increasing unemployment and decreasing government handouts make the nation ripe for revolution.

terrorism al-Qaeda Osama bin Laden saudi arabia Middle East World Regions Governments Conflicts and War News and Prophecy

You might also be interested in...

Anti-Semitism and A Sober Warning

In Brief...World News Review: Intelligence Sources Believe Al Qaeda Has Nuclear Capacity

How dangerous are the bombs?

• 

  Cecil Maranville

• 

  Darris McNeely

  Beyond Today Presenter

  Darris McNeely works at the United Church of God home office in Cincinnati, Ohio. He and his wife, Debbie, have served in the ministry for more than 32 years. They have two sons, both married. Darris is the Associate Media Producer for the Church. He also is a guest instructor in Early Church History at the Ambassador Bible College. He enjoys hunting, travel and reading.
  

Add to my study list

Print this Page

Appeared In...

World News and Prophecy: July 2004

Join the conversation!

Log in or register to post comments

A timely post from www.jihadwatch.org about Arab Muslims and Arab Muslim refugees. This follows this post about Roman Catholicism. This follows this post about Mexico.
You can follow me here.

Why Arab Muslims refuse Arab Muslim ‘refugees’

 By Raymond Ibrahim 39 Comments

While the West goes out of its way to accommodate Muslim migrants — still called “refugees” though most are not even from war torn Syria and some are Islamic State jihadis — an Arab Muslim from Kuwait recently explained why his nation refuses to take any.

According to Kuwait’s Fahd al-Shalami, Chairman of the Gulf Forum for Peace and Security, Kuwait refuses to take Arab/Muslim refugees because, “In the end, you cannot accept other people — from a different background, from another place, who have psychological or neurological problems, or trauma — and just bring them into your society.”
Such are the words of an Arab Muslim concerning fellow Arab Muslims — the same ones the West is eager to accommodate.
Imagine the more commonsensical reasons Shalami could’ve given if Kuwait were not Islamic, and those trying to enter it were screaming Islamic supremacist slogans — as they do in the West?

Hungarian bishop: Pope wrong in appealing for aid to sea of refugees; this is actually a Muslim invasion of Europe

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Churchill's leadership. This follows this post about Japan and North Korea. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Another Call For Churchill

 by Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

World Magazine Editor Marvin Olasky has a column today that shows the lack of awareness most Americans have of the clear and present danger from nuclear armed nations like Iran or other radical Islamic terror groups.

The current flap over DP World's management of American ports highlights the inadequacies of this war on terror. The muddled thinking that would allow an Arab country access to not just port management but the inner workings of the port security plans is hard to figure. Why would we even want to let this happen? Is there not an American company that could do this job, allowing us to keep it home grown?

The urgency based, on the facts before us, is just not there. Iran is moving closer each day to possessing a nuclear weapon. They have said enough against Israel, America and western values to justify inclusion in the “axis of evil.” Does anyone remember that description?

This morning there was a report that Former United States President Bill Clinton was doing double speak this week with his comments about the Dubai ports deal. While his wife speaks against the deal from her senate perch, he is advising the Dubai government on how to finesse this issue with the public and lawmakers.

America and Britain are whistling past the graveyard. Some want to return to a normal world, thinking it is possible to subdue our enemies through a combination of diplomacy and military intervention. It is likely true that we have bought ourselves some time by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. But the demon is out of the bottle and we are seeing the reality of forces aligned against us, intent on our destruction. They will stop at nothing less.

Meanwhile our culture continues on, oblivious to the fact that it all could suddenly come to an end. The words of Isaiah call us to repent of the sins that overcome us from head to toe. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil,…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow”. There is room and time for repentance God says, but if not, “…if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword”. (Isaiah 1:16 Isaiah 1:16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil;
American King James Version×, 18, 20)

We don't Winston Churchill today but we have God's word to instruct us and send a wake up call. It is still not too late.

The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures

A very interesting post from www.stratfor.com about the Sunni and Shi'ite war in the Middle East. This follows this post about Saudi Arabia's problems this year. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures

