Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Che sta *veramente* succedendo in MO? The Conquest of Southwest Asia (Asia Times)

Un articolo illuminante, IMHO,  per capire la strategia USA in MO, e i 
suoi limiti. Asia Times ultimamente fa faville...
Am.
'WAR ON TERROR' REVISITED 
The conquest of Southwest Asia 
 By Pepe Escobar 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is 
simply ridiculous ... And having said that, all options are on the 
table." 
 - President George W Bush, Brussels, February 22
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick 
Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command 
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response 
to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan 
includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional 
and tactical nuclear weapons ... Many of the targets are hardened or are 
deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, 
hence the nuclear option. - American Conservative  , July 22
BEIRUT - Just one day after the London July bombings, one
 remarkably named Aseem Jihad, a spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry, 
told Iraqi media that 11 southern Iraqi oil fields, capable of producing 
at least 3 million barrels a day, were being put up for tender to 
international investors, to the tune of US$25 billion. 
 With oil prices possibly going to $100 a barrel in the not-too-distant 
future, there could hardly be better news for the oil industry. There is 
always the possibility that all those billions will never end up at 
Iraq's Oil Ministry, to the benefit of the Iraqi people - but will fill 
the pockets of oil barons, militias operating at Iraq's Interior 
Ministry and Bush administration-supported middlemen ("Western 
contractors", "couriers", "intelligence assets", brokers, even tribal 
leaders) in Baghdad. 
 That's exactly what happened to $8.8 billion of Iraqi money which 
simply "disappeared" between October 2003 and July 2004 under the watch 
of former US proconsul L Paul Bremer. 
 Moreover, the powerful oil plutocracy also does not have to worry about 
any Iraqi legal matters, as President George W Bush's Executive Order 
13303 - which guarantees that any "judicial process" against any 
American corporate interests involved in any way with Iraq's oil "shall 
be deemed null and void" - was recently renewed. For global cynics, this 
is in fact the whole point of the "war on terror". 
Subsidizing Osama bin Laden
 But that was before the destruction of New Orleans. An illegal war of 
aggression against Iraq, decimation en masse of Iraqi civilians, the Abu 
Ghraib torture chambers, the Pentagon incapable of occupying Baghdad or 
controlling even the road from the airport to the Green Zone, impotent 
against a few thousand guerrillas armed with Kalashnikovs and improvised 
explosive devices - it is all graphically mixed with the scenario of a 
military hyperpower abandoning one of its own greatest cities to 
catastrophe. 
 It was not supposed to be this way. But even before Katrina bared it 
all, there was an uneasy feeling - not only in the Middle East - that 
the Bush administration was in fact subsidizing Osama bin Laden and 
Ayman al-Zawahiri to the tune of $300 billion, and counting, in American 
taxpayers' money, by transforming Iraq into a preferred training ground 
for al-Qaeda. So what's with this "war on terror?" 
 During the first part of 2005, the first Bush administration's "war on 
terror" had been softly mutating into what it was supposed to mean in 
the first place: the conquest of Eurasia, and in the near term, 
Southwest Asia. The contours of the new religion were carefully spun by 
Washington. 
 Neo-conservative Robert Kagan, co-founder of the ultra-hawkish Project 
for the New American Century (PNAC), was one of the first to admit it 
was all a question of branding. Kagan was overjoyed that Bush had 
overtaken the very narrow limits of the "war on terror" to dive into the 
limitless conceptual ocean of a (paradoxical) "democracy by force". 
Kagan argued that this new paradigm was more "realist" and stood a 
better chance of garnering global support. 
 Not really. Already six months ago, a poll in Germany, France, Britain, 
Spain and Italy revealed that almost seven out of 10 Western Europeans 
(80% in Germany, 84% in France) think Bush has no business whatsoever 
"spreading freedom and democracy" to other countries. A poll by 
Germany's Die Welt revealed that even Russian President Vladimir Putin 
is more trusted than Bush, especially in eastern Germany. In Germany, 
France, Britain, Spain and Italy a clear majority, by historical 
experience, knows that democracy cannot be instituted as an ersatz of 
political religion. 
 Meanwhile, from Washington's perspective, there was no point anymore in 
waging a "war on terror" in response to a perceived radical Islamist 
threat. The (original) point is - what else? - messianic: the world has 
to be bent and shaped so as to conform to America's beliefs. But 
eventually even Americans - three in every four, according to the latest 
polls - repudiated the new branding, heavily promoted by PNAC, the 
American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Washington 
Institute for Near East Policy and other rightwing think tanks. It was 
perceived that imposing democracy by force - which is nothing but social 
engineering - never applied to Washington allies, as distasteful as they 
might be, but only to Washington's designated enemies. 
 Whatever the mood in public opinion, the National Defense Strategy of 
the United States - which explicitly endorses unilateral pre-emptive 
strikes - remains very much in place. The Bush administration 
self-declares that it retains a unique "right" to engage in a 
"pre-emptive/preventive" war against anyone, anywhere, any time, even at 
a mere suspicion of being subjectively threatened by the theoretical 
possibility that it might be "attacked" at some undefined place in an 
indefinite future. 
