PBS dropped a documentary for political reasons. 'Islam vs. Islamists' thatwas to air next week, was pulled from more that 300 PBS stations.
Subtitled Voices From the Muslim Center, Burke says his film"attempts to answer the question: 'Where are the moderate Muslims?' Theanswer is, 'Wherever they are, they are reviled and sometimes attacked' "by extremists.
"I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds," Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.
Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, "Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them."
"Key portions of the documentary focus on of
Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, anon-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism,constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state."
Why would a film showing that not all Muslims are terrorists bepulled?
The controversy involves a collection of documentaries financed with $20 millionin federal grants from the corporation, which conceived Crossroads in2004 to enhance public understanding of terrorism, homeland security and othercrucial issues in the post-9/11 era. Independent filmmakers submitted 430proposals. Full production grants were given to 21 of those, including Islamvs. Islamists, which received $700,000.
It appears that PBS has entered into the world of right wing propaganda.
If you want to find out what our invasion of Iraq has caused, look no further than between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The two Shiite leaders are trying to build a lasting bond that they hope will continue even after the U.S. occupation in Iraq comes to an end (which ever decade that might be).
The two leaders agreed on a deal that would give them joint control over a number of oil refineries along the Iraq-Iran border. Iraq's oil minister said that the bond will between his country and Iran.
In many ways, this war in Iraq has not only resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S troops, angered our allies and polarized the Middle East all together, but also has helped form a Shiite Crescent of Iranian geopolitical power that spans from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut.
Meanwhile, the violence continues in Iraq:
in a wave of bombings in Baghdad and throughout Iraq.
Thanks to the war in Iraq, many al Qaeda leaders are returning to Afghanistan with a new skill of building bombs, which they plan to use in the effort to destabilize Hamid Karzai's Afghan democratic government. interviewed a Taliban militant in Afghanistan. "That's part of our strategy - we are trying to bring [the Iraqi model]to Afghanistan," says the fighter. "Things will get worse here." This should worry those who would favor an increased U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan in proportion to Iraq (such as myself). There will be a lot of fighting in the coming months.
A top Marine in Iraq says that the . Then what is it?
A was killed this week in Iraq. He was originally supposed to come home in July -- that was until his tour was extended 120 days. Our prayers go to his family.
NBC Pentagon Correspondent about Iraq's Anbar Province, which according to military sources is a .
A grim milestone has been reached. More Americans have .
Yesterday, one of the most ignorant comments about the Middle East, underscoring his lack of understanding about the international system in general:
"It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free societiesin the heart of the Middle East -- Lebanon and Iraq -- are also thescenes of the most violent terrorist activity," Bush said.
Oh, if it were only that easy. Terrorists are not attacking western interests because they hate democracy. See, this is the difference between realists (Truman, Kennedy, Bush Sr., and Clinton) and idealists (Wilson, Bush, Wolfowitz, and Kristol). The current neoconservative idealists see the origin of all major wars as a boiling struggle between ideologies.
Realists, on the other hand, think the origin of all major wars stem from an uneven balance of power. If a country or group benefits geopolitically, economically, socially, domestically and diplomatically only if they start a war, then starting a war is their only option. Think about what Hezbollah has done since the conflict erupted last month. Support for their cause has increased on the Arab streets. They have gained the confidence and trust of Iran and Syria. And even most significantly, they have polarized the Middle East to the point where they are in now the driver's seat to play whatever card they want in the future.