Geopolitical Weekly

Print

Text Size

Stratfor

By George Friedman
Last week, a coalition of predominantly Sunni Arab countries, primarily from the Arabian Peninsula and organized by Saudi Arabia, launched airstrikes in Yemen that have continued into this week. The airstrikes target Yemeni al-Houthis, a Shiite sect supported by Iran, and their Sunni partners, which include the majority of military forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. What made the strikes particularly interesting was what was lacking: U.S. aircraft. Although the United States provided intelligence and other support, it was a coalition of Arab states that launched the extended air campaign against the al-Houthis.
Three things make this important. First, it shows the United States' new regional strategy in operation. Washington is moving away from the strategy it has followed since the early 2000s — of being the prime military force in regional conflicts — and is shifting the primary burden of fighting to regional powers while playing a secondary role. Second, after years of buying advanced weaponry, the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries are capable of carrying out a fairly sophisticated campaign, at least in Yemen. The campaign began by suppressing enemy air defenses — the al-Houthis had acquired surface-to-air missiles from the Yemeni military — and moved on to attacking al-Houthi command-and-control systems. This means that while the regional powers have long been happy to shift the burden of combat to the United States, they are also able to assume the burden if the United States refuses to engage.
Most important, the attacks on the al-Houthis shine the spotlight on a growing situation in the region: a war between the Sunnis and Shiites. In Iraq and Syria, a full-scale war is underway. A battle rages in Tikrit with the Sunni Islamic State and its allies on one side, and a complex combination of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army, Shiite militias, Sunni Arab tribal groups and Sunni Kurdish forces on the other. In Syria, the battle is between the secular government of President Bashar al Assad — nevertheless dominated by Alawites, a Shiite sect — and Sunni groups. However, Sunnis, Druze and Christians have sided with the regime as well. It is not reasonable to refer to the Syrian opposition as a coalition because there is significant internal hostility. Indeed, there is tension not only between the Shiites and Sunnis, but also within the Shiite and Sunni groups. In Yemen, a local power struggle among warring factions has been branded and elevated into a sectarian conflict for the benefit of the regional players. It is much more complex than simply a Shiite-Sunni war. At the same time, it cannot be understood without the Sunni-Shiite component.

Iran's Strategy and the Saudis' Response

One reason this is so important is that it represents a move by Iran to gain a major sphere of influence in the Arab world. This is not a new strategy. Iran has sought greater influence on the Arabian Peninsula since the rule of the Shah. More recently, it has struggled to create a sphere of influence stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea. The survival of the al Assad government in Syria and the success of a pro-Iranian government in Iraq would create that Iranian sphere of influence, given the strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the ability of al Assad's Syria to project its power.
For a while, it appeared that this strategy had been blocked by the near collapse of the al Assad government in 2012 and the creation of an Iraqi government that appeared to be relatively successful and was far from being an Iranian puppet. These developments, coupled with Western sanctions, placed Iran on the defensive, and the idea of an Iranian sphere of influence appeared to have become merely a dream.
However, paradoxically, the rise of the Islamic State has reinvigorated Iranian power in two ways. First, while the propaganda of the Islamic State is horrific and designed to make the group look not only terrifying, but also enormously powerful, the truth is that, although it is not weak, the Islamic State represents merely a fraction of Iraq's Sunni community, and the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. At the same time, the propaganda has mobilized the Shiite community to resist the Islamic State, allowed Iranian advisers to effectively manage the Shiite militias in Iraq and (to some extent) the Iraqi army, and forced the United States to use its airpower in tandem with Iranian-led ground forces. Given the American strategy of blocking the Islamic State — even if doing so requires cooperation with Iran — while not putting forces on the ground, this means that as the Islamic State's underlying weakness becomes more of a factor, the default winner in Iraq will be Iran.
A somewhat similar situation exists in Syria, though with a different demographic. Iran and Russia have historically supported the al Assad government. The Iranians have been the more important supporters, particularly because they committed their ally, Hezbollah, to the battle. What once appeared to be a lost cause is now far from it. The United States was extremely hostile toward al Assad, but given the current alternatives in Syria, Washington has become at least neutral toward the Syrian government. Al Assad would undoubtedly like to have U.S. neutrality translate into a direct dialogue with Washington. Regardless of the outcome, Iran has the means to maintain its influence in Syria.
When you look at a map and think of the situation in Yemen, you get a sense of why the Saudis and Gulf Cooperation Council countries had to do something. Given what is happening along the northern border of the Arabian Peninsula, the Saudis have to calculate the possibility of an al-Houthi victory establishing a pro-Iranian, Shiite state to its south as well. The Saudis and the Gulf countries would be facing the possibility of a Shiite or Iranian encirclement. These are not the same thing, but they are linked in complex ways. Working in the Saudis' favor is the fact that the al-Houthis are not Shiite proxies like Hezbollah, and Saudi money combined with military operations designed to cut off Iranian supply lines to the al-Houthis could mitigate the threat overall. Either way, the Saudis had to act.
During the Arab Spring, one of the nearly successful attempts to topple a government occurred in Bahrain. The uprising failed primarily because Saudi Arabia intervened and imposed its will on the country. The Saudis showed themselves to be extremely sensitive to the rise of Shiite regimes with close relations with the Iranians on the Arabian Peninsula. The result was unilateral intervention and suppression. Whatever the moral issues, it is clear that the Saudis are frightened by rising Iranian and Shiite power and are willing to use their strength. That is what they have done in Yemen.
In a way, the issue is simple for the Saudis. They represent the center of gravity of the religious Sunni world. As such, they and their allies have embarked on a strategy that is strategically defensive and tactically offensive. Their goal is to block Iranian and Shiite influence, and the means they are implementing is coalition warfare that uses air power to support local forces on the ground. Unless there is a full invasion of Yemen, the Saudis are following the American strategy of the 2000s on a smaller scale.