 But even more crucial: any diplomatic or legal disagreement with the US 
under international law is regarded as such an "attack", or as a form of 
"asymmetric warfare". So to diplomatically attack the US may also be 
regarded as an act of terrorism. Then there's the new Central 
Intelligence Agency (CIA)"license to kill" any time, anywhere, all over 
the world, without any supervision - with missile-armed drones having 
already conducted selected assassinations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and 
Yemen. 
Franchising revolution 
 The rebranding of the "war on terror" meant that Bush would fashion his 
own Greater Middle East, with the attribution of good grades to all 
identified good pupils: these include Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and most 
of all Hosni Mubarak's Egypt. Palestine should be appeased by a fistfull 
of dollars. Saudi Arabia will be kept in quarantine. The "bad" students 
are targets: Syria, Lebanon (to its Hezbollah extent), and Iran. These 
will have to be integrated into the Greater Middle East by hard, not 
soft power. 
 The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) employed leading, 
independent Arab scholars to draft its widely praised 2004 report on 
Arab human development. The scholars stressed the absence of freedom in 
privileged American allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as 
Washington's hypocrisy in defining allies Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and 
Tunisia as "democratic". The Arabs interviewed by the UNDP scholars all 
stressed they want "liberation from foreign occupation and the freedoms 
of opinion, expression and movement". 
 Arabs have all the reasons in the world to suspect Western pledges of 
democracy. Both Britain and France are former colonizers. The Iraqi 
revolt against British occupation in the early 1920s was repressed with 
poison gas. France suppressed Syrian resistance against occupation 
twice, in 1925-27 and again in 1945. The US fully approves the 
38-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestine. For the majority of Arab 
public opinion, the second Bush administration's rhetoric of 
"democratization" just masks a neo-colonial design. 
 The problem for Washington was always how to implement its vision. The 
working assumption in many chancelleries around the world is that the 
Pentagon would not hesitate to attack both Syria and Iran. Diplomats 
scoff at the CIA's assessment that regime change in both cases is 
possible without a military operation. Both Iran and Syria cannot 
compare to an Iraq already destroyed by two wars and 12 years of 
sanctions and embargo. Syria has no means to defend itself against 
awesome American firepower; but it could attack Israel. Iran holds 
strategic Russian missiles; it could blow up supertankers in the Persian 
Gulf, block the Hormuz Strait and wreak havoc on the world economy. 
 Then there's the Lebanese case. Neo-cons widely praised the so-called 
"Cedar" revolution, dubbed by cynics the Gucci Revolution. Before the 
latest elections, a poll conducted by social science students from the 
Lebanese University in Greater Beirut revealed that only 26% supported 
UN Resolution 1559 ? which called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops - 
while a whopping 68% were against it. And only 18% were in favor of 
disarming Hezbollah, while 72 % were against it. 
 This raises the question, why should the Syrians leave Lebanon when 
nobody says the US must leave Iraq? This is even more nonsensical when 
one considers that the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave, while 
only a relative minority of Lebanese - according to the polls - wanted 
the Syrians to leave. 
 The results of the poll were not particularly striking when one 
considers that the majority of Lebanese, from 55% to 60%, are Shi'ites. 
The two major Shi'ite movements - Amal and Hezbollah - are still aligned 
with Syria, for many complex reasons. Moreover, there is also a loose 
coalition of independents, Arab nationalists, communists, socialists and 
Nasserists. Behind the Bush administration's slogans - "freedom", 
"democracy" - Lebanese factionalism and sectarianism remains extremely 
powerful. 
 There was one Syrian soldier in Lebanon for every 270 Lebanese. There 
is one US occupation soldier in Iraq for every 170 Iraqis. The second 
Bush administration insisted Syria must leave Lebanon, but it puts no 
pressure on Israel to leave the Syrian Golan Heights, illegally occupied 
since 1967 and illegally settled with 18,000 Israelis. This area of the 
Golan Heights is three times bigger than Gaza. 
 The "franchised revolutions" engineered by organizations such as the 
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and an acronym tsunami of 
"democratic" organizations staffed by neo-cons and proponents of 
neo-liberalism work, like the "Orange" Ukrainian model, by taking over 
countries using a massive, camera-friendly PR campaign manipulating 
calls for "democracy" and "freedom", which always create the illusion 
that the whole population is united. The whole population was not united 
in Ukraine, as it was not united behind the Gucci revolution in Lebanon. 
 The ultimate aim of "franchised revolutions" and "democracy promotion" 
is to replace the traditional elites in old American or Russian 
satrapies, as well as former hostile regimes, with a new breed of 
genetically-programmed neo-liberal politicians trained and educated in 
the US. But this may be just a facade. The real important matters 
converge on running the American military bases that are now planted in 
138 countries all over the globe. 
Fighting Arab nationalism 
 Imad Fawzi al-Shuaibi, head of the Strategic Studies Center in 
Damascus, told al-Jazeera that former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik 
Hariri, "did have disagreements with Syria, but he did not call for the 
withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, or stir up hostility towards 