So for Bush to claim that terrorists are fighting us in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon because they hate democracy has no actual merit whatsoever. The terrorists are in Afghanistan because that place has always been a powder keg of dueling warlords and ethnic factions, and we are now caught in the middle of it without a sufficient number of troops present. The terrorists are in Iraq mostly because we are there, however a large percentage of the terrorists are home-grown and want their sect of Islam to prevail over the other. The terrorists are in Lebanon because Iran and Syria saw an opportunity after the United States and the international community failed to help the new Lebanese government secure its own borders and bolster its infrastructure. They also like the fact that the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, making it more difficult for us to intervene with an iron fist. Iran and Syria also see it as a way to increase their geopolitical influence in the region, which in the past month they have been successful in doing -- unfortunately. So the answer isn't to start invading more countries and beginning new democracies from the top-down (even though real democracies are supposed to start from the bottom-up). Instead, the answer is to regain political leverage in the region by seeing to it that Syria and Iran do not benefit diplomatically, economically, geopolitically and domestically from supporting Hezbollah's unlawful attacks on Israel.
That is only the tip of the iceberg, and it goes to show how little Bush and his war cabinet know at all about the international system.
I have not been reporting on the daily violence between Israel and Hezbollah over the last week or two because you can get that news anywhere. This is not an ordinary news site -- it is a political news site. With that said, let me give a little political angle on what we can expect. This is only for readers who like political theory. For everyone else, this might be boring.
Israeli forces are touting the statistic that they have already destroyed of Hezbollah's rocket capability. In the short-term, that is a positive. But when you think about it, Iran and Syria (especially Iran) stand to gain from prolonging the violence as long as possible (i.e. UN pressure on the Iran nuclear program). So when Hezbollah runs out of rockets, Iran will simply just supply them with more -- and the violence will continue.
Assuming that the between Israel and Hezbollah will not work out, even though we all hope it will, I really don't see the violence stopping anytime soon unless Hezbollah is destroyed or a deal is reached with Iran. Neither will happen. Ever since the insurgency in Iraq began, Iran has asserted its radical approach to reshaping the Middle East in its Shiite image. Baghdad, after decades of Sunni domination, is back in Shiite control. Now, thanks to this latest unfortunate turn of events, Hezbollah in Lebanon is feeling the Shiite influence as well. So what we have here is what many academics are now referring to as a Shiite Crescent, which spans from Tehran, through Baghdad and over to Beirut. Think of the phrase "Shiite Crescent" as Iran's sphere of political influence. As of March 2003, before we went into Iraq, the Baghdad and Beirut fronts of the Shiite Crescent did not exist. The larger the crescent, the better for Iran. Iranian President Ahmadinejad took full advantage of a great political opportunity this summer. President Bush and all the other democracies failed to prop up the new pro-western government in Lebanon that formed in 2005 after . With the government being weak there, Iran is having no problem using Hezbollah to sabotage that territory. It's depressing that the White House never saw this coming.
But hold on a second. Logically speaking, with a Shiite takeover of the Middle East, the Sunnis should resist. After all, Hamas is Sunni -- yet they now support the Shiite group Hezbollah. Why? Since Israel is involved, the whole Arab world, Sunni and Shiite, is united in its support for Hezbollah. That gives Iran a chance to assert their dominance while the Sunnis are distracted. Sunni governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt are very worried because this Hezbollah violence could polarize the middle east and threaten the very existence of their governments. Each of those Sunni-led countries have for the rocket attacks, while also footing some of the blame on Israel.
Putting it simply, the balance of power in the region is disrupted. As is true about anything in politics, whenever there is polarization, fringe groups always see an opportunity because it legitimizes emotion-based political actions.When fringe groups see that opportunity and are in control of the situation, they will continue to keep things polarized and unstable to maintain that same trend. No wonder Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan are worried sick.
With all that said, this next part is really important -- and it pains me to say it. Our war in Iraq is encouraging that same polarization. Iran wants us to remain in Iraq, as does Hezbollah, because it fuels anger towards Israel and the west, which gives Iran the added legitimacy need to keep widening their sphere of influence.
The indicators continue to point towards more rocket attacks. Sooner or later, Israel is going to give Iran and Syria an ultimatum. Either Hezbollah stops, or Israel will launch air strikes into Syria. But again, if we go by the balance of power theory, air-striking Syria is precisely what Iran wants Israel to do. Again, polarization works to Iran's favor because it creates sympathizers on the Arab streets. Air strikes on Syrian soil will polarize the situation even more -- nationalizing Arab support against Israel. And again, for the last time, no matter what any conservative tries to tell you, polarization is what Iran wants, and it is precisely what moderate states like Jordan and Kuwait do not want.