The U.S. Stance

The American strategy is more complex. As I've written before, the United States has undertaken a strategy focused on maintaining the balance of power. This kind of approach is always messy because the goal is not to support any particular power, but to maintain a balance between multiple powers. Therefore, the United States is providing intelligence and mission planning for the Saudi coalition against the al-Houthis and their Iranian allies. In Iraq, the United States is providing support to Shiites — and by extension, their allies — by bombing Islamic State installations. In Syria, U.S. strategy is so complex that it defies clear explanation. That is the nature of refusing large-scale intervention but being committed to a balance of power. The United States can oppose Iran in one theater and support it in another. The more simplistic models of the Cold War are not relevant here.
All of this is happening at the same time that nuclear negotiations appear to be coming to some sort of closure. The United States is not really concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons. As I have said many times, we have heard since the mid-2000s that Iran was a year or two away from nuclear weapons. Each year, the fateful date was pushed back. Building deliverable nuclear weapons is difficult, and the Iranians have not even carried out a nuclear test, an essential step before a deliverable weapon is created. What was a major issue a few years ago is now part of a constellation of issues where U.S.-Iranian relations interact, support and contradict. Deal or no deal, the United States will bomb the Islamic State, which will help Iran, and support the Saudis in Yemen, which will not.
The real issue now is what it was a few years ago: Iran appears to be building a sphere of influence to the Mediterranean Sea, but this time, that sphere of influence potentially includes Yemen. That, in turn, creates a threat to the Arabian Peninsula from two directions. The Iranians are trying to place a vise around it. The Saudis must react, but the question is whether airstrikes are capable of stopping the al-Houthis. They are a relatively low-cost way to wage war, but they fail frequently. The first question is what the Saudis will do then. The second question is what the Americans will do. The current doctrine requires a balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the United States tilting back and forth. Under this doctrine — and in this military reality — the United States cannot afford full-scale engagement on the ground in Iraq.

Turkey's Role

Relatively silent but absolutely vital to this tale is Turkey. It has the largest economy in the region and has the largest army, although just how good its army is can be debated. Turkey is watching chaos along its southern border, rising tension in the Caucasus, and conflict across the Black Sea. Of all these, Syria and Iraq and the potential rise of Iranian power is the most disturbing. Turkey has said little about Iran of late, but last week Ankara suddenly criticized Tehran and accused Iran of trying to dominate the region. Turkey frequently says things without doing anything, but the development is still noteworthy.
It should be remembered that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hoped to see Turkey as a regional leader and the leader of the Sunni world. With the Saudis taking an active role and the Turks doing little in Syria or Iraq, the moment is passing Turkey by. Such moments come and go, so history is not changed. But Turkey is still the major Sunni power and the third leg of the regional balance involving Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The evolution of Turkey would be the critical step in the emergence of a regional balance of power, in which local powers, not the United Kingdom or the United States, determine the outcome. The American role, like the British role before it, would not be directly waging war in the region but providing aid designed to stabilize the balance of power. That can be seen in Yemen or Iraq. It is extremely complex and not suited for simplistic or ideological analysis. But it is here, it is unfolding and it will represent the next generation of Middle Eastern dynamics. And if the Iranians put aside their theoretical nuclear weapons and focus on this, that will draw in the Turks and round out the balance of power.

Send us your thoughts on this report.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Simply copy and paste this code:"<a href="https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/middle-eastern-balance-power-matures">The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Wknd Box Office: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Hundred-Foot Journey, I Origins, Into the Storm, Venus in Fur

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Hundred-Foot Jury, I Origins, Into the Storm, Venus in Fur

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s August, the pet cemetery of movies, where studios generally send all of their garbage movies to die. And so it’s no surprise that it’s yet another subpar weekend at the movies, with one interesting but very weird new release, one okay disaster movie, and three annoyances chock-full of typical liberal claptrap (“Step Up All In” was not screened for critics):

