I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be on the Seal of prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household and on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
Allah Al Mighty said in His Glorious Book: { But those who are slain in the way of ALLAH, He will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will He guide them and improve their condition. And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them. O ye who believe! If ye will aid ALLAH, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly} Allah, The Most High, The Most Mighty says the truth.
I welcome you all in this dear and precious anniversary – the anniversary of the Martyr Leaders. I salute you all. Special salutations to the families of martyrs and the families of the Martyr Leaders – the family of Martyr Leader Sayyed Abbass Mussawi (May Allah reward him in Heaven), the family of Martyr Leader Sheikh Ragheb Harb (May Allah reward him in Heaven), and the family of Martyr Leader Hajj Imad Moghniyeh (May Allah reward him in Heaven).
On the anniversary of the Martyr Leaders, we draw lessens and have inspirations and renew our oath and determination. We reserve the trust and remain the men who befit the position. These Martyr Leaders were and are still witnesses on all the stages of the Resistance until today. Martyr Sheikh Ragheb is the martyr who witnessed the stage of establishing, rising, arousing, launching, and definitely choosing the options that lead to the target. Martyr Sayyed Abbass is the martyr who witnessed the stage of steadfastness, consolidation, resoluteness, and deep-rooting the path of the resistance and its conduct. Martyr Leader Imad is the martyr who witnessed the stage of qualitative and quantitative development – humanistic, materialistically, technically – and on the stage of achievements and the victories which was paved for by the Martyr Leaders as well as all the martyrs. In the school of Martyr Leaders, the project was the resistance and not anything else. The absolute priority was the resistance. That's because the true specification – brothers and sisters – of the great danger which was and is still threatening Lebanon, Palestine, the region and the peoples of the region is Israel and the Zionist Project.
When we think from a national position or from an Islamic position, and when we think on the level of the region and the level of the nation, we reach this conclusion and this specification: The greatest danger is Israel and the Zionist project. When we think with a narrow mentality and about local struggles, the greatest danger would be something else. It might be this party, this organization, this faction, this sect and this side.
The only choice available before the peoples and the rational logical historic choice on which the biography of all the rational people all through history was based is the choice of popular resistance with all its forms and levels among which is armed resistance. Thus our Martyr Leaders believed in that. The founder of the resistance in Lebanon – Imam Sayyed Mussa Assader (May Allah restore him safe with his friends) had believed in the project of the resistance. They were loyal to this project and to this priority. They offered all their youths and all their lives and efforts for that. They lived for that. They worked industriously day and night, and they were martyred in this path. Our masters and leaders taught us to be loyal to this project and to work seriously to this priority. They entrusted us to that, and we preserved this will, and we will always preserve this will. After 30 years, the project of the resistance in Lebanon – more than any time in the past – stands on solid land and on a firm base of facts, events, equations, achievements, and victories and not only on mere dreams which are meant to become truth or slogans or emotions or speeches or acrobatics.
During 30 years, the resistance in Lebanon was one of the firmest and strongest facts and one of the clearest and most obvious events which toppled great projects and changed strategic equations and got deep-rooted through decades or centuries. The achievements of the resistance and its outcome are eyewitnesses. That does not need evidences or proofs. It starts with liberation with red blood to defending the country with vigilant and alert deterrence. Based on these achievements and events, we continue our long path and course which would lead to absolute victory Inshallah. We have no doubt in that at all.
Brothers and sisters! The slogan of the anniversary for this year is: "The Martyr Leaders on the path to Palestine". This slogan might appear strange at first consideration in this time. Instead of using this anniversary and the symbolism of the Martyr Leaders to address internal causes or to invest it internally, the party pushes the topic towards Palestine. I read and I will read tomorrow those who say: In which world are you living? You still talk about Palestine and think about Palestine.
Indeed, if we look at the situation in the region, that would be a natural question. Now when we view the region and the speeches, terminologies, interests, priorities and internal struggles, divisions, media campaigns, accusations, mutual accusations and abuses, sectarian and factional instigations, fighting and blood-shedding in every country, it becomes natural that there remains no place for Palestine. There are no more minds, hearts, and emotions for Palestine. That's because all emotions and feelings had gone to other places. There is neither concern nor speeches on Palestine apart from it being a priority.
Look at what is taking place today in Al Qods, what took place days ago near Al Boraq Wall, what is taking place with thousands of Palestinian captives in Israeli prisons, what is taking place on scores or hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who are carrying hunger strike – captive Issawi and his comrades. How does the Arab and Islamic world view all of that? Where is their place in the concerns of the governments and even the peoples and the media outlets? Where is the increase of settlement construction in Al Qods and even in the West Bank among all what is taking place as far as the Palestinian cause is concerned? In what place, in whose mind, in whose emotions and considerations, and in whose speeches are they mentioned?
The slogan is "The Martyr Leaders on the path to Palestine". In fact the resistance in Lebanon - the Lebanese resistance with all its factions including Hezbollah - with all its achievements formed a strong support to Palestine, the resistance of the Palestinian people, and the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. Was it destined for the Israeli-American occupation in 1982 to be accomplished, all hopes to restore one span of the land of Palestine would have been dispersed. However the resistance in Lebanon toppled the project of great Israel in 2000 and the project of Greater Israel in 2006. It revived all the expectations and founded the certitude to restore the land and the territories. There is unity of soul, unity of mind, unity of heart, unity of fate, unity of concern, and a unity of battle between the resistance in Lebanon and the resistance of Palestine.
The resistance in Lebanon supported and backed the Palestinian Intifada and the resistance factions of Palestine. It offered all what it can materialistically and morally and on all domains so that the Palestinian resistance becomes strong and able. We used to believe, and we still believe that the available, possible, and realistic strategy for Palestine, under the weakness of the Arab official regime, is supporting the Palestinian people so that they would be able through resistance to resist, fight, remain steadfast, confront, and be able to restore their land, sanctities, and rights. This experience worked. It worked in Lebanon when the Lebanese resisted, and support was offered to them. The Lebanese are those who resisted and were martyred. With their determination and will, they made victory in 2000. This experience worked in Palestine, in liberating Gaza Strip, and this experience is successful.
What is important is that the Palestinian people carry on and that we carry on our support to the Palestinian people in all possible ways.
In this framework, Martyr Leader Hajj Imad Moghniyeh had and still has roles away from the media. These roles might be revealed with days – conveyance, support, conveying experience, the common mind, and the effort between Lebanon, Palestine and the two resistances.
Yes, all those who support Palestine must carry on supporting Palestine. We thank all those who have always supported the resistance in Lebanon and we are grateful to them starting with Islamic Republic in Iran to Syria.
Here we must stand solemnly before the oppressed martyrdom of Martyr brethren Engineer Hussam Khoshnevis on his great efforts and considerable contribution through heading the Iranian Committee for Reconstruction of Lebanon. This is not the first sacrifice the Islamic Republic offers while supporting the resistance in Lebanon, liberating Lebanon and reconstructing Lebanon. We offer our condolences to the dear brethrens and officials in the Islamic Republic and to his honorable dear family.
Thus we consider that all the martyrs of the resistance in Lebanon on top of which are the Martyr leaders – Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad – who were martyred in the path to Palestine were related to Palestine, the People of Palestine and the sanctities of Palestine by a relation of faith, loyalty, love, emotion and great concern.
Still in this point and before moving to another point, I hope that our Arab world would be cured and would step out of their crises and sharp struggles so that they may be able to transcend this stage on which Israel is betting.
When all the Israeli research centers – especially this year – reevaluated the strategic environment, they made some modifications to what they wrote a couple of years ago. Two years ago, they were very worried and alarmed as a result to the changes that are taking or took place in the Arab world. Unfortunately, during the past few months, threats started to dwindle while chances mushroomed in Israeli studies. They clearly talked the struggle in Syria, the struggle in Egypt, and the struggles in the region as well as factional ordeals and the preoccupations of the peoples of the region with their internal struggles and affairs. They viewed that as an increase in the level of chances.
We are working and hope we would all be able to step out of this ordeal.
Here we must recall that these days mark the second anniversary for the launch of the Bahraini people upraise, Intifada, revolution and peaceful action. We laud the ability of this people to tolerate, stand steadfast and remain firm on their peaceful action and on the national trait of these demands. We hope that the national dialogue table which was formed in the past few days be able to make Bahrain, the people of Bahrain – this dear country and this dear people which has always been and will always be a supporter to Palestine and the resistance movements – cross and reach the required results which this people as well as all the martyrs who passed in this path look forward to.
I will tackle now the last point concerning the Israeli status quo before moving to the local situation.
Concerning the Israeli status quo, under some accusations that took place lately or the developments that took place in the region, great intimidations on Lebanon and on the Lebanese and on you were made unfortunately by Lebanese and Arab political forces and media outlets to the effect that Israel is preparing to launch a war on Lebanon. There were expectations that Israel would stage a vast aggression on Lebanon within few days or weeks or in the near future. Unfortunately this intimidation was not Israeli in as much as it was Lebanese or Arab. That means that according to my follow up to what the Israelis say, I did not notice that they were talking about waging a war on Lebanon or staging an aggression against Lebanon. Some tackled plots of war against Lebanon to the effect that in case of war "we would do so and so".
However, those who were foretelling about an Israeli war and a great Israeli aggression on Lebanon unfortunately were Lebanese forces, Lebanese media outlets, and Arab forces and media outlets.
Today I do not want to approach the Bulgarian accusation. This is being followed up carefully and calmly. Later on, we will see how things will move.
However unfortunately, from the viewpoint of the bad investment of some parties to this accusation, I will tackle it for a while as a prelude to talking about the intimidations. That's why many people made haste to establish the accusation on Hezbollah and filed a case against us. They themselves – i.e. these Lebanese and Arabs - accomplished the stage of accusation. They tried us and judged us on behalf of the European Union and placed us on the Terrorism List and thus pushed Lebanon towards economic, security and political repercussions pursuant to their supposed dream of putting Lebanon on the Terrorist List. They supposed the government would be toppled, and they got ready to take the government. Why are you making haste? There is nothing taking place? How is this topic to be approached and addressed later on and what will be done are other points to be tackled later.
However the worst in all what was said is indeed talking about Israel getting ready to stage a war on the basis of this supposed accusation. This is what they are talking about, and I am sorry that in Lebanon there are people who nurture such expectations, dreams and bargains. This is unfortunate. However, I will comment on two points only:
The first comment is that when the Israelis want to stage an aggression against Lebanon, they don't need a pretext or an excuse. They can fabricate any accusation and stage an aggression instantly without waiting for any investigations.
Do you still remember that in 1982 the Israelis claimed or accused Palestinian sides of attempting to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to London? The Ambassador did not die; the Israelis did not wait for a British accusation or investigation. They took the event as a pretext and staged an attack on Lebanon. So the story is not as such. When the Israelis want to make an aggression on Lebanon or stage a war on Lebanon, they may fabricate whatever pretext or accuse anytime.
The situation is different as far as the Bulgarian event is concerned and even before it took place. Since the first minutes – or let's say the first hours – following the incident, Netanyahu accused Hezbollah. What took place during these several months? Did he stage a war or an aggression?
Even before the incident in Bulgaria, in the past year or in the past couple of years, operations against Israeli targets in India, Georgia, and Thailand took place. The Israelis accused Hezbollah. What took place afterwards? Did a war take place? No war took place.
There is simplification. We - the Lebanese and the peoples of the region – have been living the so called Israeli nightmare for decades by now. There is too much simplification in saying that because of a definite incident, Israel will wage a war.
