"Are any of you people George Obama?"
That bio-assassin who helped swift boat John Kerry, and is now seeking his next Olympic pay off with a Google-dependent attack book on Obama, got third-worlded in Kenya.
By the way, "getting third worlded" is KABOBfestese for anytime a first world citizen (or upper class person) gets some form of treatment usually reserved for third worlders (or lower class people). You will hear it on MTV soon.
Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya to launch his anti-Obama book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, and, interestingly, to deliver a check to Obama's slum-dwelling half-brother George (who said he would not accept such pay anyways). I suspect this trip was more for the latter given the chances of a huge publicity payoff (especially given the low prospect for sales in Obama-crazy Kenya).
The book, which I would not even thumb through if it was the only piece of reading near my toilet, supposedly alleges Obama was raised Muslim (god forbid), and tosses out accusations against Kenya's leader -- including an accusation that Obama has some strange dealings with Prime Minister Odinga.
When Corsi arrived in Kenya yesterday, he was arrested by immigration officials and denied entry. The stated reason was that he failed to secure a work visa. Any third worlder would have recognized the idiocy of such an attempt, which is exactly why there are 12 million plus undocumented immigrants in the United States. It takes a great deal of privilege to think he could pull that one off, especially after bashing the leader.
A third-worlder would have immediately either explored the many regulations and laws governing working overseas before leaving, or found a sneakier way to accomplish his goals. Corsi needs serious training in third world travel saavy. Perhaps, he needs to see a training video on the subject...
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Hi, I'm a Hmar.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Gaddafi tries his hand at Frantz Fanon and U.S. electoral politics on the same day
Muammar Gaddafi has diagnosed the motive behind Barack Obama's AIPAC speech. It turns out, Barack's support for Israel stems from an "inferiority complex" over his African origins. To prove he's as good as the white man, he's acting "more white than white people," all triggered by Barack's mother, whose fault this all is for holding him too much when he was a baby, as she was laden with the penis envy. Or something. The BBC reports:Gadaffi Attacks Obama on Israel
June 12, 2008
Libya's leader has strongly criticised US presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.
Col Muammar Gaddafi said he was either ignorant of the Middle East conflict or lying to boost his campaign.
Mr Obama was speaking to pro-Israel lobbyists in the US last week.
Referring to him as "our Kenyan brother", Col Gaddafi also said Mr Obama might suffer from an inferiority complex because of his African origins.
The issue of race could make Mr Obama's behaviour "more white than white people", Col Gaddafi suggested, rather than acting in solidarity with African and Arab nations.
The comments came during a speech to mark the 38th anniversary since the US evacuated Wheelus Air Force base in Tripoli.
Israel claims Jerusalem as its "eternal, undivided" capital, but the Palestinians want the eastern half - occupied by Israel in 1967 - as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
The Americans left Libya shortly after Col Gaddafi came into power in a bloodless coup in 1969.
'Campaign lie'
The BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli says the speech was a passionate critique of past US policies towards Libya but emphasised that current relations are not confrontational.
However, Col Gaddafi's defiant and famously politically incorrect rhetoric returned when talking about Mr Obama towards the end of the speech.
"The statements of our Kenyan brother of American nationality Obama on Jerusalem... show that he either ignores international politics and did not study the Middle East conflict or that it is a campaign lie," he said.
"We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites."
"This will be a tragedy," Gaddafi said. "We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him."
Conspiracy theory
Mr Obama's epic primary campaign against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton ended in his victory early this month.
The presidential election will be in November.
Correspondents say he has largely avoided playing on past racial struggles in the US and has drawn support among black and white Americans.
In addition, Mr Gaddafi suggested Mr Obama's comments may have been informed by a fear of assassination by Israeli agents, "the same fate as [former US President John F] Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear programme".
Conspiracy theories abound about Kennedy's assassination in 1963, which the US authorities say was carried out by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Monday, March 03, 2008
U.S. Creates More Terrorists
From CNN.com:
The United States today used precision missiles to strike a "known terrorist target" in southern Somalia, a U.S. military official said. The strike destroyed two houses killing three women and three children, a local official told CNN
Friday, November 30, 2007
Much Ado About Something
Speaking of when religious conservatives attack, Sudanese officials jailed a British school teacher for her ghastly act of allowing the school children to name a teddy bear, Mohammad (gasp!).