* “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles“: This is yet another unnecessary remake–this one of the 1990 movie of the same name. When TMNT was a big hit in the early ’90s, I thought it was a dopey idea. But I came to this movie with an open mind. I left with the same conclusion I had in the 1990s. It’s dumb, dopey, cheesy, and pointless. Unless you count the fact that the plot of this version has been souped up to include the boring, old, stock Hollywood liberal narrative in which the corporate CEO and his company are the villains who try to poison the world with disease. Yaaaawn. And, for a kids’ film, I was surprised at how violent it was. The turtles are electrified, people are killed, and so on. On top of that, star Megan Fox utters the S-word, and a turtle jokes about Fox, “She’s so hot, I can feel my shell tightening up.” Really? In a kids’ movie? Come on.
Fox–who is clearly not in the movie for acting skills–plays a TV reporter who no one takes seriously. Gee, I wonder why. She’s stuck doing dumb reports on aerobic exercises on the streets of New York City. A crime wave has overtaken the city, and she sees vigilantes–who she soon uncovers as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles–stopping the crime gang, the evil “Foot Clan.” But her boss, Whoopi Goldberg (who is not acting when she “plays” indignant), thinks she’s nuts and fires Fox. Fox soon discovers that the turtles were her pet turtles who were experimented on by her late father and his business partner when she was a kid. The partner is now the evil CEO of a giant company. He is out to poison the world with an illness, so he can then sell the antidote, a chemical which is in the blood of the turtles. He’s aiming to harvest the turtles’ blood, kill Fox, and make oodles of money. And predictably, the turtles and Fox foil him. The end.
Hey, I warned you it was August.
The movie–for an action film–gets to be incredibly boring and repetitive. It has some good special effects, but you can skip the 3D (in which I saw it), and save your money.
I found this movie to seem incredibly dated and passe. There are so many great kids’ and family offerings at the movies these days, and this didn’t compete. Not even close. It seems anachronistic in comparison. But I’m sure it will do well at theaters, with the mega-hype it’s getting.
One last thing: there are so many scenes of the turtles eating Pizza Hut pizza, I wanted to know when the way-too-obvious commercial would end and we would get back to the movie. Sadly, when that happened, I wanted back in to the pizza commercial.
HALF A MARX



* “The Hundred-Foot Journey“: This is produced by Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg, so that’s pretty much all you need to know. Oh, and did I mention that it’s also financed and produced by ImageNation Dubai, which is owned by the Muslim emirate government of Dubai? I’ve seen a gazillion movies with this tired, old plot–a regular Hollywood narrative: evil White, xenophobic Europeans persecute Third World immigrants. In this case, the Third Worlders are Indian Muslims. Figures.
The story: a family of Indian Muslims have a restaurant in Mumbai. But, one night, rioting Hindus set fire to their restaurant and kill the mother. Um, reality check: in real life, it would be Muslims rioting and setting fire to and killing Hindus. But, hey, it’s Oprah and Spielberg, so who cares about the facts, right? The Indian Muslims move first to the UK and then to France, where they get stranded in a small village. They decide to open a restaurant across the street from a fancy restaurant owned by Helen Mirren, a snobby White lady who does everything she can to hurt and ruin these immigrants whom she sees as dirty and undesirable. Of course, the Muslims are kind and pure as the driven snow, while the European Whites are just loathsome.
One night, Mirren’s evil White European chef and his sous chefs set fire to the Muslim Indian restaurant. Reality check: um, who would be burning down who’s restaurant in real life? It would be the other way around. The fire burns and injures the hands of Hassan, one of the sons of the Muslim family. He’s the star chef and extremely talented. And he’s in love with the White European new sous chef of Mirren’s restaurant. But since Mirren feels guilty about the violence, she is suddenly nice to everyone and invites Hassan to her restaurant where he masters all of French classic cuisine, and then leaves to Paris to become a star chef. In the end of this extremely predictable, stale old plot, all of the White women fall in love with the Muslims and end up with them. We are the world, we are the children. Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Uh-huh, it’s really “believable” that classy Helen Mirren would end up with the loudmouthed, uncultured, bulbous-nosed Indian Muslim dad. Nope. Not even close.
I should note that the movie does not tell you that the Indians are Muslims (you can tell by their names and the headscarves the women wear) and there is no praying or mention of the koran. But that’s by design. They don’t hit you over the head with Islam to propagandize you. They kill you softly with kindness. These are nice, unobtrusive people with charming cooking and vignettes. That’s how they sell you on Islam. How Oprah and Spielberg pimp you on Muslims as nice people who harm no one but are oppressed by the evil Whites anyway.
If you still go to see this horrible piece of propaganda fiction, don’t go on an empty stomach. There are lots of close-ups of food and cooking. But, whether you go to this hungry or sated, this plot and story will make your stomach turn.
THREE MARXES PLUS THREE BIN LADENS