Israel is a state that has its own project. It has its own interests, considerations, circumstances, and situations. In any war, it looks forward to a decisive victory. It does not head to a war as a result to a simple – or whatever -incident or as a reaction.
A war has a project. A great aggression against any country has a project. Well, perhaps it may hit a definite target or stage a definite operation. As for going to war, that has its own considerations. We must step out of this simplification while dealing with the Israel as an enemy that is threatening Lebanon and the region.
The second point which we must remind all the Lebanese of is that there is a new fact following 2000 and especially following 2006 which is that when the Israelis think of a war on Lebanon, they take a thousand things into consideration. The proof for those who want a proof is the trials which assert that. Israelis do not make haste to wage a war on Lebanon following whatever incident.
Another proof is the Israeli declarations, arguments, studies, analyses, and research centers and institutes as well as lectures given by Israeli security and military leaders – especially former leaders. That's because when they leave office they would be more able to express their decisions and talk in a clearer way. They wouldn't have any legal problem. Moreover, the drills and training camps which are taking place on the level of air, land and sea force assert that they are getting ready to a real front and not a trip. So it is not a pleasure trip. It is rather a real front.
So far there is a conflict and an argument among the Israelis: If we get engaged in a war in Lebanon or with Lebanon, will the results be guaranteed? Will we win the war? Are we able to bear another loss like that of 2006 or a greater or a more afflicting loss? Such arguments are taking place in Israel.
Dear brothers and sisters! I assert to you and I assert to that enemy today during the anniversary of the martyr leaders that Lebanon is not anymore a scapegoat. Lebanon is not anymore a place where Israel makes a trip for pleasure. Lebanon is not any more a country which may be duped or occupied by a musical band from the Israeli Army. These are not words to show off.
The proof is what took place in 1982, 2000, and 2006. The situation in Lebanon now is totally different. I do not need to remind of what I said in previous occasions. However, I would like to highlight a point so that neither the enemy nor those who always live on betting on what takes place abroad would make miscalculations.
I will talk frankly. Perhaps some might consider that Syria now is engaged in a bloody conflict, and consequently, Syria is outside the equation or outside any battle that might take place with the Israeli enemy. Syria which was a support in July War now is preoccupied in its internal struggle. Consequently, it can't support or back or be a bridge to the resistance in Lebanon. So this is the moment that might be exploited to catch Lebanon alone. Perhaps some might make wrong calculations and consider the resistance in Lebanon at this moment as weak or perplexed, and consequently, believe that it is favorable to stage an aggression…. Well this is not the case at all whether it is an aggression or an attack or a war. On the anniversary of Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad, I tell whoever thinks in such a way: You are totally mistaken.
I frankly tell him that today the resistance in Lebanon is fully-equipped. All what we need for is now here in Lebanon. We do not need to convey it from Syria or from Iran. I hope you understood this fully. All what we need for in any upcoming war – in case it takes place – is here in Lebanon and we guard it in Lebanon.
The resistance today is fully equipped. All what I talked about in the past is very well known by the Israelis. If I am to raise the level more, it might be understood that we need to raise the dose. Well, no. With utmost calmness we will turn the tables: I warn the Israelis and whoever stands behind them that the resistance in Lebanon will not remain silent on any aggression which might take place against Lebanon or on Lebanese territories.
They know that, but I will remind them of our threat to their airports, seaports, and power plants – as for our power plants they need to be changed anyway. I might have told you previously that they have a number of power plants. They need only a number of rockets and Israel will be drowned in darkness. There is a plant in the north of Israel and near the middle. Israelis say that in case this plant was hit, they need six months to repair it. Does Israel bear falling in darkness for six months? In Lebanon, we are accustomed to that. However, do Israel and the people of Israel bear that? Anyway, they know very well that whatever we have said and whatever we might say again – starting with Keryat to Eilat – is serious. So if we are working day and night, the reconnaissance planes and the attempts to violate us on the security level would be natural because they want to collect information. This is the real threat.
As far as this point is concerned, I will wrap up saying – so as to keep some time to tackle the local situation: By the chaste blood of Sayyed Abbass, the pure blood of Sheikh Ragheb and the dear blood of Hajj Imad – this is not a religious oath but rather a moral oath or a jihadi oath – the sons, pupils, and comrades of Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad are now more determined and resolute to confront any aggression and to preserve the trust. The contest is open, and it will remain open.
I have a couple of words to say on the internal situation. I will usher into the internal situation too from the gate of the resistance and the arms of the resistance. A day ago there was a dear memory. It is the anniversary of the martyrdom of Martyr PM Rafiq Hariri and his companions. Speeches were delivered on this occasion. I do not want to comment on what was said and repeated again. I do not want to make an argument or a commentary.
I only have a quotation from the speech of the Head of the Future Movement which I find myself obliged to tackle. I find it my moral obligation to comment on this quotation as I felt that in it there is an insult to Martyr PM Rafiq Hariri as well as to other leaders, allies and partners.
We can bear any insult made to us. However, we have to pose and tackle this quotation for another reason which is that this quotation or few words also give us the chance to usher into some argumentative local topics in Lebanon now. I do not want to make an argument. I only want to comment.
What does the quotation say? It says: Hezbollah decisively refuses to acknowledge this status quo (concerning weapons) and adheres to the formula of all policies serve arms. Hezbollah is ready to make concessions and a ministerial bribery to the Premier at the expense of a portfolio for the party. (So first he is saying that PM Mikati was bribed) in exchange for forming a government that does not approach the topic of arms. Hezbollah is also willing to confirm with its ally Michel Aoun – while observing titles; however, I am saying what he said – on the election law of the Orthodox Gathering to guarantee that the parliament remain under the ceiling of arms. Hezbollah is also willing to pass funding the STL in the government and pretend to have forgotten the previous campaigns made by Walid Jumblat and his extreme stance from Assad's regime and Iran's role in suppressing the Syrian people in exchange for keeping arms away from circulation".
Well, this is the quotation. The speech has a continuation. Well the argument is quite clear. However, I want to pose on this point.
First, we start with bribing PM Mikati. First, I want to correct his information. The portfolio which was conceded wasn't the share of Hezbollah. It was rather the share of Amal Movement. The step took place upon an initiative made by Speaker Nabih Berri. We agreed on this blessed step. So first his information is incorrect.
This step meant to decrease the Shiite share for the interest of the Sunnite share. This step was meant to honor, esteem and show respect to a great national house and second to give this great national house a chance to partake in the current government. I mean by this house the family PM Omar Karami. This man and this family have always proved a high degree of morals, national feelings and sense of responsibility and loyalty. Some want to shut this house close.
PM Omar Karami proved noble manners again through his responsible and moral dealing with the events taking place in Tripoli and which were about to lead to the death of his son MP Faisal Karami. Was it not for the moral, national, and humanistic stance taken by PM Omar Karami, we all know what would have happened in Tripoli.
Allow me to say that if the Shiites decreased their share for the interest of the Sunnite share to have a minister from this house, would that be a shame or bribery? This is not true about PM Mikati.
Well, thirdly, I will carry on with the PM as far as the story of passing funding the STL is concerned. Well, is it a shame if Hezbollah came to understand the difficult circumstances in which PM Mikati is assuming responsibility – local and regional circumstances are hard nowadays – though we do not agree with him on some stances and decisions such as funding the STL? The fact is that we are totally confident that when we deal with this government, it is unthinkable that PM Mikati and the government of PM Mikati would connive against the resistance or stab the resistance in the back. This is the difference. Thus we might differ in one point pursuant to definite pressures or circumstances. Well PM Mikati does not work totally freely. We make arguments and carry discussions and reach somewhere. So he does not make us bear what we can't tolerate and vice versa. Anyway, we reach agreements.
Even all what was written in newspapers about disagreements or conflicts is groundless. That's not true. Well, we are accused of bribing PM Mikati to form a government. What is this expression? I am not talking about arms. I will come back to it later on when talking about MP Rafiq Hariri and the current Head of the Future Movement. We will return to it later on.
Let's move to the second section. Hezbollah is also willing to confirm with its ally Michel Aoun on the election law of the Orthodox Gathering to guarantee that the parliament remain under the ceiling of arms. Here too, we have two points to highlight. First, is it a shame if somebody confirms with his allies, takes them into consideration, listens to their fears, and observes their interests? This is something that somebody is praised for and not ashamed for.
One of the discrepancies between Hezbollah and the leadership of Future Movement – I am not talking about the party; I am rather talking about the leadership – is the issue of allies. Dealing with allies is not lately the talk of closed salons. No! In the past few weeks it has become in newspapers, magazines and on platforms. How does the leadership of this movement deal with its allies and how do we deal with our allies? We deal with them with the utmost tolerance while totally observing national interests and not at the expense of national interests.
Anyway, our allies know that on the moral level – I am talking about myself – I am one of the people who if able to give my allies my own eyebrows, I won't fail to do so. Is that a shame?
Second: We were convinced by the Orthodox Gathering Proposal. Indeed it's our priority that Lebanon be one district based on proportional representation, or proportional representation with Lebanon as one district or with broad districts as I have said in the previous time. However we accepted the Orthodox Gathering Proposal. The story is not that of dictation or of moving with my ally with closed eyes. No, I am convinced, and I see that there is interest in that. In the previous speech, I said that the Christians in Lebanon view this proposal as a chance to achieve true equality. So let's give them this chance. Why not?
Thirdly, I will tackle the section that has to do with General Aoun and not with the rest of the allies. That's because he talked about General Aoun. Since 2006, General Aoun decisively made his choices when he stood next to the resistance. Then some leaders in March 14 Bloc said that the war would end and General Aoun would be searched for in one of the insane asylums in Paris. They were living dreams and illusions of the defeat the resistance would be afflicted with. Then General Aoun did not take a position and wait for political awards by the Orthodox Proposal or others because it was not known who would stay and who would quite to be.
July War was a war of existence or annulment. In July War the world, the international community, most of the Arab states and the local forces lined together to crush Hezbollah. General Aoun took a decision. At the stage in which crushing Hezbollah was required, was he waiting to be awarded or thinking that a day would come in which we would agree on the Orthodox Gathering?
Thus I have preciously said that I categorize his stance as well as the stance of all our allies, leaderships, heads, forces and all those who took a decision in July War as a moral, national, humanistic stance and not a political stance or a stance based on profit or loss considerations. That's because then we were one band and the world wanted to crush us. Were we crushed, we would have been crushed altogether. However, because we remained, we remained altogether; because we gained victory, we gained victory altogether; because we towered, we towered altogether.
Even when we differ over local affairs and at times misunderstandings occur, media outlets might make haste. However, General Aoun would show up and say that the resistance is above any disagreement.
Now we come to MP Walid Jumblat. What does the head of the Future Movement want in particular? He says: "…pretend to have forgotten the previous campaigns made by Walid Jumblat and his extreme stance from Assad's regime and Iran's role".
You good people, political elites, scholars, religious and political leaderships, what do you understand from this speech except instigation?
Do you feel sad because we are not conflicting with Walid Jumblat – while observing titles? Do you want us to quarrel? Do you want Hezbollah to quarrel with the Progressive Socialist Party on the basis of the stance from Syria? We are not as such. There are political and religious forces in Lebanon who differ with us in the stance from Syria. They are not partners with us in the government. They do not meet with us. They do not sit with us. On the contrary, they daily curse us, abuse us, accuse us, provoke us, and block roads. What did we do to these forces? Nothing! We remained silent. Why?
Since 2008, MP Walid Jumblat took a clear position from the resistance and the arms of the resistance. He announces this daily. He even announced that at the eve of leaving to Saudi Arabia. This was before the events started in Syria. Does the person who cares for the country and for the civil state and for the Lebanese not to fight or quarrel talk in such a language which instigates political forces against each other?