Since there is not much else to worry about Sudan... right. It is hard not to see this as absurd, even from someone relatively non-judgmental as myself. However, there is a lot to learn about this, including the generally low state of mutual understanding in the world today -- one exacerbated by invasions, conflict and the irresponsible leaders stoking the flames.
There are glimpses of hope. BBC News asks in a quite sober way: when can the prophet's name be used? It finds that like almost everything else in Islam, opinions are divided depending on how strict the interpreter is. In short, Muslims cannot accuse the West of misunderstanding, and the West cannot accuse Muslims of acting as one unified, intolerant while, thanks to this BBC report.
Speaking of names, there is another way to look at this. The Teddy Bear is named after the 26th President of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt -- an avowed imperialist who sought American colonies and ports around the world. I would not expect the offended officials and clerics to know this, but it signifies that historical context cannot be forgotten.
I wonder if part of the reason for her jailing is that she is British, an identity viewed in Sudan in light of Britain's own imperial aims, including the conquering and re-conquering of Sudan more than 100 years ago. Britain, as America's right-hand man in the War on Terror, is seen as invader junior throughout the Arab world.
It may be her cultural naivete, or this may be a form of historical recrimination. It may the mirror image of American policies towards foreign Muslims -- stick them with the law whenever you can. In the US, it is with "anti-terrorism laws." There, it is with "incitement to religious hatred" or "demeaning Islam" laws. It also hard not to see this in the context of the Mohammad cartoon fiasco in late 2005; something fresh in the minds of people on both sides.
Forces in both countries are not letting this be a small issue. CNN-International (the decent version of CNN) reported that leaflets distributed earlier this week by Muslim groups promised a "popular release of anger" at demonstrations called for Friday. It also said that British newspapers condemned this, and one called for sanctions and recalling the ambassador. It is pretty plain that the Teddy Bear incident is not just because of a Teddy Bear, nor about the 15 days in jail.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Walls of Shame
Check out Al-Jazeera, English's six-part series on geo-political walls. It covers US-Mexico, Morocco-Spain, and Israel-Palestine.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
No One is Beyond the Zionut Wrath
Apparently no one is too high for the Israeli lobby and its foot soldiers to target. Nobel Peace Prize winner and anti-Apartheid hero Desmond Tutu was recently invited, and then dis-invited, to speak at a small Minnesota university.
Last April, the Justice and Peace Studies program at St. Thomas University, lined up the former Archbishop Desmond Tutu for a campus appearance. A speaker of this importance does not appear at St. Thomas too often. Tutu was the chairman of South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission -- one of the most significant bodies of its kind.
Well before the program could roll out the red carpet for its esteemed guest, St. Thomas administrators moved to cancel the talk, which was slated for next Spring. The campus officials were "concerned that Tutu's appearance might offend local Jews."
What you are about to read is NOT made up."We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy," says Doug Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations. "We're not saying he's anti-Semitic. But he's compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies (sic) like that are hurtful to some members of the Jewish community."
Tutu said that Israel was like Hitler?!?!? That is the funniest thing I've read in some time.
The chair of the Justice and Peace program was demoted for telling Tutu why his event was canceled.
The local alternative paper, the City Pages, looked at the transcript of his most critical speech, and found nothing to substantiate the allegations against him.During that speech, titled "Occupation Is Oppression," Tutu lambasted the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinians in occupied territories. While a transcription clearly suggests his criticism was aimed at the Israeli government ("We don't criticize the Jewish people," he said during the speech. "We criticize, we will criticize when they need to be criticized, the government of Israel"), pro-Israeli organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America went on the offensive and protested campus appearances by Tutu, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
Look, St. Thomas might just be caught between some bad blood from the old days. Tutu is a long-standing critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which he famously said reminded him of his treatment (and here) in apartheid South Africa. And Israel, which is so dear to the "local Jews" who the administration listened to, was a big ally of apartheid South Africa.