Syria or demand an end to Syria's role in Lebanon". Lebanese lawyer 
Bushra al-Khalil went one step ahead: he told al-Jazeera that "Hariri's 
death is part of the plan to divide the region into tiny helpless 
sectarian states. This plan has started in Iraq and it will continue to 
hit all other Arab countries." 
 It's clearly understood in vast swathes of the Middle East that the 
crucial trait of Bush's Greater Middle East implies a coup de grace 
against Arab nationalism - wherever it is manifested. It's always 
important to remember that most borders in the Arab world are totally 
artificial, imposed above all by British colonialism. 
 For Washington, the real enemy is not Islamic fundamentalism: it's Arab 
nationalism. For decades the ultimate target of Israeli foreign policy 
has been to sow disunion among Arabs. Secular Arab nationalism is the 
ultimate threat to Israel, thus to the US, in neo-con thinking. The crux 
is not religious: it's political. 
 Historically, over the past 20 years, radical Islam has been the key 
channel for expressing rage against Western exploitation - because every 
progressive channel of expression failed, or was thwarted, by corrupt, 
American-supported regimes. Radical Islam spent a long time fighting the 
rise of progressive nationalist movements in the Arab world: it became 
anti-Western only after the end of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan 
and the first Gulf War. 
 Progressive, secular Arab intellectuals stress that 
Washington-Jerusalem will never tolerate united Arab lands. They stress 
that the Greater Middle East package is pure "strategic intimidation" 
designed to "eliminate any form of Arab or Muslim unity considered as a 
threat to the US strategy, and that of its strategic ally, Israel", as 
Mahua Daoudi, a Syrian intellectual and scholar at the CNRS think tank 
in Geneva, put it. 
 As for the US, only the interfering methods diverge, not the 
objectives. The neo-cons writing in the Weekly Standard keep assuring 
the faithful that the only solution is total war in the Middle East, 
with more troops in Iraq and the bombing of Syrian villages suspected of 
supporting the Iraqi resistance. Francis "end of history" Fukuyama - a 
NED administrator - and former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, 
president of the Democrat branch of NED, for their part promote more 
docile methods. 
 There may be a debate raging within the American elites between the 
gung-go, armchair warrior neo-cons and the "exporting democracy" gang, 
but meanwhile the Greater Middle East concept keeps accumulating facts 
on the ground. The divisive project for the new Iraqi constitution, to 
be voted in the end of next week, is a mechanism to soften the partition 
of Iraq. 
 But in the Arab world, as Asia Times Online has learned, the fear is 
that the death of Iraq will mean in fact the death of Arab nationalism. 
That's the view, among others, of Abdullah al-Ashaal, a former planner 
at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: he sustains that 
de-Ba'athification is being instrumentalized to blow up the foundation 
of the Iraqi state; Iraq's Arab identity is being threatened so three 
statelets based on ethnic-religious differences may be created. 
 The same analysis is shared by Paris-based Lebanese Antoine Basbous, 
director of the Observatory of the Arab Countries. He confirms that 
pan-Arabism is a key target of Bush's Greater Middle East and is 
convinced Iraq's break up is inevitable, not so much because it was an 
initial American objective, but because now, with extremism being 
unleashed on all fronts, Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds are ready to go to 
battle to preserve their interests. More worringly, Basbous predicts 
that this pattern will be repeated all over the Middle East. 
 The neo-con allegation that democracy is incompatible with Islam is 
rubbish: Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey, all Muslim countries, 
are democracies. The specific - and crucial - problem of Arab lands is 
that the US cannot possibly promote democracy beyond mere rhetoric; 
otherwise its satraps and client states are in danger of being taken 
over by Islamist-leaning and certainly anti-US regimes. That would 
certainly be the case in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 
What is terror? 
 When the "war on terror" mantra was coined, it all boiled down to what 
are you going to sell to American and world public opinion. It was much 
easier to market a war against al-Qaeda - pictured as a cartoonish bunch 
of demented Arab, Wahhabi freaks with no agenda except evil destruction 
of the American way of life - than to tell the world about the real 
deal: as Arabs see it, this is a war against Arab nationalists bearing a 
very long list of widely-documented grievances and exploitation and a 
very clear, concrete set of demands: self-determination in all its forms 
all over the Arab world and the end of foreign occupation, domination 
and interference. 
 The key data in all this drama is what the people who live in the 
Middle East themselves think. A very helpful guide is a study on Middle 
Eastern public opinion - conducted in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and 
Palestine - and released by the Center for Strategic Studies at the 
University of Jordan. The results are devastating. One of the most 
important findings is that the Arab street does not identify a "clash of 
civilizations"; they identify their woes as direct consequences of 
British colonialism and US foreign policy. 
 In the poll the qualifications most associated with the US and the UK 
were "racist", "aggressive", "morally decadent" and "imperialistic". 
People were always very careful to note that they admired Western 
societies for their open atmosphere, individual liberties and technical 
progress, but they certainly don't envy the West's social problems. 
People in the Middle East are proud of their family and traditions. 