There are two points to be highlighted. The first is staying apart – that means that the government stays apart. The second point which is more important than staying apart is that the Lebanese do not thrust the conflict taking place in Syria into Lebanon. This differs from the government staying apart.
We confess that we differ over the stance from Syria. If we differ over the stance from Syria, are we to ruin our country and set it on fire? If there is a war in Syria, are we to transfer it to Lebanon or to open fire on each other? What logic is this?
We are with keeping Lebanon apart from the struggle taking place in Syria. I back whatever position that suits me, and you back whatever position that suits you. You take the stance that you want, and I take the stance I want. However, anything that leads to the transfer of struggle to the Lebanese internal square or among the Lebanese is wrong and not to the interest of Lebanon at all. This is what we are seeking. Is that right or wrong? Is that a demerit or a shame?
In the same framework, we move to talk about PM Rafiq Hariri. Previously I have talked openly on TV screens on several occasions. I want to recall that to show that – according to the quotation of the Head of the Future Movement - they might be understood that we have bribed the Martyred Premier and that he was bribed.
Some witnesses are still alive. We sat with each other before February 14th. We had discussions and agreed on some points. There remained points to be discussed: the viewpoint on Lebanon, on the region, on authority, on Taif Accord, on elections, on the upcoming government, and on the resistance. The man asked what we wanted. We told the Premier that to us the resistance has the utmost priority. Other points are discussable – the administrative topic, the economic topic, the financial topic, the topic of election laws, forming the government, and the authority are not a priority. They are discussable. The resistance to us is the priority because we think that Lebanon is still in the sphere of danger. Israeli greed is still valid. If the resistance does not assume the responsibility, there is no one else to assume the responsibility. He told us: I am with you. There was no bribe offered. He said: I am with you. He even said more than that. He said: I am with the persistence of the resistance and the arms of the resistance not until the withdrawal from Shebaa Farms and Kafar Shouba Hills, not until the return of captives from Israeli prisons, but even more. I tell you frankly, I am with the persistence of the resistance and the arms of the resistance until a comprehensive and fair peace is inked. Here I interrupted him just to point at the terms we use. I told him you say a comprehensive and fair peace; I say a settlement. I do not say comprehensive and fair peace. A comprehensive and fair peace which I believe in and which Hezbollah believes in is achieved by the return of Palestine from the sea to the river to the Palestinian people. This is the comprehensive and fair peace. As for what you mean, it is a settlement. So he said: Well call it settlement. We will not argue over that.
PM Rafiq Hariri was very flexible and in many of the topics he used to trim ends. So there was not a problem should I say a settlement and you say comprehensive and fair peace. There is no problem. He even said – though I did not tell him to make this addition – more than that. He said that in case a comprehensive and fair peace was achieved, and I was the Premier, I would come to you and tell you: The Arabs inked an agreement; Syria reconciled; Lebanon reconciled, the Palestinians reconciled; all the Arabs agreed. There is no need for this resistance and for the arms of the resistance anymore. Let's find a solution for the arms. Either you hand arms to the state, or you sell them, or you return them to their sources. Do whatever appeals to you. If a day comes when you – O Sayyed – tell me: "No, I do not want to hand in my arms", I will resign and leave Lebanon as I am not willing to get engaged in a battle with the resistance.
This is your father.
Did Rafiq Hariri ever take bribe? The man was martyred. His son came to power. We sat together. What was said was repeated in his presence. He said I am committed to all what my father was committed to. Did you at that time when the quartet was formed take a bribe?
At that time we formed the quartet. We do not feel remorse for that. However, some of our allies were annoyed from us. We do not feel remorse. We then formed a quartet, and I will remind you why. That's because we wanted to reserve Lebanon and guard civil peace. We wanted to put an end for a sectarian ordeal between Shiites and Sunnites. That's because if we – the Shiites (Hezbollah and Amal Movement) were in one side and the Future Movement in another during the elections of 2005, the country would have been ruined. That's because the language which was used during the elections and particularly in the North where it was forcefully used mounted to calling those who vote for the rivaling list as voting for the killers of Rafiq Hariri. We would have gone to a Shiite-Sunnite conflict. In 2005, we made concessions. We agreed to make alliance via the quartet. We accepted to share in a government with no guarantees and without the guaranteeing one-third share. There were promises only. It was a verbal commitment. The Martyr PM used to tell me: I am ready to write down what I am saying. {If I had knowledge of the unseen I should have multiplied all good} If we knew the unknown, we would have told him to write that down. However, we told him: "O, no! Your Eminence! Your word is enough. Your word suffices.
Even in previous governments, on what bases the ministerial statement used to mention the equation of the Army, the People and the Resistance? Then his allies were annoyed. Was he bribed here too or what?
I end this argument in a word with him: When the problem took place and the former government was toppled, and an argument took place in the country on naming the new PM, the Qatari-Turkish Initiative was made. It made a discussion to address the topic. Then the Qatari minister and the Turkish FM – previously I have tackled this topic – met and wrote a draft on which the Head of the Future Movement agreed. They came to us. It was only required that we accept so that in the morning, the various sides ink the agreement and a great meeting would be held in Paris attended by countries which would sponsor this agreement.
Here I am somehow hesitant. Am I allowed to say for example that on that day we were bribed and we did not accept to be bribed? Or what is the correct term to be used?
Previously, I have told you that in that text there were things that have to do with the STL, withdrawing the Lebanese judges, and blocking funds. We said that before. I do not want to repeat. I will come to the topic of arms. As for arms the text which was presented to us had three conditions on arms. The Qatari minister was reading on me: Putting an end to the phenomenon of arms spread and security zones all over the Lebanese territories - Between parentheses there was written: "Hezbollah arms are not meant in that". I told him: Your Eminence! Are you aware of what you wrote? He explained to me that what is required is putting an end to the phenomenon of arms spread in all regions except for the arms of Hezbollah. I told him to be sure of what he wrote. It was I who was highlighting what he wrote. I told him that had he written the arms of the resistance that would have been narrower than the arms of the party. I told him that he may ask me whether the existence of arms in a definite geography is arms of the resistance or political arms. He told me there is no problem in that. We agree on this text and we accept it.
It was you who proposed on us keeping arms aside, reserving arms and guarding arms in exchange of agreeing that you become the Premier again, and we did not agree. The reason simply has to do with national interests. It has nothing to do with personal or party refrain. Then an argument took place with us. I do not go for presenting the argument on air. Well, the national unity government which was headed by him had gained the highest level of votes in the history of Lebanon ever. As they say things were made fully ready for him. Still what did that government do?
We want a Premier who resides in Lebanon. I told them we want a Lebanese Premier. We want a Premier who has time to sit with the ministers, listen to them, gather the ministerial committees and address causes. We want a Premier who has enough tolerance to follow-up. Here I am talking frankly. Any person can stand for an hour and make abuses. Well, these are facts.
Thus on that day we told them that we can't accept to keep our arms aside as well as the STL in return for handing this country for this person or that. As such I will be violating national interests for the sake of the interests of the party. Who would have bribed the other? Who would have taken a bribe from the other?
Here I would like others to be careful. Well, our policy requires offering concessions for allies, friends and partners for the sake of reserving the arms here. No! It is for the sake of reserving the resistance. Was these arms not for resisting Israel, it would have meant nothing at all to us. It does not deserve that we offer sacrifices for it.
Well, a resistance or a party might offer concessions in authority, in administration, in election laws…. It might offer concessions here and there. A party might tolerate and have patience on accusations, abuses, and daily insults for the sake of the resistance that protects the country and the resistance that is on its way to Palestine, the resistance which is a source of pride to Lebanon. Is that a merit or a shame?
Well, why do they say one thing and its opposite? Don't they daily say that the aim of arms is to gain power? Well, here you are acknowledging that we are conceding authority for the sake of reserving arms. Isn't that so? Well, you are reading a written text. You are acknowledging that we are conceding a Shiite portfolio in the government; we are confirming an election law; we are remaining silent here and there; we let funding the STL pass for the sake of reserving arms. Well, if the target of arms is to reach power, how is it that we are offering concessions in power to reserve arms? How am I to understand that?
Brothers and sisters! It is not now that justice has been revealed. Justice has been revealed for a long time. Justice is clear and evident. I would like to tell you: In this country, we believe in forming a state; we believe in Taif Accord; and we believe in developing this regime.
Indeed, if anyone tries to approach making amendments in Taif Accord he would be labeled a political infidel even if he was a Sunnite but not from Future Movement. Only one side is allowed to talk about amending Taif Accord without being labeled an infidel. It is the Future movement. However, if any other person from any other political track, or sect, or faction approaches the Taif Agreement, he would become a political infidel.
We are with Taif Accord. We are with developing Taif Accord. We believe in true partnership. We believe in true equity. Because the Orthodox Gathering is one of the choices that lead to true equity, we agreed on it, and if it is proposed at the parliament, we will vote for it.
We believe that in Lebanon – with its composition - there is no ability or possibility that a party or a movement, or a faction or a sect rule the country. Let no one confer a benefit upon others. Let's put good intentions aside. Whoever thinks in such a way would be putting Lebanon and himself at stake. Thus we say: Our project was never to rule Lebanon or gain authority in Lebanon.
Yes, we are with real partnership. We are with true national partnership because this country with its characteristics and human and political composition has this option available only. So if we want a secure, stable country that addresses its social crises, develop and guard its unity, the only way is partnership and not monopolization.
They say that we are a group who seeks monopoly. Never! When PM Najeeb Mikati was named, he stayed for a month waiting so that you agree to partake in a national unity government. You did not agree. On the contrary, you met and called on the entire world to boycott this government. You instigated the entire world against this government.
Now, in the past and in the future, we are with national unity, with national agreement, and with making concessions to each other. We have no problem in making concessions. Never! However, that must be under this title.
We look forward to reach an understanding in Lebanon and to live together in Lebanon with dignity. We look forward to a strong Lebanon that is able to protect itself away from any bargain whether on the international community, the Arab League, the Organization of Arab Cooperation, or anyone else in the world. We only trust in Allah and bargain on the hands of Lebanon's sons, resistance men, and honorable people – and they are numerous in Lebanon. We look forward to a Lebanon which is able to benefit from the blessings and wealth which Allah endowed in it – in its mountains, fields, waters, and seas – without any grudge from anyone or fear from anyone.
This is what we look forward to. These were the dreams of our martyr leaders, and we have the same dreams. We have the same expectations and targets, and we will carry on moving on their path with determination while being certain of the upcoming victory. Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Russia and Islam, part two: Russian Orthodoxy
Most people assume that Russia is a Christian Orthodox country and that the Russian Orthodox Church is the spiritual leader of the Russian people. This is a very superficial view and, I would even say, a fundamentally mistaken one. To explain what I mean by this, I will have to explain something absolutely crucial and yet something most fundamentally misunderstood by the vast majority of people, including many Russians. The Russian Orthodox Church as an institution and the Orthodox spirituality of the Russian people have been severely persecuted since at least 300+ years. So crucial is this phenomenon that I will need to make a short historical digression into the history of Russia.
From the moment Russia was baptized into Christianity by Saint Vladimir in 988 to the 17th century rule of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, the Orthodox Church was the organic core of the Russian civilization. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
Russian Tsars often ended up being real persecutors of the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular those upon whom the Russian aristocracy and the West bestowed the title of "Great". Peter I, the so-called "Great" decapitated the Russian Orthodox Church by abolishing the title of Patriarch from the head of the Church and replacing him by "Synod" run by a laymen bureaucrat with the rank of "Chief Procurator" who did not even have to be Orthodox himself. De-facto and de-jure in 1700 the Russian Orthodox Church became a state institution, like a ministry. Under Catherine I, also called the "Great", monastic were persecuted with such viciousness that it was actually illegal for them to possess even a single sheet of paper in their monastic cell, lest they write something against the regime.