St. Thomas' administration is almost laughable for this decision. That they would bend over backwards to please a few vocal members of a diverse community and dis-invite such a historical figure is so incredibly petty and small-minded. It is hard not to feel bad for them. As Tutu is probably telling himself, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Jewish Voice for Peace is calling for reasonable people to let St. Thomas know the error of its waysClick here to write to Father Dease and urge that he reverse this tragic course. Tell him you want to see Prof. Toffolo reinstated as chair of the Justice and Peace Studies program and that the words and views of Bishop Tutu are important ones for the students at St. Thomas University to hear.
[tarboush tip: muzzlewatch]
Monday, September 10, 2007
Hassan al Turabi
The Sudan tribune offers a lengthy interview with one of the most fascinating figures in the Middle East today, Hassan al Turabi. Although al Turabi can seem at times as nothing more than a shrewd political operator, he has been on both the outside and inside of the Sudanese political structure and has a lot of insight.
The interview is not terribly critical, but winds through many of the major topics of the day (democracy, Islamic movements, fatwas, Darfur etc.). From the intro:
Dr Hassan Al Turabi, the Godfather of the Islamic movement of Sudan, is considered to be one of the most controversial political figures in post-independence Sudan. The 75-year-old charismatic political leader has proved beyond any doubt to be a skillful political survivor. He belongs to what he himself describes in a pejorative sense as “the indestructible Sudanese political class”. According to him, “They betray one another, imprison one another, reconcile with one another, but they never assassinate one another. In Sudan, only the people have the privilege of dying”. In return the Sudanese people have increasingly become cynical about this political class and they tend to view them as hopelessly corrupt, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritical misfits, or incurable idealists doomed to failure – unfortunately most of them fit this description perfectly.In this interview we have tried to make sense of the man behind the controversy, the man who has tried all the tricks in the book, and outside it, to install a totalitarian Islamic regime in Sudan. For 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, Al Turabi remained the ultimate power behind the throne, whether as leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) or later as speaker of the assembly. During that time many human rights abuses were committed, including summary executions, torture, arbitrary detentions, denial of freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and violations of the rules of war, particularly in the south and Nuba Mountains.
But now he characterizes the experiment that he meticulously engineered as a “failure”. The British and French educated politician decided his political destiny as a very young man in the early 1950s when he joined the Sudan’s Muslim Brothers movement, which at the time was an inhibited and politically naïve organization. He presided over a movement that comprised contradictions between the Sufi order and hard-line, radical Islamists, but to many people, even his enemies, he increasingly came across as pragmatic and liberal minded. Many see this as part of the opportunistic nature of the Islamic movement in Sudan, lead by an essentially westernized, open-minded leader who cynically thought that access to power in Sudan is best achieved by competing successfully against the popular sectarian parties of Sudan, and to outbid them in their political comfort zone which was securely centered around religion.
Entire interview is, here.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Where's the Save Congo Coalition?
Roger Howard raises an important question about the mismatch between the attention paid to Darfur vis-a-vis the stunning silence around the massive tragedy in the Congo.
In a remote corner of Africa, millions of civilians have been slaughtered in a conflict fuelled by an almost genocidal ferocity that has no end in sight. Victims have been targeted because of their ethnicity and entire ethnic groups destroyed - but the outside world has turned its back, doing little to save people from the wrath of the various government and rebel militias. You could be forgiven for thinking that this is a depiction of the Sudanese province of Darfur, racked by four years of bitter fighting. But it describes the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has received a fraction of the media attention devoted to Darfur.
read on
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Road to Darfur Passes Through Baghdad and Jerusalem
I've noticed recently a new generation of "Save Darfur" shirts floating around, many on the bodies of college students, younger activists, and pro-Israeli types looking for something redeeming to support.
I am glad that some humanitarian and political cause is on the radar of folks, even if it reveals a HUGE moral blindspot and strangely hypocritical righteousness. On balance, caring about Darfur is much better than caring about how you look, what brands you wear, or which Hollywood star is with which other one. But, it is much more important that Americans of conscience begin by saving the countries their own government is destroying.