Their anger is fundamentally directed towards Anglo-American foreign 
policy. A majority considers that the US is run by a "Zionist lobby". 
Over 70% complain that the US and the UK try to dominate countries 
through the offer of foreign aid. And crucially, less than 20% of 
Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians see the US as supporting democracy 
in the region. 
 American and British policy in Iraq and US bias in the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict are almost universally rejected. Distrust 
of America is even higher among Middle Eastern youth. Only 15% to 20% of 
young people between the ages of 16 and 24 have anything good to say 
about the US. The majority supports Sharia law as a source for 
legislation. But only a tiny minority said they wanted a Taliban-like 
interpretation of Islamic law. 
 How is "terrorism" defined in the Middle East? For over 85% of the 
population in four of the five countries polled (64% in Lebanon), the US 
war on Iraq was an act of terrorism. Ninety percent in all countries 
polled say that Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians is terrorism. 
Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist groups: they are regarded as 
legitimate resistance organizations. For a majority of Jordanians and 
Palestinians, even al-Qaeda's fight is legitimate. And to top it all, 
the US is also seen as a major violator of human rights. The majority of 
people polled had just a simple wish: if only the Americans would leave 
us alone. 
 It won't happen, especially because the neo-con narrative remains the 
same: it's all about the conquest of Southwest Asia. But the former 
incarnation of the "war on terror" can always be exhumed - especially 
after the London bombings, or to compound the hysteria preceding attacks 
against Syria or Iran. The techniques are always the same: manipulation 
of public opinion; a widespread disinformation campaign; selected paid 
agents infiltrated in the media; paranoia campaign through color-coded 
terror alerts; alarmist announcements of another "inevitable" September 
11. As Vice President Dick Cheney himself has announced, just like the 
war against communism the "war on terror" will go on for decades. 
 It works. Only a few months ago, according to a Washington Post-ABC 
News poll - before the Iraq quagmire led Bush's number to collapse - 56% 
of Americans still believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 
the start of the war, while 60% believed Iraq was connected to al-Qaeda. 
The road to Damascus 
 An iron link is being slowly and carefully constructed by Washington 
hawks, by the use of the same techniques, between Syria, Iran (under its 
new "hardline" president), the Sunni Iraqi resistance and Palestinian 
nationalism, all depicted as "terrorist". In the case of Iran, there is 
the inevitable link with weapons of mass destruction, as it was 
constructed in the case of Iraq. 
 Things that really matter remain in the shade. Like the crucial, recent 
visit by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld to both Azerbaijan and 
Kyrgyzstan. There was no leak about the agenda. But immediately 
afterwards the commander of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in 
Europe, General James Jones, announced that the US planned to build 
military bases in the Azerbaijani portion of the Caspian Sea. Any 
geostrategist knows that Azerbaijan is the most convenient base in case 
of an American attack on Iran. Russian websites widely speculated on the 
probability of a lethal US-Russian confrontation, as Russia is allied 
with Iran and considers the Caspian its own "lake". 
 Syria, the weak link, is the next Washington target for destabilization 
in the next few months. The reason is simple: Syria is still committed 
to non-sectarian Arab nationalism, apart from being the only country in 
the region which has not yet succumbed to US-Israel pressure. At the 
same time, Washington will dramatically step up the pressure on Iran at 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) before the end of 2005; 
the process might lead to a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear 
facilities before the end of Bush's term. "Non-compliance" is the magic 
excuse - which Washington wants the IAEA to tell the UN Security 
Council - capable of justifying a pre-emptive attack. 
 It's still a case of "falling dominoes": first Iraq, then Syria and 
Iran, finally the Palestinians; the end result would be American 
domination of the whole Middle East, as far as neo-con doctrine goes. 
There are no doubts in this case on the axis which stands to profit: the 
fundamentalist Christian right, the powerful Jewish-American lobby and 
most of all the industrial-military complex. This "new", Greater Middle 
East would represent, in their worldview, the supreme victory of 
Judeo-Christianity over Islam. More than ever the "clash of 
civilizations" fallacy seems to be alive and kicking. 
 The scenario has been immensely complicated by the election of 
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-blessed Mahmud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran - 
which means, among other things, that Iran's nuclear program won't be 
shelved - and a simultaneous Iranian victory in Iraq in terms of 
strategic influence. 
 Both of these developments, in different levels, are repercussions of 
America's Iraq adventure. In real life, they also suggest that an 
invasion of Iran is totally impossible. An attack on Iran would bring 
immediate retaliation inside Iraq. Among the vast Iranian diaspora there 
is a certainty: Iran will inevitably become a nuclear power, no matter 
what the Americans do. And diplomats concur that its strategic influence 
over a Shi'ite-dominated Iraq won't go away. Saudi Arabia has made it 
clear that in the event of Iran going nuclear, it will do the same. 
Al-Qaeda and the jihadi nebula could do worse than bide their time and 
try to take over a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia.