Other Tsars (such as Alexander II, or Alexander III) were far more respectful of the Church and Tsar Nicholas II, who was a deeply religious and pious man, even restored the autonomy of the Church by allowing it to elect a new Patriarch.
And yet, by and large, the Russian Orthodox Church underwent a process of quasi-continuous weakening under the combined effects of overt persecutions and more subtle secularization from the 17th to the 20th century.
In the 20th century during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II, Russian Orthodoxy saw a short but amazing rebirth immediately followed by a mass persecution under the Bolshevik rule whose viciousness and scale was previously unheard of in the history of the Church. Again, in the worlds of Solzhenitsyn:
From the moment Russia was baptized into Christianity by Saint Vladimir in 988 to the 17th century rule of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, the Orthodox Church was the organic core of the Russian civilization. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
In its past, Russia did know a time when the social ideal was not fame, or riches, or material success, but a pious way of life. Russia was then steeped in an Orthodox Christianity which remained true to the Church of the first centuries. The Orthodoxy of that time knew how to safeguard its people under the yoke of a foreign occupation that lasted more than two centuries, while at the same time fending off iniquitous blows from the swords of Western crusaders. During those centuries the Orthodox faith in our country became part of the very pattern of thought and the personality of our people, the forms of daily life, the work calendar, the priorities in every undertaking, the organization of the week and of the year. Faith was the shaping and unifying force of the nation.The 17th century, however, saw an abrupt and violent change to this state of affairs. Again, in the words of Solzhenitsyn:
But in the 17th century Russian Orthodoxy was gravely weakened by an internal schism. In the 18th, the country was shaken by Peter's forcibly imposed transformations, which favored the economy, the state, and the military at the expense of the religious spirit and national life. And along with this lopsided Petrine enlightenment, Russia felt the first whiff of secularism; its subtle poisons permeated the educated classes in the course of the 19th century and opened the path to Marxism. By the time of the Revolution, faith had virtually disappeared in Russian educated circles; and amongst the uneducated, its health was threatened.By the time Tsar Nicholas II inherited the throne in 1896 the Russian society was suffering from a deep spiritual crisis: most of the ruling class was highly secularized if not completely materialistic, almost every single aristocratic family had joined the Freemasonry, while the rest of the country, still mostly composed of peasants, was nominally Christian Orthodox, but not in the deep way the Russian nation had been before the 17th century.
Russian Tsars often ended up being real persecutors of the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular those upon whom the Russian aristocracy and the West bestowed the title of "Great". Peter I, the so-called "Great" decapitated the Russian Orthodox Church by abolishing the title of Patriarch from the head of the Church and replacing him by "Synod" run by a laymen bureaucrat with the rank of "Chief Procurator" who did not even have to be Orthodox himself. De-facto and de-jure in 1700 the Russian Orthodox Church became a state institution, like a ministry. Under Catherine I, also called the "Great", monastic were persecuted with such viciousness that it was actually illegal for them to possess even a single sheet of paper in their monastic cell, lest they write something against the regime.
Other Tsars (such as Alexander II, or Alexander III) were far more respectful of the Church and Tsar Nicholas II, who was a deeply religious and pious man, even restored the autonomy of the Church by allowing it to elect a new Patriarch.
And yet, by and large, the Russian Orthodox Church underwent a process of quasi-continuous weakening under the combined effects of overt persecutions and more subtle secularization from the 17th to the 20th century.
In the 20th century during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II, Russian Orthodoxy saw a short but amazing rebirth immediately followed by a mass persecution under the Bolshevik rule whose viciousness and scale was previously unheard of in the history of the Church. Again, in the worlds of Solzhenitsyn:
The world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. The 1920’s in the USSR witnessed an uninterrupted procession of victims and martyrs amongst the Orthodox clergy. Two metropolitans were shot, one of whom, Veniamin of Petrograd, had been elected by the popular vote of his diocese. Patriarch Tikhon himself passed through the hands of the Cheka-GPU and then died under suspicious circumstances. Scores of archbishops and bishops perished. Tens of thousands of priests, monks, and nuns, pressured by the Chekists to renounce the Word of God, were tortured, shot in cellars, sent to camps, exiled to the desolate tundra of the far North, or turned out into the streets in their old age without food or shelter. All these Christian martyrs went unswervingly to their deaths for the faith; instances of apostasy were few and far between. For tens of millions of laymen access to the Church was blocked, and they were forbidden to bring up their children in the Faith: religious parents were wrenched from their children and thrown into prison, while the children were turned from the faith by threats and lies...
This is a complex and tragic history which I cannot discuss in any details here so I will insist on only one important consequence of these events: the Russian Orthodox Church eventually split into at least 4 distinct groups:
a) The "official" or "state" Orthodox Church, which eventually became the Moscow Patriarchate. Largely composed of modernist clergymen, this "official" Soviet Church not only denied the reality of the persecution of Christians in Russia, it often actively collaborated with these persecutions (by denouncing "subversive" clergymen, for example).
b) The "Josephites" composed of the followers of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, they openly refused to submit the Church to Bolshevik regime and were eventually martyred for their stance. Some joined the following group:
c) The "Catacomb Church". This was an illegal, underground, organization, lead by secret bishops, which rejected the right of the Bolsheviks to take over the Church and which went into deep hiding, practically disappearing from public view.
d) The "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad": composed of exiles, this was organization created by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev who, with the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon, united around itself most of the Orthodox Russian who had fled the Soviet Union.
It is important to stress here that even though the Josephites, the Catacomb Church and the Church Abroad did have very few practical means to communicate with each other, they were all in communion with each other and recognized each other as legitimate branches of the One Russian Orthodox Church, although each one in unique and specific circumstances. Not so with the first entity, the official "Soviet" Church which was denounced by all three groups as at the very least illegal and possibly even as the satanic tool of the Bolsheviks.
Why is all this so important?
Because the current official "Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate" is a direct descendant of this first group, which was unanimously rejected by literally tens of thousands of saints who were martyred for their faith by the Bolshevik regime. In patristic theological terms, the Moscow Patriarchate and its members are "lapsed", i.e., those who did not have the courage to resist the persecutors of the Church and who therefore severed their communion to the Church. The fact that they created an ecclesiastical entity in conditions prohibited by canon law makes them "schismatics". The fact that they developed a specific teaching ("Sergianism": the idea that the Church can be "saved" by way of comprimise with evil) to justify such actions makes them "heretics" (please note that in a theological discourse terms like "heretic" are not insults, but simply indicators of a specifc spiriual condition/status).
The above is an extremely superficial and even simplistic mini-overview of a long an extremely complex topic and I ask for the understanding of those who know about this and who might be appalled at how much I have not discussed here. I am aware of that, but this is simply not the time and place to write a halfway decent history of Russian Orthodoxy in the 20th century. The only other historical detail I will add here is that during WWII, Stalin did very substantially ease some of the worst persecutions against the Church and that these persecutions did, in part, resume under Krushchev. Again, I apologize for the extreme "shorthand" of the outline above, and I ask that you take only the following two important concepts with you:
a) Russian Orthodoxy has been continuously weakened for the past 300+ years
b) The organization currently officially representing Russian Orthodoxy has major legitimacy issues and is often viewed with deep suspicion, even by very religious people.
I now need to say a few words about the modern "Moscow Patriarchate" as it is today, over two decades since the end of any anti-religious persecutions.
First, it is by far the most "Soviet" institution of the Russian polity. Or, to put it in other words, it is by far the least reformed "leftover" of the Soviet era. To make things worse, it is also currently run by a notoriously corrupt individual, "Patriarch" Kirill I, a sly and utterly dishonest individual, known for his shady business dealing and for his rabid adherence to the so-called "Ecumenical Movement" (a heresy from the Orthodox point of view). To top it all off, there is some pretty good evidence that Kirill I might be a secret Papist Cardinal, something called a "cardinale in pectore" which, if true, is probably used against him by the Russian security services to make sure that he does whatever the Kremlin says.
For all its faults, the Moscow Patriarchate fulfills and extremely important role for the Russian state: that of ideological substitute for the now officially abandoned Marxist ideology.
One often can hear the statement that about 70% of Russians are Orthodox Christians. This is wrong and highly misleading. According to data published in Wikipedia, about 40% of Russians are Orthodox Christians. Better. But what does that really mean? Mostly that these Russians identify with the Russian Orthodox traditions, that they try to live by Christians ethics and that they refer to themselves as "Orthodox". But if we take the figures published annually by the Moscow city authorities on the attendance of the single most important religious service in the Orthodox tradition - Easter (called "Paskha" in Russian) we see that only about 1% of Moscovites actually attended it. What about the remaining 39%?!
It is impossible to come by one "true" figure, but I would estimate that no more than 5% of the Russian population could be considered as "deeply/consciously, religious". And yet, the Moscow Patriarchate plays a crucial role in the Kremlin's power structure: not only does it provide a substitute for the now defunct Marxist ideology, it serve as a "patriotic education" organization, it offers a series of well-recognized symbols (beautiful churches, religious singing, icons, crosses, etc.) which can all be used a national symbols (rather than spiritual symbols). Those national symbols are recognized, if not necessarily fully endorsed, by far more than the 40+ percent of Russians which are nominally Orthodox. To paraphrase the American expression "to rally around the flag", Russians are nowadays encouraged to "rally around the cross" even if on a deep internal level they don't really understand, or care, what the symbol of the Cross really means in Orthodox Christianity.
Let me give you an example of what all this ends up looking like. Read the transcript of the speech which Vladimir Putin made at the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate (click here). It is all about patriotism, patriotism and more patriotism. Not a single word in all this is devoted to spiritual topics. Not one. This speech could have been made to an assembly of officials of an ideological department of the CPSU.
For the Moscow Patriarchate, this tight collaboration with the Kremlin also has an immense advantage: it grants it a legitimacy which history so unambiguously denies it. While there are still remnants of the Catacomb Church in Russia, and while outside Russia there still is an Orthodox Church Abroad, these organizations are tiny compared to the huge Moscow Patriarchate, with its 100+ bishops, 26'000+ parishes and 100'000'000+ official members. And when any of these small groups succeeds in gathering the funds to open a small parish somewhere in Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate can always count on the local riot police to expel them and "return" the building to the Moscow Patriarchate.
I apologize once again for the extreme degree of over-simplification I had to settle for to write this (already too long!) overview. What I have done is mention what I believe are essential background factors which must be kept in mind when looking into the topic of Russia and Islam.
In particular, it has to be clearly understood that the official Orthodox Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, is not an important factor at all in the dialectical relationship between the Russian society and Islam, if only because inside the Russian society the status of the Orthodox faith is an extremely weakened one. In other words, the topic of "Russia and Islam" should not be confused with the topic "Orthodox Christianity and Islam". In many ways, modern Russia is neo-Orthodox, para-Orthodox or even post-Orthodox but most definitely not truly Orthodox.
This, however, begs the obvious question: if the dominant ethos of the Russian society is not Marxist any more, and if it is not really Orthodox Christian either, than what is it? Other than being predominantly anti-Western or anti-capitalist, what does the Russian society today stand for (as opposed to against) and how does Russian society react to the values offered by Islam. This will be the topic of the next installment of this series.