Condoleezza Rice and the White House, until this point, have opposed an immediate ceasefire unless the long-term indicators pointed towards Hezbollah being permanently disarmed. First, Hezbollah will never be disarmed. The question is whether they will continue to have support? And second, the longer that the fighting lasts without at least a temporary ceasefire, the greater the possibility that Israel will attack Syrian territory. When that happens, the balance of power will be completely lost and the chances of a ceasefire will be greatly reduced. That is why Condoleezza Rice needs to push for an immediate ceasefire. The United States stands to gain from a ceasefire because the balance of power will be at least temporarily restored.
If there's one thing you need to remember when following the Middle East today, it's that all polarization, no matter which side is responsible for it, helps Iran (since they are on the fringe). Of course, this is realism theory. The White House subscribes to idealism. So don't count on the White House taking this balance of power theory as seriously as I do.
I see this conflict a little differently than the mainstream media does. I will try my best to explain myself as articulately as possible.
Syria knows exactly what it is trying to do, and if Israel isn't careful the state located to their northeast will get its wish. In March of 2005, the as as a western representative system emerged in the capital of Beirut. Fortunately for Syria, the pro-Syrian terrorist group known as Hezbollah still managed to hold onto a few seats in the Lebanese parliament. Because the new Lebanese government has only existed for a little more than one year, they are especially weak in certain areas, particularly in the south where Hezbollah has a strong following.
In this current conflict, Syria is using Hezbollah to launch attacks from southern Beirut against Israel. President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel are , when in reality the Lebanese government lacks both the political and military power to control them. Basically, the goal of Syria is to use Hezbollah to entice Israel into firing on the civilian population in Lebanon, which would then result in more anger against Israel and support towards Hezbollah, allowing Syria to once again permanently assert itself into the affairs of Lebanon.
But Syria is only one player in the wider conflict. Each side has its own motive. The more sides that gain from there being a conflict, the longer the conflict will last. While Syria's ultimate prize is regaining control of Lebanon, the Tehran-based government in Iran is trying to divert U.S. attention away from the current nuclear standoff, while getting other Arab states to support the illegal program. Israel's motive is to get their soldiers back that were abducted. The Palestinian parliament, led by Hamas, supports Hezbollah. But Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, on the other hand, wants a ceasefire. Yesterday he secretly to negotiate the matter.
Although Iran and the Palestinians obviously play a huge role in this, the country to watch the most is Syria. It is in their geopolitical interest to polarize Muslims in the region against Israel, therefore disrupting the balance of power and leading to more support for Hezbollah in the Arab world. If Hezbollah gets the political backing of the Lebanese people, then Syria will have the opportunity to get back into Lebanese affairs. That is why it is so important for Israel not to target Lebanese civilians.
The mainstream media wants to simplify the conflict into a battle between Israel and Lebanon, or between Israel and Hezbollah. But in reality, it is about the opportunist agenda of the Syrian government that is being asserted against the pro-western government in Lebanon. It looks like President Bush is finally beginning to understand this reality, which was why he called for from attacking too far into Lebanon to the point that it would give the Lebanese people a greater incentive to support Hezbollah and the Syrian government.
Again, this is about Syria's affairs in Lebanon, and Iran backing Syria's urge to regain its geopolitical sphere of influence in the Western Middle East. Iran and Syria know that Lebanon is a weak state, and they see the opportunity to take it down. It is not about Israel trying to occupy more land. It is not about Iran's plan to annihilate Israel, at least not at the state level. And for heavens sake, it is not about the Rapture or the Book of Revelations. At the very core, it is about Syria using Hezbollah to get back into Lebanon after being kicked out one year ago.
Recent Comments