* “I Origins“: This is one of the weirder movies I can remember seeing in a long time. I hated the first half of this, thinking it was another one of these oversexed, sleazy, pretentious, pro-atheism arthouse movies. But, then, just as I settled on that conclusion, the movie does a 180 and becomes interesting and actually pro-theism. I’m sorry I had to see a woman split in half by an elevator or see a guy having random sex on a toilet in a dingy bathroom with a masked woman he doesn’t know, to get there, though.
Michael Pitt plays a scientist and doctor who is obsessed with eyes and has been ever since he was a kid. He is doing studies on the eyes and the genes which create them and the colors and designs of pupils. He’s a skeptic and is using his study to try to prove evolution and disprove the existence of G-d. At the beginning of the movie, he meets a mysterious masked woman at a party. He’s drawn to her because of the unusual colors and flecks in her eyes. He has sex with her on the toilet of a dingy bathroom, and then she runs off. He becomes obsessed with finding her, and when he finally does, they begin a relationship and are set to be married. But it’s not meant to be. Ultimately, he ends up with his lab partner, Britt Marling, and strange things start happening regarding their baby, his eyes, a hospital, and some strange experiment. To tell more would be to give away everything. But it all ties together and turns this skeptic into a believer in divine intervention and the existence of G-d.
As I’ve noted before on this site, I like actress Britt Marling and everything in which she acts, but I know that whatever she is in will be unusual and strange. Her movies are never conventional, and that’s a good thing, so long as they are not too unconventional. As I said, I liked the message of the movie, but I wish it wouldn’t have involved so much strangeness to get there. I like strange movies, but generally I prefer less strange than this. Still, the movie was extremely suspenseful and creepy, putting chills up and down my spine, and it combined sci-fi with drama, mystery, and other movie genres in a novel way. I’ve never seen a movie quite like this before. And new and different is interesting. Again, beware of the elevator scene. And you gotta stick through the pretentious first half of this to get to the good stuff.
TWO REAGANS



* “Into the Storm“: The thing I most hate about this movie is that $12 million in Michigan taxpayers’ money went to fund it. For a low-budget (if $40 million constitutes low-budget–I’m not sure) film, it’s not bad. But it’s not great. I’m not sure I would pay ten-plus bucks to see it, but I might watch it on Netflix. That’s only for the tornadoes and special effects, which were good for a low-budget movie. I generally don’t like tornado movies, but this one was okay.
The story: a widower principal of a high school in a small town and his sons are caught in a set of giant, monster tornadoes. There are several smaller tornadoes that split up into more. And there’s a giant one that is bigger than any tornado ever. There is a team of storm chasers who are chasing the tornadoes. The storm chasers and the principal team up to save each other and the students at the school. And they also try to find and save the principal’s older son. The movie is predictable and has an unimaginative storyline and script.
There are no big stars or anyone recognizable in this movie, unless you count Sarah Wayne Callies, who played the now-deceased mother on “The Walking Dead.” There are amateurish moments in which unknown people and characters pop up suddenly and impossibly in scenes, but other than that, it’s your average natural disaster movie.
ONE REAGAN



* “Venus in Fur [La Vénus à La Fourrure]“: No, this is not a pornography film, despite its title. But it’s a complete waste of time written and directed by child molester rapist Roman Polanski.
The story: a mysterious actress arrives at a darkened theater on a stormy evening, just as the director is packing up and ready to leave from a day of fruitless auditions for the lead role in his new play. Soon, she convinces him to let her read, and, voila, she knows the play by heart. She initially seemed like a cheap, stupid woman, but transforms into a sophisticated, beautiful, insightful woman. She also knows a lot of intimate details of the director’s life. She constantly whines about how anti-feminist the play, based on a sick sado-masochistic novel from the late 1800s, is. The actress tries to seduce the director, and soon she has tied him up and left him there. The end.
Why on earth did I waste my time on this? Long, boring, pointless, and a total snooze-fest. A total time bandit that stole 96 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.
FOUR MARXES

A timely post about from www.stratfor.com about the Arab Spring. This follows this post about sending a letter of protest on behalf of Duck Dynasty.  This follows this post about beheadings in Brazil in the run-up to the World Cup.  In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Re-Examining the Arab Spring

Geopolitical Weekly

   

Stratfor

By George Friedman
On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire in a show of public protest. The self-immolation triggered unrest in Tunisia and ultimately the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. This was followed by unrest in a number of Arab countries that the global press dubbed the "Arab Spring." The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world.
It is now more than six months since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and it is important to take stock of what has happened and what has not happened. The reasons for the widespread unrest go beyond the Arab world, although, obviously, the dynamics within that world are important in and of themselves. However, the belief in an Arab Spring helped shape European and American policies in the region and the world. If the assumptions of this past January and February prove insufficient or even wrong, then there will be regional and global consequences.
It is important to begin with the fact that, to this point, no regime has fallen in the Arab world. Individuals such as Tunisia's Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have been replaced, but the regimes themselves, which represent the manner of governing, have not changed. Some regimes have come under massive attack but have not fallen, as in Libya, Syria and Yemen. And in many countries, such as Jordan, the unrest never amounted to a real threat to the regime. The kind of rapid and complete collapse that we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism has not happened in the Arab world. More important, what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal. The myth that beneath every Libyan is a French republican yearning to breathe free is dubious in the extreme.
Consider the case of Mubarak, who was forced from office and put on trial, although the regime -- a mode of governing in which the military remains the main arbiter of the state -- remains intact. Egypt is now governed by a committee of military commanders, all of whom had been part of Mubarak's regime. Elections are coming, but the opposition is deeply divided between Islamists and secularists, and personalities and ideological divisions in turn divide these factions. The probability of a powerful democratic president emerging who controls the sprawling ministries in Cairo and the country's security and military apparatus is slim, and the Egyptian military junta is already acting to suppress elements that are too radical and too unpredictable.
The important question is why these regimes have been able to survive. In a genuine revolution, the regime loses power. The anti-communist forces overwhelmed the Polish Communist government in 1989 regardless of the divisions within the opposition. The sitting regimes were not in a position to determine their own futures, let alone the futures of their countries. There was a transition, but they were not in control of it. Similarly, in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, his military and security people were not the ones managing the transition after the shah left the country. They were the ones on trial. There was unrest in Egypt in January and February 2011, but the idea that it amounted to a revolution flew in the face of the reality of Egypt and of what revolutions actually look like.