The Saker
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Russia and Islam, part one: introduction and definitions
Today, I am beginning a series of articles on the very complex topic of Russia and Islam, a topic which is mostly overlooked in the West or, when it is mentioned at all, is often completely misunderstood. I have been researching this fascinating topic for many months already and there is so much to say about it that I have decided to write a series of installments, each one covering one specific aspect of this topic. The nature of the current relationship and interaction between Russia and Islam is a very complex one, with spiritual, political, social, economic, historical and geostrategic aspects. Without already jumping to my conclusions, I will say that the dialectical relationship between Russia and Islam is, I believe, currently undergoing some profound and very dynamic changes which makes it impossible to confidently predict its future.
But first, it is important to stress here that Russia and Islam are not mutually opposite or mutually exclusive concepts. While relatively few ethnic Russians are Muslims, Russia has always been a multi-ethnic state, even when it was just a relatively small principality centered on the city of Kiev.
The word "Russian" in English is used to express two very different Russian concepts: the word "Russkii" means "Russian" as in "part of the Russian ethnicity or culture" and the words "Rossiiskii" which means "part of the country of Russia". Likewise, when Russians speak of "Russkie" they mean the Russian ethnicity whereas when they speak of "Rossiiskie" they refer to the nation-state, to a geographical area. Take for instance the current Minister of Defense of Russia, Sergei Shoigu. He is an ethnic Tuvan through his father (and an ethnic Russian by his mother). If we ignore his maternal lineage, we could say that he is not a ethic Russian ("Russkii") but he is a Russian national ("Rossiiskii"). By the way, Shoigu is not an Orthodox Christian, as most ethnic Russians, but a Buddhist. Likewise, Russia's Minister of Internal Affairs between 2003 and 2011 was Rachid Nurgaliev, an ethnic Tatar, who was born as a Muslim but who eventually converted to the Orthodox faith. Again, he would be considered as a "Rossiianin" (Russian national) but not as a "Russkii".
So while relatively few ethnic Russians are Muslims, there have always been many other (non-Russian) ethnic groups included in the Russian nation, including many Muslims, and these ethnic groups have often played a crucial role in Russian history. From the Vikings who founded the Kievian Rus', to the (mostly Muslim) Mongols who helped Saint Alexander Nevsky defeat the Teutonic Knights of the Papist Northern Crusaders, to the two Chechen special forces battalions who spearheaded the Russian counter-offensive against the Georgian Army in the 08.08.08 war - non-Russians have always played an important role in Russia's history and the existence of a fully legitimate historical "Russian Islam" cannot be denied. Put differently, if "Russkii Islam" is really a minor, almost private, phenomenon, "Rossiiskii Islam" is an phenomenon present throughout the 1000+ years of Russian history and an integral part of Russia's identity.
This is particular important to keep in mind when one hears the mis-informed opinions of those who would have Russia as a part of the so-called "Western Christendom". Let's make something clear, the most frequent and meaningful form of interaction the Russian nation has had with Western Christianity was war. And every single one of these wars was a defensive war against a Western aggression.
It is true that a good part of the Russian Imperial nobility, which was often of Germanic ethnic extraction, and almost totally composed of active members of the Freemasonry, wanted Russia to become part of the Western civilization. However, this has always been a fashion only amongst wealthy elites, the already very westernized classes, what Marx would call the "superstructure" of Russia. The Russian Orthodox masses, however, were culturally far closer to their Muslim or Buddhist neighbors than to the westernized elites who took over the reigns of power in the 18th century under Tsar Peter I.
While before the 18th century nobody would seriously claim that Russia was part of the Western civilization, after the 18th century there has been an almost continuous effort made by certain members of the Russian upper classes to "modernize" Russia, which really meant *westernizing* it. From Tsar Peter I, to the Decembrist Freemasons, to the Kerensky regime, to the Eltsin years, Russian "Westernizers" never gave up their struggle to turn Russia into a Western state. I would even claim that the entire Soviet experiment was also an attempt to westernize Russia, albeit not along the usual Papist or Masonic models, but along a Marxist one. What all these models have in common is a visceral dislike for the real Russian culture and spirituality, and a obsessive desire to "turn Russia into Poland". The perfect expression for this disdain/hatred for the Russian culture and nation can be found in the following words of Napoleon who said : “Grattez le Russe, et vous trouverez le Tartare'’ (scratch a Russian and you find a Tartar). Coming from the "Masonic Emperor" who used the sanctuaries of the Russian Orthodox Churches as stables for his horses and who, out of spite, attempted to blow-up the entire Kremlin, these words reveal the roots of his real aversion for the Russian people.
In contrast, 500 years before the (mostly Muslim) Mongols who invaded Russia usually treated the Russian Church and the Orthodox clergy with utmost respect. Sure, they did not hesitate to burn down a monastery and kill everybody inside, but only if the monastery was used by Russian insurgents in their struggle against the invaders. And yes, some Mongols did force Russian princes to walk through their pagan "purification fire", but these were not Muslim, but pagans. The undeniable fact is that when Russians were subjected to the Muslim yoke it was always far less cruel and barbaric than what the Papist, Masonic or Nazi invaders did every time they attempted to invade and subdue Russia. This is why there is no real anti-Islamic current in the Russian popular culture, at least not before the Soviet era which, unfortunately, fundamentally upset a delicate balance which had been reached before 1917.
In the past, westernizing forces saw themselves are "Europeans", as opposed to "Asians", and it is quite remarkable to see how these westernizing forces have become anti-Muslim nowadays (more about that later). While they wholeheartedly support the freedom to organize so-called "Gay pride" parades or the actions of "Pussy Riot" group, these Westernizing forces are categorically opposed to the right of young Muslim girls to wear a scarf on their heads while in school.
Frankly, I do not want to spend any more time discussing the pro-Western forces in Russia mainly because they really have been weakened to the point of representing less than 1 or 2 percent of the population by now. I have to mention these forces here, mostly as a leftover from almost 300 years of unsuccessful attempts to westernize Russia, but this is not were the "interesting stuff" is happening nowadays. Nowadays, it is the heated debates about Islam inside and amongst the various anti-Western or "patriotic" groups which is so interesting, and this will be the topic of a future installment. But next, we will need to look at the current spiritual condition of the majority of the Russian people.
The Saker
But first, it is important to stress here that Russia and Islam are not mutually opposite or mutually exclusive concepts. While relatively few ethnic Russians are Muslims, Russia has always been a multi-ethnic state, even when it was just a relatively small principality centered on the city of Kiev.
The word "Russian" in English is used to express two very different Russian concepts: the word "Russkii" means "Russian" as in "part of the Russian ethnicity or culture" and the words "Rossiiskii" which means "part of the country of Russia". Likewise, when Russians speak of "Russkie" they mean the Russian ethnicity whereas when they speak of "Rossiiskie" they refer to the nation-state, to a geographical area. Take for instance the current Minister of Defense of Russia, Sergei Shoigu. He is an ethnic Tuvan through his father (and an ethnic Russian by his mother). If we ignore his maternal lineage, we could say that he is not a ethic Russian ("Russkii") but he is a Russian national ("Rossiiskii"). By the way, Shoigu is not an Orthodox Christian, as most ethnic Russians, but a Buddhist. Likewise, Russia's Minister of Internal Affairs between 2003 and 2011 was Rachid Nurgaliev, an ethnic Tatar, who was born as a Muslim but who eventually converted to the Orthodox faith. Again, he would be considered as a "Rossiianin" (Russian national) but not as a "Russkii".
So while relatively few ethnic Russians are Muslims, there have always been many other (non-Russian) ethnic groups included in the Russian nation, including many Muslims, and these ethnic groups have often played a crucial role in Russian history. From the Vikings who founded the Kievian Rus', to the (mostly Muslim) Mongols who helped Saint Alexander Nevsky defeat the Teutonic Knights of the Papist Northern Crusaders, to the two Chechen special forces battalions who spearheaded the Russian counter-offensive against the Georgian Army in the 08.08.08 war - non-Russians have always played an important role in Russia's history and the existence of a fully legitimate historical "Russian Islam" cannot be denied. Put differently, if "Russkii Islam" is really a minor, almost private, phenomenon, "Rossiiskii Islam" is an phenomenon present throughout the 1000+ years of Russian history and an integral part of Russia's identity.
This is particular important to keep in mind when one hears the mis-informed opinions of those who would have Russia as a part of the so-called "Western Christendom". Let's make something clear, the most frequent and meaningful form of interaction the Russian nation has had with Western Christianity was war. And every single one of these wars was a defensive war against a Western aggression.
It is true that a good part of the Russian Imperial nobility, which was often of Germanic ethnic extraction, and almost totally composed of active members of the Freemasonry, wanted Russia to become part of the Western civilization. However, this has always been a fashion only amongst wealthy elites, the already very westernized classes, what Marx would call the "superstructure" of Russia. The Russian Orthodox masses, however, were culturally far closer to their Muslim or Buddhist neighbors than to the westernized elites who took over the reigns of power in the 18th century under Tsar Peter I.
While before the 18th century nobody would seriously claim that Russia was part of the Western civilization, after the 18th century there has been an almost continuous effort made by certain members of the Russian upper classes to "modernize" Russia, which really meant *westernizing* it. From Tsar Peter I, to the Decembrist Freemasons, to the Kerensky regime, to the Eltsin years, Russian "Westernizers" never gave up their struggle to turn Russia into a Western state. I would even claim that the entire Soviet experiment was also an attempt to westernize Russia, albeit not along the usual Papist or Masonic models, but along a Marxist one. What all these models have in common is a visceral dislike for the real Russian culture and spirituality, and a obsessive desire to "turn Russia into Poland". The perfect expression for this disdain/hatred for the Russian culture and nation can be found in the following words of Napoleon who said : “Grattez le Russe, et vous trouverez le Tartare'’ (scratch a Russian and you find a Tartar). Coming from the "Masonic Emperor" who used the sanctuaries of the Russian Orthodox Churches as stables for his horses and who, out of spite, attempted to blow-up the entire Kremlin, these words reveal the roots of his real aversion for the Russian people.
In contrast, 500 years before the (mostly Muslim) Mongols who invaded Russia usually treated the Russian Church and the Orthodox clergy with utmost respect. Sure, they did not hesitate to burn down a monastery and kill everybody inside, but only if the monastery was used by Russian insurgents in their struggle against the invaders. And yes, some Mongols did force Russian princes to walk through their pagan "purification fire", but these were not Muslim, but pagans. The undeniable fact is that when Russians were subjected to the Muslim yoke it was always far less cruel and barbaric than what the Papist, Masonic or Nazi invaders did every time they attempted to invade and subdue Russia. This is why there is no real anti-Islamic current in the Russian popular culture, at least not before the Soviet era which, unfortunately, fundamentally upset a delicate balance which had been reached before 1917.
In the past, westernizing forces saw themselves are "Europeans", as opposed to "Asians", and it is quite remarkable to see how these westernizing forces have become anti-Muslim nowadays (more about that later). While they wholeheartedly support the freedom to organize so-called "Gay pride" parades or the actions of "Pussy Riot" group, these Westernizing forces are categorically opposed to the right of young Muslim girls to wear a scarf on their heads while in school.
Frankly, I do not want to spend any more time discussing the pro-Western forces in Russia mainly because they really have been weakened to the point of representing less than 1 or 2 percent of the population by now. I have to mention these forces here, mostly as a leftover from almost 300 years of unsuccessful attempts to westernize Russia, but this is not were the "interesting stuff" is happening nowadays. Nowadays, it is the heated debates about Islam inside and amongst the various anti-Western or "patriotic" groups which is so interesting, and this will be the topic of a future installment. But next, we will need to look at the current spiritual condition of the majority of the Russian people.