Many find something reeky about the "Save Darfur" enterprise. It lies squarely in the blatant hypocrisy of pushing for sanctions and divestment against an impoverished under-developed country racked by 30 years of famine of civil war, while our government in the United States is committing a significantly larger travesty in Iraq. For instance, estimates of Janjaweed and Sudani government violence against Darfur's rebels and civilians run as high as 300,000. Since 1990, the United States has killed more than four times that many Iraqis through invasions, bombing and sanctions.
Google and the American Holocaust Museum teamed up for a high profile and compelling display of the savaged places in Darfur on Google Maps. That's an important resource, especially for humanitarian workers in Sudan who do not have good access to maps. Google Maps could do some great work on the displacement of Palestinian refugees, who number 4.5 million to Darfur's 2 million. You can bet the American Holocaust Museum would not sponsor that one.
Shouldn't Americans be pointing their efforts to prevent genocide inwards first?
For many good people "Save Darfur" does NOT mean "Destroy Iraq" or "Ignore Palestine." However, at the institutional level, many of us who share common cause with the people of Darfur are turned off by a movement so ready to exploit American tools of imperial power, such as sanctions and force, while silently abating American-sponsorship destruction elsewhere.
Darfur is an African problem. Africa should be supported and encouraged to stop the carnage. However, Israel's America-backed murderous occupation of the Palestinians and the mess in Iraq are both the direct outgrowth of a broken, morally baseless American foreign policy. Both are American problems; Americans should be addressing those.
While, I am glad that people care enough to want to "Save Darfur," Americans need to first save Iraq and Palestine from themselves. Until Americans save their own victims, why would anyone else in the world listen to them when they actually have good intentions?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Farce of Sahrawi Autonomy
Mboneko Munyaga makes the case for Sahrawi independence in the Tanzania Standard. We have not written about Morocco's 30-year occupation in nearly a year, but I still share Laith's lamentation about "the ongoing occupation of Western Sahara and the lack of awarness (sic) on the problem."
The latest "peace offensive" by King Mohammed VI, which calls for greater "autonomy" for Sahrawis, is largely symbolic. It is basically quasi-recognition of national rights, including marginal institutional representation. The Sahrawi government-in-exile (in Algeria) would get "a Western Sahara regional government and Parliament." Morocco would get actual "sovereignty and control of security, borders and finances would be formally acknowledged." Hey, it sounds like the Oslo peace process. The Sahrawi leadership rejected the proposal, though the world's powers are backing it.
Like Israel, Morocco built a wall to divide settlers and natives: the Polasario-controlled territory of native Sahrawis is on one side, and Moroccan controlled territory partially populated by Moroccans is on the other. Other similarities: hordes of refugees in a neighboring country, languishing for decades; the UN and ICJ have resolutions and advisory opinions backing native self-determination; the U.S. backs the occupier; both situations came on the backs of European colonial rule; and both Israel and Morocco claim the war on terrorism as a rationale for continuing to oppress.
Also, there is a big fat historical blind spot among western officials. Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Frederick Vreeland, wrote a pro-Moroccan op-ed, "A young king's wise proposal," in the March 3rd New York Times. One letter that ran in the International Herald Tribune had to straighten out the record:
In reality, the 1975 invasion of mineral-rich Western Sahara was an utterly brutal affair. Most Sahrawis fled the country, and of those left behind, thousands have been killed or tortured. To this day, 160,000 soldiers remain in the territory, to ensure that a traumatized indigenous population of just 100,000 will bow to the king.Autonomy is not enough. As Munyaga says, it is time for decolonization.
Western Sahara has a legal and moral right to determine its own future.
Aron Lund, Uppsala, Sweden
Monday, March 12, 2007
Would The West Adopt Democracy If It Were This Hard?
Election workers in Mauritania counting the votes under the light of a kerosene lamp after the first presidential elections in which a sitting president did not run. (Reuters)
Less than two years ago, colonel Ely Ould Mohamed Vall led a bloodless coup against then president Muawiya Weld Taye', a much disliked, chronic president ousting him and sending him into exile. Taye's presidency witnessed rampant corruption, widespread discrimination and oppression of minorities, retreating economy, and normalization of relations with Israel.
Like many military coup leaders, Vall promised swift free elections and reforms. Unlike many coup leaders, he actually carried through with his promise, holding free and fair elections, in which he and other military generals barred themselves from standing.