For the majority of Arab public opinion,
Altra stronzata.
Taglio il resto di puttanate e stronzate continue.
-Stefano

 Taglio il resto di puttanate e stronzate continue.
Peccato, perché il meglio viene alla fine.
Tb
-- 
TBLOG
http://www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com/
FALSO. E GLASSATO DI BLU:
http://tonibaruch.buzznet.com/user/?id=1653547
I CULOTASTIERATI:
http://tonibaruch.buzznet.com/user/?id=921717

 suoi limiti. Asia Times ultimamente fa faville...
Non sono un lettore. Ma devo dire che ho trovato l'articolo estremamente 
  unimpressive. Spero che il livello medio sia migliore.
La conclusione IMHO, esprime abbastanza bene la sostanza di grana grossa 
ideologica di cui è fatto l'articolo, con i soliti accenti razzisti 
contro la "lobby ebraico-americana" che profitterebbe dalla "vittoria".
Devo anche aggiungere che nemmeno Pepe Escobar sembra avere capito una 
sega della dottrina del "clash of civilization". Probabilmente 
verificare di che cosa si parla è troppo difficile, o inutile, per gli 
obiettivi che l'articolista si propone.
Tb
========================================================================
  It's still a case of "falling dominoes": first Iraq, then Syria and
Iran, finally the Palestinians; the end result would be American
domination of the whole Middle East, as far as neo-con doctrine goes.
There are no doubts in this case on the axis which stands to profit: the
fundamentalist Christian right, the powerful Jewish-American lobby and
most of all the industrial-military complex. This "new", Greater Middle
East would represent, in their worldview, the supreme victory of
Judeo-Christianity over Islam. More than ever the "clash of
civilizations" fallacy seems to be alive and kicking.
========================================================================