The Saker
Friday, February 15, 2013
Historic Court Case Against the BBC’s Cover Up of 9/11 Evidence
by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Global Research,
February 14, 2013
The BBC is being challenged strongly for its refusal to present to the British public the available scientific evidence which contradicts the official version of events of 9/11. Thank you very much to all those who have sent letters to their MPs asking that the BBC be held to account for withholding this evidence that the public must be allowed to see.
As a further progression of this campaign, a great opportunity has arisen. 9/11 truth documentary maker Tony Rooke has been granted a court hearing where he is challenging the BBC’s support of terrorist activity through supporting the cover up of the true evidence of 9/11. The court case will take place on February 25th at 10.00am at the address below. Real 9/11 evidence has rarely, if ever, been presented in a British court room, so this is a rare opportunity.Any support from the public on the day would be fantastic and will help to send the message that the people want to know, and deserve to know, the truth about 9/11.
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET
This court case is based around Tony making a stand and refusing to pay his TV licence fee under Section 15 of The Terrorism Act 2000 Article 3 which states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The BBC has withheld scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that the official version of events of 9/11 is not possible and could not have been carried out in entirety by those who have been accused by our officials. In addition, the BBC has actively blocked and smeared those attempting to bring this evidence to the public. By doing this the BBC are supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and are therefore supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account. A new and independent investigation is required to determine what really did occur on 9/11, and by whom, otherwise these unidentified terrorist elements will remain free to potentially commit further terrorist activities.
Tony has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence fee, however, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has formed a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding individuals:
Professor Niels Harrit
Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence which contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists proved that there was nano-thermite residue (high tech military explosive) all through the dust of all three towers and he got this study peer reviewed and published in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers. He was involved in a major interview with the BBC in 2011 where the BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit Professor Harrit rather than look at the devastating scientific evidence he had to offer. Professor Harrit’s team have video footage of this harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by the BBC both on camera and off camera as part of that interview.
Tony Farrell
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police Department. In 2010 he was fired because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that due to his extensive analysis of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the truth and he is challenging his dismissal through international court. Tony Rooke has recently produced an excellent documentary called ‘Offensive – the story of Tony Farrell’ based around the story of Tony Farrell. Here is the link to that documentary:
OFFENSIVE – THE STORY OF TONY FARRELL – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8P0oBseWMRQ
In addition, here is the other documentary that Tony has recently produced called ‘Reasonable Cause’ which gives a good insight into the type of work that Tony has been engaged in and the type of information and evidence that he will be presenting at his court case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_AQMxvqWho&feature=player_embedded
Other members of Tony’s presentation team include:
Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK based group ‘Reinvestigate9/11′
Ray Savage: Former Counter Terrorism Officer who believes the official 9/11 story is not reasonable to believe
As well as these presenters there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from our four other 9/11 experts:
Richard Gage: CEO of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot & member of ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’
If you happen to be in the UK or reside there, please consider attending this historic court case to support Tony in this rare opportunity to have some of the true facts of 9/11 presented in a court of law and to have the BBC held to account for their support of the cover up of the true scientific evidence of 9/11.
For our friends in the USA, you ALSO have laws prohibiting the funding of terrorism – namely:
18 USC § 2339C – Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism
(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—
(A) an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).
Many thanks
AE911Truth -UK Action Group – on behalf of Tony Rooke
February 14, 2013
The BBC is being challenged strongly for its refusal to present to the British public the available scientific evidence which contradicts the official version of events of 9/11. Thank you very much to all those who have sent letters to their MPs asking that the BBC be held to account for withholding this evidence that the public must be allowed to see.
As a further progression of this campaign, a great opportunity has arisen. 9/11 truth documentary maker Tony Rooke has been granted a court hearing where he is challenging the BBC’s support of terrorist activity through supporting the cover up of the true evidence of 9/11. The court case will take place on February 25th at 10.00am at the address below. Real 9/11 evidence has rarely, if ever, been presented in a British court room, so this is a rare opportunity.Any support from the public on the day would be fantastic and will help to send the message that the people want to know, and deserve to know, the truth about 9/11.
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET
This court case is based around Tony making a stand and refusing to pay his TV licence fee under Section 15 of The Terrorism Act 2000 Article 3 which states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The BBC has withheld scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that the official version of events of 9/11 is not possible and could not have been carried out in entirety by those who have been accused by our officials. In addition, the BBC has actively blocked and smeared those attempting to bring this evidence to the public. By doing this the BBC are supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and are therefore supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account. A new and independent investigation is required to determine what really did occur on 9/11, and by whom, otherwise these unidentified terrorist elements will remain free to potentially commit further terrorist activities.
Tony has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence fee, however, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has formed a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding individuals:
Professor Niels Harrit
Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence which contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists proved that there was nano-thermite residue (high tech military explosive) all through the dust of all three towers and he got this study peer reviewed and published in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers. He was involved in a major interview with the BBC in 2011 where the BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit Professor Harrit rather than look at the devastating scientific evidence he had to offer. Professor Harrit’s team have video footage of this harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by the BBC both on camera and off camera as part of that interview.
Tony Farrell
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police Department. In 2010 he was fired because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that due to his extensive analysis of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the truth and he is challenging his dismissal through international court. Tony Rooke has recently produced an excellent documentary called ‘Offensive – the story of Tony Farrell’ based around the story of Tony Farrell. Here is the link to that documentary:
OFFENSIVE – THE STORY OF TONY FARRELL – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8P0oBseWMRQ
In addition, here is the other documentary that Tony has recently produced called ‘Reasonable Cause’ which gives a good insight into the type of work that Tony has been engaged in and the type of information and evidence that he will be presenting at his court case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_AQMxvqWho&feature=player_embedded
Other members of Tony’s presentation team include:
Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK based group ‘Reinvestigate9/11′
Ray Savage: Former Counter Terrorism Officer who believes the official 9/11 story is not reasonable to believe
As well as these presenters there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from our four other 9/11 experts:
Richard Gage: CEO of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot & member of ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’
If you happen to be in the UK or reside there, please consider attending this historic court case to support Tony in this rare opportunity to have some of the true facts of 9/11 presented in a court of law and to have the BBC held to account for their support of the cover up of the true scientific evidence of 9/11.
For our friends in the USA, you ALSO have laws prohibiting the funding of terrorism – namely:
18 USC § 2339C – Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism
(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—
(A) an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).
Many thanks
AE911Truth -UK Action Group – on behalf of Tony Rooke
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
54 countries helped CIA to kidnap, detain and torture – report
RT reports:
An IKONOS satellite image of a facility near Kabul, Afghanistan taken on July 17, 2003. A Washington Post on November 2, 2005 refers to this facility as the largest CIA covert prison in Afghanistan, code-named the Salt Pit (Reuters / Space Imaging Middle East)
At least 54 countries including Syria, Iran, Sweden, Iceland, and UK offered CIA “covert support” to detain, transport, interrogate and torture suspects in the years following the 9/11 attacks, according to a new report.
The 213-page report released by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), a New York-based human rights organization, documents wide-ranging international involvement in the American campaign against Al-Qaeda.
The report, titled Globalizing Torture, provides a detailed account of other countries covertly helping the US to run secret prisons, also known as ‘black sites’ on their territory and allowing the CIA to use national airports for refueling while transporting prisoners.
Countries listed in the report include many from the Middle East and Europe.
The OSJI identifies Syria and Iran as two participants of the CIA’s rendition program.
“Syria detained, interrogated, and tortured extraordinarily-rendered individuals. It was one of the ‘most common destinations for rendered suspects’,” states the report. “The CIA rendered at least nine individuals to Syria between December 2001 and October 2002.”
Canadian Maher Arar holds up a shirt that he says he wore during his detention in Syria as he addresses a European Parliament hearing on allegations that the CIA used European countries for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, in Brussels, March 23, 2006. Arar was sent to Syria for interrogation after being arrested at a New York airport in 2002 (Reuters / Francois Lenoir)
Syria also had detention facilities that were used by the CIA, where “detainees report incidents of torture involving a chair frame used to stretch the spine (the ‘German chair’) and beatings.”
Iran has helped CIA by handing over 15 individuals to Kabul, after the US invasion of Afghanistan, knowing that they would be placed under the US control.
In Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Jordan, Afghanistan, Malawi and Morocco the existence of secret prisons and the use of torture are documented.
The report describes Egypt as “the country to which the greatest numbers of rendered suspects have been sent [by the US].” Many suspects held in Egypt described having been tortured.
Pakistan is said to have detained 672 alleged Al-Qaeda members and transferred 369 to Afghanistan and/or to Guantanamo Bay.
There are grave reports of torture documented in Morocco. Detainees described torture over several months. One individual, Binyam Mohamed, was transferred by the CIA to Morocco in July 2002, “where his interrogators broke his bones while beating him, sliced his genitals, poured hot liquid onto his penis while cutting it, and threatened him with rape, electrocution and death.”
The list also includes states such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Greece and Cyprus. All of the above secretly helped the CIA by granting the use of their airspace and airports for aircraft involved in rendition flights.
Canada is identified as going beyond that and providing the CIA with information about one of its nationals that led to his capture, detention and rendition to Syria.
European countries such as the UK, Sweden and Italy even helped to apprehend individuals, interrogate and transfer them.
Countries such as France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Russia are not listed at all.
Report locates ‘black sites’
States such as Poland, Lithuania and Romania are accused of accommodating secret prisons on their territories.
Poland is said to have “hosted a secret CIA prison on its territory, assisted with the transfer of secretly detained individuals in and out of Poland, including to other secret detention sites, and permitted the use of its airspace and airports for such transfers,” according to the report.
An aerial view shows a watch tower of an airport in Szymany, close to Szczytno in northeastern Poland, September 9, 2008. The European Union, human watchdogs identified the airport as a potential site which the CIA used to transfer al Qaeda suspects to a nearby prison. (Reuters / Kacper Pempel)
A CIA-run prison was discovered in a small Polish remote village Stare Kiejkuty, which was operational from December 2002 to the fall of 2003. It was used to transport suspected Al-Qaeda members outside US territory to interrogate them without having to adhere to US law.
The Polish government began an investigation into the secret prison in 2008. It is the second country to have opened a criminal investigation into the matter, after Lithuania (though that case has since been closed).
A secret CIA prison in Romania was revealed by Human Rights Watch in November 2005. The report notes CIA planes ‘dropping off’ detainees and leaving.
“The CIA brokered ‘operating agreements’ with the Government…of Romania to hold ‘high value detainees’ on a secret detention facility on Romanian territory.”
Romanian authorities have denied any existence of a secret CIA prison.
The secondary entrance of Romania's National Registry Office for Classified Information (ORNISS) headquarters is seen in Bucharest, December 9, 2011. International media reported that between 2003 and 2006, the CIA operated a secret prison from the building's basement. (Reuters / Stringer)
In Lithuania the secret prison is said to have held “up to eight ‘high value detainees’ at the facility until late 2005.” The prison was located in Antaviliai, about 20km from the capital, Vilnius, and owned by Elite LLC, a former CIA front company.
Villagers living close to the site reported that “English-speaking construction workers brought shipping containers filled with building materials to the site, and built a large, two-story building without windows, ringed by a metal fence and security cameras.”
The training centre of the Lithuanian State Security Department, the country's domestic intelligence agency, in Antavilis near Vilnius November 17, 2009. Lithuanian lawmakers investigated allegations that the site housed a secret CIA prison for al Qaeda suspects in 2004-2005 (Reuters / Ints Kalnins)
Report’s goals
The OSJI argues that the US could not have carried out its covert operations without the support of other countries and those who helped the US should be held accountable.