"Mauritania really can serve as an example for the rest of Africa. Only 19 months after a coup, you have all the stages of democracy. It's too good to be true, but it's happening," Vijay Makhan, special envoy for the African Union, told reporters.
Read more about Mauritania's experience.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Update Somalia
Ethiopian and former Somali leaders captures Mogadishu. The Islamic Courts Union's heads resigned without a battle over the city, but issued a statement about their achievements, according to Somali sources:
Since the Islamists came to power in Somalia, they did a lot of significant acts for the people, particularly in terms of security, justice, development, improving internal and foreign politics, reopening the air and sea ports and so on.A Times of London analyst posed the same question I did yesterday: what next? He pointed out that many analysts are comparing this to Iraq. There is a quick military victory but no clear political plan, except that the former government approached "clan elders in Mogadishu and asked them to withdraw their support for the Islamic courts." The loss of their backing convinced the Courts leaders that all was lost.
This does not mean there will be significant political stabilization ahead. The former government, though recognized by the UN, Ethiopia, and the West, has little standing among the people. Somalia is back to the political uncertainty that gave way to the Union of Islamic Courts six months ago.
Many Courts fighters handed their weapons to the clans, and are said to be regrouping in a southern town they still control. It is an open question whether they, or extreme factions, will launch a guerrilla insurgency. Even if they do not, Somalia must struggle to achieve a stable government.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
When the Khat's Away...
The United States government is not the only one happy to see the Somali Islamic Courts Union nearing defeat at the hands of Ethiopian forces.
Consumers of "khat," a leaf that has a narcotic effect when chewed, are happy. One reporter recently saw the leaf that was banned by the Islamists is "being sold publicly." He found that the "khat dealers and consumers seem to feel relief." He shared the personal testimony of one:
"I am very happy that Islamists go away and the government came in because the Islamists made the life difficulty and blocked me to get access for my daily life and feed my children as they banned the sale of Khat leafs," Amina Haji, one of female khat dealer told SomaliNet.Khat, which has been used as a drug for 700 years, is said to be similar in effect to amphetamines. As one Egyptian doctor described it, chewing the leaf, gives one a "feeling of exaltation, a feeling of being liberated from space and time." Khat was mentioned in the film -- and probably the book -- Black Hawk Down. A US soldier complained about fighting Somali's who were high on the stuff.
The doctor also gave a scientific description for you botanists out there: it is "natural stimulant from the Catha edulis plant, found in the flowering evergreen tree or large shrub which grows in East Africa and Southern Arabia." He wrote this in an extensive article on its effects and laws pertaining to its usage (the piece is accompanied by a moving soundtrack).
The ICU gained notoriety for its harsh, Taliban-like rule. They closed cinemas, shut down the consumption of intoxicating substances, and banned fun generally. With an alleged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, American and its few pro-war allies were nervous about a new Afghanistan in East Africa.
This invasion raises two questions.
First, what is the political plan after Ethiopia's invasion? Was it as simple as driving out the ICU? It probably was. They will simply reinstall the previous government. Like Afghanistan, it will continue where it left off -- barely ruling one city and having no control of the many warlords and drug growers and sellers running amok elsewhere.
There is also a great threat of humanitarian disaster, according to aid agencies.
As with Afghanistan, those peddling abusive substances fare the best -- a result of illegitimate, weak governance. In other words, a stunning Ethiopian win appears to offer little hope of a better future for Somalia. While the ICU did not, at least it was in the direction of a sovereign government, even if it was an extreme one. Interestingly, this is a view shared by a former US Ambassador, who also questioned Ethiopia's strategy.
(Don't get me wrong. I am not a hardcore pro-war on drugs type. I just think the relevant laws and policies should be established by a legitimate polity rather than profiteers and warlords).
Second, an Ethiopian victory will win it major bonus points with the United States. The last American military intervention in 1993 was a disaster, both militarily and politically. Will the United States consider proxy wars a better future strategy? Why face all the trouble committing American forces when interested neighbors can do the dirty work? This may reverse some of the reservations that sprouted from Israel's loss in Lebanon. This has always been a strategy, from the Cold War to this War on Terror. This event may escalate its usage, which would mean even more invasions.