 -Stefano
Complimenti: Chiaro, semplice, diretto, e soprattutto economico.
A Cambridge ti apprezzerebbero, De Ce'. Hai la stoffa dei reggitori di 
impero.
Auguri,
Am.

 unimpressive.
Sì, conto di rileggerlo perchè l'ho scorso di fretta, cogliendo qua e là le 
molte banalità e qualche assurdità (ma ho capito male io, o dice che Israele 
è il motivo della discordia tra gli arabi? A me pare che sia stato - al 
contrario - l'unico motivo di concordia!).
Ma Amalric l'ha definito "illuminante", e visto che solo una tesi originale 
può esserlo mi piacerebbe capire da lui quale sia, la tesi originale da cui 
è stato illuminato.
rosalucsemburg


 ========================================================================
Leggere piu' lentamente...
Am.

 molte banalità e qualche assurdità 
Dopo la lettura di blondet è logico che tutto ti appaia assurdo o banale 
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

impero.
...disse il bue all'asino... :)
-Stefano

Leggere piu' lentamente...
...disse il fesso mononeurone che aveva appena collezionato la sua
ennesima figura di merda.... :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Nihil sub Sole Novum.
... e sempre
all'evento felice il reo succede (Metastasio)
Am.

 Nihil sub Sole Novum.
Infatti. Sei sempre il solito fesso che spara cazzate :)
-Stefano

 rosalucsemburg
Nel  vero giornalismo non contano le tesi di partenza, contano i 
risultati e la completezza. 
Mi e' piaciuto il modo in cui Escobar e' riuscito a sistemare i vari 
tasselli tra di loro per illuminare una situazione con molti giocatori, 
molte voci, ed esiti non scontati.
Non molti sarebbero riusciti a scrivere un pezzo cosi', anche se 
e'facile dire 'non c'e' nulla di originale', e 'ne sono capace 
anch'io',come quando si guarda un pezzo di arte moderna.
Am.

 powerful Jewish-American lobby" e tutto il resto.
Tocca piantarla con 'sta storia che dire lobby e' politicamente 
scorretto. L'ha spiegato anche Redfiddler che di lobby in USA ne 
esistono anche per la coltivazione dei carciofi.
Anzi, esiste addirittura una lobby israeliana al Congresso di cui un 
membro e' stato recentemente fermato e/o espulso per attivita' illecite 
a favore della difesa israeliana.
Eppoi, di lobby Escobar ne ha indicate tre. Speriamo che si manifesti 
su IPI qualche Born Again o qualche Industriale Americano per 
protestare, cosi' il panorama delle reazioni sara' completo.
Saluti,
Am.

Eppoi, di lobby Escobar ne ha indicate tre.
Puttanata.
-Stefano


Vero, sono cose che tutti sanno, tutti immaginano.
Nessuno dice.
Saluti Cad Ali'
--
Dalla sura * della Conversione*..............
"Combattete coloro che non credono in Allah e nell'Ultimo Giorno, che non
vietano quello che Allah e il Suo Messaggero hanno vietato, e quelli, tra la
gente della Scrittura  che non scelgono la religione della verità, finchè
non versino umilmente il tributo, e siano soggiogati" (Sura 9:29).
"Se non vi lancerete nella lotta, Allah vi castigherà con doloroso castigo e
vi sostituirà con un altro popolo, mentre voi non potrete nuocergli in
nessun modo" (Sura 9:39).
"Uccidete gli idolatri ovunque li troviate, fateli prigionieri, assediateli
e combatteteli con ogni genere di tranelli" (Corano 9,5).
"Combatti quelli che non credono in Allah... combattete finchè non paghino
con umiliazione il tributo" (Corano 9,29).