"But responsibility for these violations does not end with the United States. Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, designed to be conducted outside the United States under cover of secrecy, could not have been implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These governments too must be held accountable,” the report states.
In addition, the report identifies 136 people who were detained or transferred by the CIA and specifies when and where the prisoners were held, creating the largest list in existence today.
The goal of OSJI is to force US to end the rendition program, terminate all of its remaining secret prisons, and open a criminal investigation into human rights abuses.
Also, the report calls upon other countries to stop their covert support of CIA programs and to hold past participants responsible.
-------
This is the list of "collaborators countries":
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
An IKONOS satellite image of a facility near Kabul, Afghanistan taken on July 17, 2003. A Washington Post on November 2, 2005 refers to this facility as the largest CIA covert prison in Afghanistan, code-named the Salt Pit (Reuters / Space Imaging Middle East)
At least 54 countries including Syria, Iran, Sweden, Iceland, and UK offered CIA “covert support” to detain, transport, interrogate and torture suspects in the years following the 9/11 attacks, according to a new report.
The 213-page report released by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), a New York-based human rights organization, documents wide-ranging international involvement in the American campaign against Al-Qaeda.
The report, titled Globalizing Torture, provides a detailed account of other countries covertly helping the US to run secret prisons, also known as ‘black sites’ on their territory and allowing the CIA to use national airports for refueling while transporting prisoners.
Countries listed in the report include many from the Middle East and Europe.
The OSJI identifies Syria and Iran as two participants of the CIA’s rendition program.
“Syria detained, interrogated, and tortured extraordinarily-rendered individuals. It was one of the ‘most common destinations for rendered suspects’,” states the report. “The CIA rendered at least nine individuals to Syria between December 2001 and October 2002.”
Canadian Maher Arar holds up a shirt that he says he wore during his detention in Syria as he addresses a European Parliament hearing on allegations that the CIA used European countries for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, in Brussels, March 23, 2006. Arar was sent to Syria for interrogation after being arrested at a New York airport in 2002 (Reuters / Francois Lenoir)
Syria also had detention facilities that were used by the CIA, where “detainees report incidents of torture involving a chair frame used to stretch the spine (the ‘German chair’) and beatings.”
Iran has helped CIA by handing over 15 individuals to Kabul, after the US invasion of Afghanistan, knowing that they would be placed under the US control.
In Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Jordan, Afghanistan, Malawi and Morocco the existence of secret prisons and the use of torture are documented.
The report describes Egypt as “the country to which the greatest numbers of rendered suspects have been sent [by the US].” Many suspects held in Egypt described having been tortured.
Pakistan is said to have detained 672 alleged Al-Qaeda members and transferred 369 to Afghanistan and/or to Guantanamo Bay.
There are grave reports of torture documented in Morocco. Detainees described torture over several months. One individual, Binyam Mohamed, was transferred by the CIA to Morocco in July 2002, “where his interrogators broke his bones while beating him, sliced his genitals, poured hot liquid onto his penis while cutting it, and threatened him with rape, electrocution and death.”
The list also includes states such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Greece and Cyprus. All of the above secretly helped the CIA by granting the use of their airspace and airports for aircraft involved in rendition flights.
Canada is identified as going beyond that and providing the CIA with information about one of its nationals that led to his capture, detention and rendition to Syria.
European countries such as the UK, Sweden and Italy even helped to apprehend individuals, interrogate and transfer them.
Countries such as France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Russia are not listed at all.
Report locates ‘black sites’
States such as Poland, Lithuania and Romania are accused of accommodating secret prisons on their territories.
Poland is said to have “hosted a secret CIA prison on its territory, assisted with the transfer of secretly detained individuals in and out of Poland, including to other secret detention sites, and permitted the use of its airspace and airports for such transfers,” according to the report.
An aerial view shows a watch tower of an airport in Szymany, close to Szczytno in northeastern Poland, September 9, 2008. The European Union, human watchdogs identified the airport as a potential site which the CIA used to transfer al Qaeda suspects to a nearby prison. (Reuters / Kacper Pempel)
A CIA-run prison was discovered in a small Polish remote village Stare Kiejkuty, which was operational from December 2002 to the fall of 2003. It was used to transport suspected Al-Qaeda members outside US territory to interrogate them without having to adhere to US law.
The Polish government began an investigation into the secret prison in 2008. It is the second country to have opened a criminal investigation into the matter, after Lithuania (though that case has since been closed).
A secret CIA prison in Romania was revealed by Human Rights Watch in November 2005. The report notes CIA planes ‘dropping off’ detainees and leaving.
“The CIA brokered ‘operating agreements’ with the Government…of Romania to hold ‘high value detainees’ on a secret detention facility on Romanian territory.”
Romanian authorities have denied any existence of a secret CIA prison.
The secondary entrance of Romania's National Registry Office for Classified Information (ORNISS) headquarters is seen in Bucharest, December 9, 2011. International media reported that between 2003 and 2006, the CIA operated a secret prison from the building's basement. (Reuters / Stringer)
In Lithuania the secret prison is said to have held “up to eight ‘high value detainees’ at the facility until late 2005.” The prison was located in Antaviliai, about 20km from the capital, Vilnius, and owned by Elite LLC, a former CIA front company.
Villagers living close to the site reported that “English-speaking construction workers brought shipping containers filled with building materials to the site, and built a large, two-story building without windows, ringed by a metal fence and security cameras.”
The training centre of the Lithuanian State Security Department, the country's domestic intelligence agency, in Antavilis near Vilnius November 17, 2009. Lithuanian lawmakers investigated allegations that the site housed a secret CIA prison for al Qaeda suspects in 2004-2005 (Reuters / Ints Kalnins)
Report’s goals
The OSJI argues that the US could not have carried out its covert operations without the support of other countries and those who helped the US should be held accountable.
"But responsibility for these violations does not end with the United States. Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, designed to be conducted outside the United States under cover of secrecy, could not have been implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These governments too must be held accountable,” the report states.
In addition, the report identifies 136 people who were detained or transferred by the CIA and specifies when and where the prisoners were held, creating the largest list in existence today.
The goal of OSJI is to force US to end the rendition program, terminate all of its remaining secret prisons, and open a criminal investigation into human rights abuses.
Also, the report calls upon other countries to stop their covert support of CIA programs and to hold past participants responsible.
-------
This is the list of "collaborators countries":
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
Monday, February 4, 2013
New study sheds light on the origin of the European Jewish population
Phys.org reports:
Despite being one of the most genetically analysed groups, the origin of European Jews has remained obscure. However, a new study published online today in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution by Dr Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, argues that the European Jewish genome is a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, setting to rest previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. Elhaik's findings strongly support the Khazarian Hypothesis, as opposed to the Rhineland Hypothesis, of European Jewish origins. This could have a major impact on the ways in which scientists study genetic disorders within the population.
The Rhineland Hypothesis has been the favoured explanation for the origins of present-day European Jews, until now. In this scenario Jews descended from Israelite-Canaanite tribes left the Holy Land for Europe in the 7th century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they maintained high endogamy, and despite wars, persecution, disease, plagues, and economic hardships, their population expanded rapidly to around 8 million in the 20th century. Due to the implausibility of such an event, this rapid expansion was explained by Prof Harry Ostrer, Dr Gil Atzmon, and colleagues as a miracle. Under the Rhineland Hypothesis, European Jews would be very similar to each other and would have a predominant Middle Eastern ancestry.
The rival explanation, the Khazarian Hypothesis, states that the Jewish-convert Khazars – a confederation of Turkic, Iranian, and Mongol tribes who lived in what is now Southern Russia, north of Georgia and east of Ukraine, and who converted to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries – along with groups of Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews, formed the basis of eastern Europe's Jewish population when they fled eastward, following the collapse of their empire in the 13th century. European Jews are thus expected to exhibit heterogeneity between different communities. While there is no doubt that the Judeo-Khazars fled into Eastern Europe and contributed to the establishment of Eastern European Jewry, argument has revolved around the magnitude of that contribution.
Dr Elhaik's paper, 'The missing link of Jewish European ancestry: contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses', examined a comprehensive dataset of 1,287 unrelated individuals of 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations genotyped over 531,315 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). This was data published by Doron Behar and colleagues in 2010, which Elhaik used to calculate seven measures of ancestry, relatedness, admixture, allele sharing distances, geographical origins, and migration patterns. These identified the Caucasus-Near Eastern and European ancestral signatures in the European Jews' genome along with a smaller, but substantial Middle Eastern genome.
The results were consistent in depicting a Caucasus ancestry for all European Jews. The analysis showed a tight genetic relationship between European Jews and Caucasus populations and pinpointed the biogeographic origin of the European Jews to the south of Khazaria, 560 kilometers from Samandar –Khazaria's capital city. Further analyses yielded a complex multi-ethnical ancestry with a slightly dominant Caucasus -Near Eastern, large South European and Middle Eastern ancestries, and a minor Eastern European contribution.
Dr Elhaik writes, "The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus and later Khazaria was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road, the decline of Judah (1st-7th centuries), and the rise of Christianity and Islam. Greco-Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were intensified following the Khazars' conversion to Judaism… The religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed most of the Empire's citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years until the invasion of the Mongols. At the final collapse of their empire in the 13th century, many of the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the neighbouring populations."
Dr Elhaik's findings consolidate, otherwise conflicting results describing high heterogeneity among Jewish communities and relatedness to Middle Eastern, Southern European, and Caucasus populations that are not explained under the Rhineland Hypothesis. Although Dr Elhaik's study linked European Jews to the Khazars, there are still questions to be answered. How substantial is the Iranian ancestry in modern day Jews? Since Eastern European Jews arrived from the Caucasus, where did Central and Western European Jews come from? If there was no mass migration out of Palestine at the 7th century, what happened to the ancient Judeans?
And crucially for Dr Elhaik, how would these new findings affect disease studies on Jews and Eurasian populations?
"Epidemiologists studying genetic disorders are constantly struggling with questions regarding ancestry, heterogeneity, and how to account for them," he says. "I hope this work will open up a new era in genetic studies where population stratification will be used more correctly."
More information: 'The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses' by Eran Elhaik, Genome Biology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evs119
Despite being one of the most genetically analysed groups, the origin of European Jews has remained obscure. However, a new study published online today in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution by Dr Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, argues that the European Jewish genome is a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, setting to rest previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. Elhaik's findings strongly support the Khazarian Hypothesis, as opposed to the Rhineland Hypothesis, of European Jewish origins. This could have a major impact on the ways in which scientists study genetic disorders within the population.
The Rhineland Hypothesis has been the favoured explanation for the origins of present-day European Jews, until now. In this scenario Jews descended from Israelite-Canaanite tribes left the Holy Land for Europe in the 7th century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they maintained high endogamy, and despite wars, persecution, disease, plagues, and economic hardships, their population expanded rapidly to around 8 million in the 20th century. Due to the implausibility of such an event, this rapid expansion was explained by Prof Harry Ostrer, Dr Gil Atzmon, and colleagues as a miracle. Under the Rhineland Hypothesis, European Jews would be very similar to each other and would have a predominant Middle Eastern ancestry.
 |
| Khazaria map from 600 till 850 AD |
Dr Elhaik's paper, 'The missing link of Jewish European ancestry: contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses', examined a comprehensive dataset of 1,287 unrelated individuals of 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations genotyped over 531,315 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). This was data published by Doron Behar and colleagues in 2010, which Elhaik used to calculate seven measures of ancestry, relatedness, admixture, allele sharing distances, geographical origins, and migration patterns. These identified the Caucasus-Near Eastern and European ancestral signatures in the European Jews' genome along with a smaller, but substantial Middle Eastern genome.