Shaping the Western Narrative

There were three principles shaping the Western narrative on the Arab Spring. The first was that these regimes were overwhelmingly unpopular. The second was that the opposition represented the overwhelming will of the people. The third was that once the unrest began it was unstoppable. Add to all that the notion that social media facilitated the organization of the revolution and the belief that the region was in the midst of a radical transformation can be easily understood.
It was in Libya that these propositions created the most serious problems. Tunisia and Egypt were not subject to very much outside influence. Libya became the focus of a significant Western intervention. Moammar Gadhafi had ruled Libya for nearly 42 years. He could not have ruled for that long without substantial support. That didn't mean he had majority support (or that he didn't). It simply meant that the survival of his regime did not interest only a handful of people, but that a large network of Libyans benefitted from Gadhafi's rule and stood to lose a great deal if he fell. They were prepared to fight for his regime.
The opposition to him was real, but its claim to represent the overwhelming majority of Libyan people was dubious. Many of the leaders had been part of the Gadhafi regime, and it is doubtful they were selected for their government posts because of their personal popularity. Others were members of tribes that were opposed to the regime but not particularly friendly to each other. Under the mythology of the Arab Spring, the eastern coalition represented the united rage of the Libyan people against Gadhafi's oppression. Gadhafi was weak and isolated, wielding an army that was still loyal and could inflict terrible vengeance on the Libyan people. But if the West would demonstrate its ability to prevent slaughter in Benghazi, the military would realize its own isolation and defect to the rebels.
It didn't happen that way. First, Gadhafi's regime was more than simply a handful of people terrorizing the population. It was certainly a brutal regime, but it hadn't survived for 42 years on that alone. It had substantial support in the military and among key tribes. Whether this was a majority is as unclear as whether the eastern coalition was a majority. But it was certainly a substantial group with much to fight for and a great deal to lose if the regime fell. So, contrary to expectations in the West, the regime has continued to fight and to retain the loyalty of a substantial number of people. Meanwhile, the eastern alliance has continued to survive under the protection of NATO but has been unable to form a united government or topple Gadhafi. Most important, it has always been a dubious assertion that what would emerge if the rebels did defeat Gadhafi would be a democratic regime, let alone a liberal democracy, and this has become increasingly obvious as the war has worn on. Whoever would replace Gadhafi would not clearly be superior to him, which is saying quite a lot.
A very similar process is taking place in Syria. There, the minority Alawite government of the al Assad family, which has ruled Syria for 41 years, is facing an uprising led by the majority Sunnis, or at least some segment of them. Again, the assumption was that the regime was illegitimate and therefore weak and would crumble in the face of concerted resistance. That assumption proved wrong. The al Assad regime may be running a minority government, but it has substantial support from a military of mostly Alawite officers leading a largely Sunni conscript force. The military has benefited tremendously from the Assad regime -- indeed, it brought it to power. The one thing the al Assads were careful to do was to make it beneficial to the military and security services to remain loyal to the regime. So far, they largely have. The danger for the regime looking forward is if the growing strain on the Alawite-dominated army divisions leads to fissures within the Alawite community and in the army itself, raising the potential for a military coup.
In part, these Arab leaders have nowhere to go. The senior leadership of the military could be tried in The Hague, and the lower ranks are subject to rebel retribution. There is a rule in war, which is that you should always give your enemy room to retreat. The al Assad supporters, like the Gadhafi supporters and the supporters of Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh, have no room to retreat. So they have fought on for months, and it is not clear they will capitulate anytime soon.
Foreign governments, from the United States to Turkey, have expressed their exasperation with the Syrians, but none has seriously contemplated an intervention. There are two reasons for this: First, following the Libya intervention, everyone became more wary of assuming the weakness of Arab regimes, and no one wants a showdown on the ground with a desperate Syrian military. Second, observers have become cautious in asserting that widespread unrest constitutes a popular revolution or that the revolutionaries necessarily want to create a liberal democracy. The Sunnis in Syria might well want a democracy, but they might well be interested in creating a Sunni "Islamic" state. Knowing that it is important to be careful what you wish for, everyone seems to be issuing stern warnings to Damascus without doing very much.
Syria is an interesting case because it is, perhaps, the only current issue that Iran and Israel agree on. Iran is deeply invested in the al Assad regime and wary of increased Sunni power in Syria. Israel is just as deeply concerned that the al Assad regime -- a known and manageable devil from the Israeli point of view -- could collapse and be replaced by a Sunni Islamist regime with close ties to Hamas and what is left of al Qaeda in the Levant. These are fears, not certainties, but the fears make for interesting bedfellows.