 Am.

No,
Certo, certo... :)
*pat pat*
-Stefano

 *LOL*
Cioe', secondo te un lobbista deve *sedere* al Congresso per esercitare 
la sua influenza?
Riprovaci, la prossima volta avrai piu' successo.
Am.

Riprovaci, la prossima volta avrai piu' successo.
...disse il povero coglione mononeurone che tentava di arrampicarsi
sugli specchi per nascondere la sue ennesima puttanata...
-Stefano



Mi sa che qui di mononeuronica c'e' solo la tua fissazione terminologica.
Cmq. se non vuo essere di nuovo plonkato o ignorato, modera il linguaggio.
L'articolo originario non mi ricordo chi lo aveva pubblicato. Cmq.ne ho 
trovato un'altra versione, meno dettagliata.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003678.htm
Da notare che esistono anche lobby pro-iraniane e pro-arabe, ma anche 
l'AIPAC,  che si intitola lobby americana pro-israeliana, di cui 
troverai qui le attivita':
http://www.aipac.org/
Ed adesso cortesemente, becca e portaati a casa.
Am.

Ed adesso cortesemente, becca e portaati a casa.
....l'ennesima figura di merda del povero fesso mononeurone... :)
-Stefano

 
http://www.aipac.org/
E vi sono anche dei lobbisti israeliani, ovviamente anch'essi pro-israele:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003678.htm
Dubito che questi ultimi abbiano un sito perche' sono a volte delle 
spie, spesso degli intermediari discreti in affari della Difesa, di cui 
si sa quando vengono presi in castagna.
Sono due entita' *distinte*.
E adesso risolviti le tue questioni terminologiche con coraggio e 
risoluzione, a meno di non passare per pazzo.
Chiedi magari consiglio al Dottor Riot o alla Dottoressa Miriam, 
dicendo che vieni da parte mia.
Am.

dicendo che vieni da parte mia.
Tu meglio che vai da dei dottori veri, poi da un oculista e da un
insegnante di lingua inglese :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
#_Taglia pure baldracca...tanto i conti li vengo affa' lo stesso.
Er director

 si sa quando vengono presi in castagna.
rotfl
Sai che esiste anche una, non poi così discreta, lobby filo-saudita?
E poi lobby filo-tutto.
Il thread non l'ho seguito, ma che è sta fissa delle lobbies?
Tb


 Am.
#_Ovvio da parte mia...un altro: EST!EST!EST!...ancora una volta per Pepe E.
Giano

 "mondezza antisemita".
#_E`"powerful" si chiama "Cosa Nostra" come la definisci?

 Tb
Be',visto che stavi a passeggio l'emerito De Cesari m'ha preso a 
partito sul fatto che Escobar aveva menzionato 'la potente lobby 
ebraica' in USA, dando implicitamente del razzista a Escobar e a me. 
Dopo avergli fatto notare che l'articolo di Escobar rifletteva 
principalmente l'opinione arabo-islamica,gli ho spiegato che le lobby 
esistono in USA, che non siedono in parlamento, ma che servono 
ugualmente a qualcosa, e ho citato due esempi.
Tutto bene? Passata una buona giornata?
Am.

e ho citato due esempi.
Che non riguardano ne fantasiose "lobby ebraiche" ne altrettanto
inesistenti "lobby israeliane" :)
E per questo hai collezionato l'ultima della tua lunga serie di figure
di merda :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Io spero che tu disponga di un trono, oh Grande Bitorzolo, perche' e' 
da qualche reply che sbagli la mira... E l'ambiente non ne approfitta, 
se capisci quello che voglio dire... Si sente infatti un pessimo 
odore...
Am.

 Tutto bene? Passata una buona giornata?
Ottima. Al parco coi bambini. E mi sono letto un paio di volte un 
interessante articolo del Foglio che tra un po' linko.


Si sente infatti un pessimo odore...
Colpa delle figure di MERDA che stai collezionando :)
-Stefano