The results were consistent in depicting a Caucasus ancestry for all European Jews. The analysis showed a tight genetic relationship between European Jews and Caucasus populations and pinpointed the biogeographic origin of the European Jews to the south of Khazaria, 560 kilometers from Samandar –Khazaria's capital city. Further analyses yielded a complex multi-ethnical ancestry with a slightly dominant Caucasus -Near Eastern, large South European and Middle Eastern ancestries, and a minor Eastern European contribution.
Dr Elhaik writes, "The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus and later Khazaria was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road, the decline of Judah (1st-7th centuries), and the rise of Christianity and Islam. Greco-Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were intensified following the Khazars' conversion to Judaism… The religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed most of the Empire's citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years until the invasion of the Mongols. At the final collapse of their empire in the 13th century, many of the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the neighbouring populations."
Dr Elhaik's findings consolidate, otherwise conflicting results describing high heterogeneity among Jewish communities and relatedness to Middle Eastern, Southern European, and Caucasus populations that are not explained under the Rhineland Hypothesis. Although Dr Elhaik's study linked European Jews to the Khazars, there are still questions to be answered. How substantial is the Iranian ancestry in modern day Jews? Since Eastern European Jews arrived from the Caucasus, where did Central and Western European Jews come from? If there was no mass migration out of Palestine at the 7th century, what happened to the ancient Judeans?
And crucially for Dr Elhaik, how would these new findings affect disease studies on Jews and Eurasian populations?
"Epidemiologists studying genetic disorders are constantly struggling with questions regarding ancestry, heterogeneity, and how to account for them," he says. "I hope this work will open up a new era in genetic studies where population stratification will be used more correctly."
More information: 'The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses' by Eran Elhaik, Genome Biology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evs119
The scum of the earth
RT reports: Saudi preacher gets fine and short jail term for raping and killing daughter
Image from facebook.com @We-are-supporting-Manal-Alsharif claims to show Fayhan Ghamdi
Public anger has gripped Saudi Arabia after a prominent preacher who raped and beat to death his 5-year-old daughter was sentenced to a few months in jail and a $50,000 fine – known as 'blood money' – to compensate the victim's relatives.
According to Islamic law, the 'blood money' can be paid in lieu of the death penalty. The preacher's fine was reportedly half the usual amount because the victim was a girl.
Saudi preacher Fayhan Ghamdi, a frequent guest on Muslim TV networks, confessed to using cables and a cane to inflict the injuries, AFP reported, quoting activists from the group ‘Women to Drive.’
Ghamdi reportedly doubted that his daughter, Lama Ghamdi, was a virgin, and forced her to undergo a medical inspection.
In December 2011, Lama was admitted to hospital with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, and extensive bruising and burns, according to the activist group. Hospital worker Randa Kaleeb said that the girl's back was broken, and that she had been raped "everywhere."
Lama al-Ghamdi (Screenshot from youtube.com)
The hospital told the victim's mother that her child's “rectum had been torn open and the abuser had attempted to burn it closed,” AFP reported on Saturday.
In October 2012, the girl died from her injuries. The following November, the father was arrested. The judge ruled that the "blood money and the time the defendant had served in prison since Lama's death suffices as punishment," activists reported.
The incident sparked public anger in Saudi Arabia, prompting an online Twitter campaign calling for more severe punishment for violence against women and children. The 'Women to Drive' campaign, launched by women's rights activist Manal Sharif, has demanded the creation of legislation that would criminalize violence against women and children.
The petition is circulating on Twitter under the hashtag 'Ana Lama' – "I am Lama" in Arabic.
The issue has gained widespread traction in Saudi Arabia, and authorities promised to set up a 24-hour hotline that will take calls regarding child abuse.
-------
Other stories from the wonderful KSA:
- 90-year-old Saudi man buys underage girl for marriage
- Saudi Arabia orders walls in shops to divide male, female coworkers
- Saudi Arabia beheads young migrant maid for killing infant
- Sharia police state? Saudi husbands can track wives’ travels electronically
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The new Iranian "stealth"(?) fighter: more questions than answers
Iran has unveiled its latest indigenously built fighter, the Qaher-313. Check out the Press TV report:
When I saw this video I was rather baffled as many things just looked *wrong* to me. I then contacted one of my readers who knows a great deal about military aeronautics (thanks C.!) to compare notes, and it rapidly turned out that he also had many unanswered questions. So let's take them one by one:
The aircraft is amazingly small. How can a fighter-bomber be so small and have enough fuel and weapons on board to be useful? Keep in mind that the Iranians claims that this is a low radar visibility aircraft, in which case not only can not carry external fuel tanks under its wings (which are very visible on radar), it has to carry its weapons inside a special weapons bay. Where does this aircraft fit all this?
The Iranians told us nothing about the engine, but this is clearly a single engine aircraft which I would consider a poor choice for any combat aircraft, but this is a particularly bad choice for a fighter-bomber. What kind of thrust-to-weight ratio can this aircraft develop, in particular when loaded up with fuel and weapons?
The Iranians say that this aircraft is designed for low flight, but that then begs the question of the extreme vulnerability of any single engine aircraft to missile and gun fire. And if you add armor to protect such a penetrator, you add lots of weight, but that means even more engine power! That also means a much bigger aircraft, something like the Russian SU-34.
The radar radome on the of the Qaher-313 is also tiny. While you could, in theory, probably fit a radar like the Kopyo in there, the Iranians have never, as far as I know, produced their own radars, nevermind one capable of both air-to-air and air-to-surface modes.
Then there is the issue of the canards. To me, they appear to be both very big (which increases radar reflectivity) and, worse, fixed. If my later supposition is correct, then this will increase lift, but at the cost of drag, and this would indicate very old avionics.
The engine is fully covered by a red plastic shield, but it is clear that the exhaust is really small. Combine that with a small aircraft size, and tells me that this bird could probably not even fit a MiG-29 type of engine (the RD-33). And since we are on the engine topic, Iran has never, as far as I know, developed its own advanced engines.
The cockpit has two nice features: the pilot is reclining and seems to have an excellent view and the cockpit it has large multi-functional displays. What is entirely missing is a head-up display (HUD). Also, the canopy does not appear to have any sealing. Weird.
Finally, in some angles the paint job appears to be terrible, even in the crucial front part of the plane.
So if I had to conclude something, and I am basing that only on the few videos and photos I have seen, I would say that this is a mock-up, not even a real plane. However, there is at least one video out there which appears to show this aircraft in actual flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPUqSmrNhIc
Since don't speak Farsi, I do not know what the commentary says, but on the grainy images this does appear to be the same aircraft.
Strange no?
Now, assuming the real fighter is much bigger, and assuming it has something like an RD-33 inside and a Kopyo radar does not solve the riddle either: the Iranians claim that this is an entirely indigenous aircraft. Or are they referring only to the airframe?
There are original features to this aircraft for sure, the wings have a unique shape and no apparent leading-edge extensions (LEX) while the canards are almost as big as the wings. The engine intakes are tiny, and placed high near the top of the aircraft, right behind the cockpit. All this is rather unique and very different from what has been done in the USA, Russia or China.
I find this absolutely fascinating. Even if we are dealing only with a pure proof of concept aircraft, or a testing platform like the SU-47, this still shows that the Iranians are way ahead of all their neighbors and that they are working on interesting and original solutions.
Still, Iran supporters (like myself) should remain very realistic. As far as I know, Iran has never developed any indigenous advanced fighter engine, Iran has never developed an advanced military radar and Iran has never developed the type of advanced fly by wire avionics needed to fly a low radar visibility aircraft. Bottom line - while Iran is probably making much progress in many fields, I don't see it developing an aircraft in the same league as what the USA have already deployed or even what Russia and China are working on. At least not in the foreseeable future (next 5-10 years).
The Saker
When I saw this video I was rather baffled as many things just looked *wrong* to me. I then contacted one of my readers who knows a great deal about military aeronautics (thanks C.!) to compare notes, and it rapidly turned out that he also had many unanswered questions. So let's take them one by one:
The aircraft is amazingly small. How can a fighter-bomber be so small and have enough fuel and weapons on board to be useful? Keep in mind that the Iranians claims that this is a low radar visibility aircraft, in which case not only can not carry external fuel tanks under its wings (which are very visible on radar), it has to carry its weapons inside a special weapons bay. Where does this aircraft fit all this?
The Iranians told us nothing about the engine, but this is clearly a single engine aircraft which I would consider a poor choice for any combat aircraft, but this is a particularly bad choice for a fighter-bomber. What kind of thrust-to-weight ratio can this aircraft develop, in particular when loaded up with fuel and weapons?
The Iranians say that this aircraft is designed for low flight, but that then begs the question of the extreme vulnerability of any single engine aircraft to missile and gun fire. And if you add armor to protect such a penetrator, you add lots of weight, but that means even more engine power! That also means a much bigger aircraft, something like the Russian SU-34.
The radar radome on the of the Qaher-313 is also tiny. While you could, in theory, probably fit a radar like the Kopyo in there, the Iranians have never, as far as I know, produced their own radars, nevermind one capable of both air-to-air and air-to-surface modes.
Then there is the issue of the canards. To me, they appear to be both very big (which increases radar reflectivity) and, worse, fixed. If my later supposition is correct, then this will increase lift, but at the cost of drag, and this would indicate very old avionics.
The engine is fully covered by a red plastic shield, but it is clear that the exhaust is really small. Combine that with a small aircraft size, and tells me that this bird could probably not even fit a MiG-29 type of engine (the RD-33). And since we are on the engine topic, Iran has never, as far as I know, developed its own advanced engines.
The cockpit has two nice features: the pilot is reclining and seems to have an excellent view and the cockpit it has large multi-functional displays. What is entirely missing is a head-up display (HUD). Also, the canopy does not appear to have any sealing. Weird.
Finally, in some angles the paint job appears to be terrible, even in the crucial front part of the plane.
So if I had to conclude something, and I am basing that only on the few videos and photos I have seen, I would say that this is a mock-up, not even a real plane. However, there is at least one video out there which appears to show this aircraft in actual flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPUqSmrNhIc
Since don't speak Farsi, I do not know what the commentary says, but on the grainy images this does appear to be the same aircraft.
Strange no?
Now, assuming the real fighter is much bigger, and assuming it has something like an RD-33 inside and a Kopyo radar does not solve the riddle either: the Iranians claim that this is an entirely indigenous aircraft. Or are they referring only to the airframe?
There are original features to this aircraft for sure, the wings have a unique shape and no apparent leading-edge extensions (LEX) while the canards are almost as big as the wings. The engine intakes are tiny, and placed high near the top of the aircraft, right behind the cockpit. All this is rather unique and very different from what has been done in the USA, Russia or China.
I find this absolutely fascinating. Even if we are dealing only with a pure proof of concept aircraft, or a testing platform like the SU-47, this still shows that the Iranians are way ahead of all their neighbors and that they are working on interesting and original solutions.
Still, Iran supporters (like myself) should remain very realistic. As far as I know, Iran has never developed any indigenous advanced fighter engine, Iran has never developed an advanced military radar and Iran has never developed the type of advanced fly by wire avionics needed to fly a low radar visibility aircraft. Bottom line - while Iran is probably making much progress in many fields, I don't see it developing an aircraft in the same league as what the USA have already deployed or even what Russia and China are working on. At least not in the foreseeable future (next 5-10 years).
The Saker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