Geopolitical Significance

Since late 2010, we have seen three kinds of uprisings in the Arab world. The first are those that merely brushed by the regime. The second are those that created a change in leaders but not in the way the country was run. The third are those that turned into civil wars, such as Libya and Yemen. There is also the interesting case of Bahrain, where the regime was saved by the intervention of Saudi Arabia, but while the rising there conformed to the basic model of the Arab Spring -- failed hopes -- it lies in a different class, caught between Saudi and Iranian power.
The three examples do not mean that there is not discontent in the Arab world or a desire for change. They do not mean that change will not happen, or that discontent will not assume sufficient force to overthrow regimes. They also do not mean that whatever emerges will be liberal democratic states pleasing to Americans and Europeans.
This becomes the geopolitically significant part of the story. Among Europeans and within the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration is an ideology of human rights -- the idea that one of the major commitments of Western countries should be supporting the creation of regimes resembling their own. This assumes all the things that we have discussed: that there is powerful discontent in oppressive states, that the discontent is powerful enough to overthrow regimes, and that what follows would be the sort of regime that the West would be able to work with.
The issue isn't whether human rights are important but whether supporting unrest in repressive states automatically strengthens human rights. An important example was Iran in 1979, when opposition to the oppression of the shah's government was perceived as a movement toward liberal democracy. What followed might have been democratic but it was hardly liberal. Indeed, many of the myths of the Arab Spring had their roots both in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and later in Iran's 2009 Green Movement, when a narrow uprising readily crushed by the regime was widely viewed as massive opposition and widespread support for liberalization.
The world is more complicated and more varied than that. As we saw in the Arab Spring, oppressive regimes are not always faced with massed risings, and unrest does not necessarily mean mass support. Nor are the alternatives necessarily more palatable than what went before or the displeasure of the West nearly as fearsome as Westerners like to think. Libya is a case study on the consequences of starting a war with insufficient force. Syria makes a strong case on the limits of soft power. Egypt and Tunisia represent a textbook lesson on the importance of not deluding yourself.
The pursuit of human rights requires ruthless clarity as to whom you are supporting and what their chances are. It is important to remember that it is not Western supporters of human rights who suffer the consequences of failed risings, civil wars or revolutionary regimes that are committed to causes other than liberal democracy.
The misreading of the situation can also create unnecessary geopolitical problems. The fall of the Egyptian regime, unlikely as it is at this point, would be just as likely to generate an Islamist regime as a liberal democracy. The survival of the al Assad regime could lead to more slaughter than we have seen and a much firmer base for Iran. No regimes have fallen since the Arab Spring, but when they do it will be important to remember 1979 and the conviction that nothing could be worse than the shah's Iran, morally or geopolitically. Neither was quite the case.
This doesn't mean that there aren't people in the Arab world who want liberal democracy. It simply means that they are not powerful enough to topple regimes or maintain control of new regimes even if they did succeed. The Arab Spring is, above all, a primer on wishful thinking in the face of the real world.

Send us your thoughts on this report.

 2670  321 googleplus1  8443  555

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Re-Examining the Arab Spring is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Read more: Re-Examining the Arab Spring | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Rihanna Has an Odd Obsession w Extremist Muslim Garb, Kicked Out of Mosque (Named for Anti-US Jew-Hater) Anyway

A timely post about from www.debbieschlussel.com about Rhianna performing in a Muslim country. This follows this post about a Miley Cyrus Halloween costume. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Rihanna Has an Odd Obsession w Extremist Muslim Garb, Kicked Out of Mosque (Named for Anti-US Jew-Hater) Anyway


By Debbie Schlussel


I’ve written before about pop star Rihanna’s strange obsession with Muslim garb of oppression. It’s especially odd since the woman is overly sexual and Black–two things that are looked down upon in Islam. (Blacks are referred to as “abed” or “abeed”–slave or slaves–in Arabic, the Muslim equivalent of the N-word.) When Rihanna a/k/a Robyn Fenty performed on Saturday Night Live last year, she had her female back-up dancers wear niqabs–the full-Ninja Muslim face veils. And she recently did a dumb photo shoot in full Islamic garb at a mosque in the United Arab Emirates. She was kicked out anyway, probably because she’s Black and Western. They claim the photos, below, are “racy.” Are you kidding me?
By the way, the photos were taken at the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque. Since Sheikh Zayed, the late former Prez of the UAE, was, as I’ve previously noted on this site, a notorious America-hater, anti-Semite, and Holocaust-denier, she should consider being kicked out of the mosque bearing his name to be a great honor. Zayed and his self-funded Zayed Center financed speakers, speaking tours, and publications which engaged in Holocaust-denial, Jew-hatred, anti-Israel BS, and claimed the CIA, Israel, and the Mossad were behind 9/11. (And the Institute also funded Neil Bush, George W. Bush’s loser failed savings-and-loan honcho brother–paying him to speak and providing him with prostitutes, according to his own testimony in his divorce deposition.)
Rihanna brought a little more instability to the Middle East. The “Diamonds” singer was booted from the famed Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi over the weekend after posing for some photos that were racy by the standards of the holy site.


Though she covered up — by her standards — in a head-to-toe black form-fitting outfit, complete with a hijab headcovering, the 25-year-old pop star clearly didn’t get the memo on the spirit of Islamic law. In photos that were posted on her Instagram site, Rihanna could be seen posing in several provocative poses with lips pancaked in ruby red lipstick — a no-no for a society that stresses covering up women’s sexuality.




Baloney. Women all over the Abu Dhabi wear caked on (and ugly) make-up.



“She left without entering the mosque, after being asked to do so, due to the fact that she had taken some pictures that do not conform with the conditions and regulations put in place by the Centre’s management to regulate visits in a way that takes the status and sanctity of the mosque into consideration,” a representative for the mosque told local media outlets in a statement. . . . The mosque spokesperson added that “the singer” came for a private tour to the mosque at a gate that is not meant for visitors — without identifying herself or coordinating the visit in advance. . . .



Rihanna covered up for her concert in the United Arab Emirates’ capital Saturday night — a Bedouin inspired look she dubbed “Empress RiRi.”


Of course she covered up. Pandering to Muslims has no end to it. And it’s all phony. If they were really serious about all this phony modesty, the UAE frauds would have banned Rihanna for her attendance at and disgusting tweets gushing over a live sex show in the Philippines.
Funny how Rihanna doesn’t show this kind of respect and dhimmitude when she’s in the West and offends Christians with her disrobing routines on Christians’ land. Here’s a tip: bend over for Muslims and they’ll slap your ass.
By the way, how did she get into the UAE with an Israeli stamp on her passport? I give her credit for standing up to Muslims when it comes to Israel.
But she should end the Islamo-pandering routine in the Arab Gulf.;

What Do You Mean By 'Success'?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about what success is. This follows this post about the mother of Jesus. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

What Do You Mean By 'Success'?

by James Firth



Source: Amanda Stiver

Recently, a Royal Prince of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, placed a lawsuit against Forbes for defamation because the magazine underestimated his wealth in their annual “Rich List” of the world’s wealthiest people.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was ranked the 26th richest person in the world by Forbes with an estimated net worth of $20 billion US Dollars. He claims that the magazine underestimated his total wealth by $9.6 billion and thus harmed his business standing and public image of his financial standing, (Josh Halliday, “Saudi Prince Launches Libel Action Against Forbes Magazine Over Rich List,” TheGuardian.com, June 6, 2013).

The measure of worth

Being financially well-off is nice, and humankind generally strives to be successful, but what kind of success should we be chasing?

Is it having the most toys or the latest technology gadget? Is it having the most friends? Or always being top of the grade in every subject in school?

All these things can be beneficial in the right time and place, but being a Christian is all about moderation.

So what does God view as success?

In the book of Joshua, after Moses had died and Joshua was chosen to lead the nation of Israel into the Promised Land God gave Joshua this encouragement:

“Be strong and courageous, because you'll be leading this people to inherit the land that I promised to give their ancestors. Only be strong and very courageous to ensure that you obey all the instructions that my servant Moses gave you—turn neither to the right nor to the left from it—so that you may succeed wherever you go. This set of instructions is not to cease being a part of your conversations. Meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to carry out everything that's written in it, for then you'll prosper and succeed. I've commanded you, haven't I? Be strong and courageous. Don't be fearful or discouraged, because the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." (Joshua 1:6-9 [6] Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.

[7] Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

[8] This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

[9] Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.



See All..., ISV)

For Joshua to be successful the Lord expected him to follow these tenets: be courageous, obey instructions, meditate, do what is expected of you, and avoid becoming discouraged.

The one thing God doesn’t mention is the endless pursuit of wealth.

Plan for success

Solomon, the wisest man that lived, speaks on success, “Commit to the Lord whatever you do and your plans will succeed.” (Proverbs 16:3Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

See All..., NIV) Solomon was indeed successful, but he lost balance and the acquisition of wealth and wives became his focus later in life.

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:19-21 [19] Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

[20] But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

[21] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.



See All...)

Working hard to make a living and being careful with our resources are good habits to develop, but Christ warns against making money our only goal.

Let’s not have our focus be on collecting the most social media “friends” possible, acquiring the most wealth, or the biggest house that money can buy. If we really want to be a story of success, then we must set our goals for life and align our value system with the example set by Jesus Christ.