"I'm having a horrible day," grumbled Seymour Hersh, the 70 year-old Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, arguably the most revered of his time, and reporter for the prestigious New Yorker magazine. Almost a week before, I called Seymour Hersh on a lark trying to score an interview regarding his New Yorker article "Shifting Targets: The Administration's Plan for Iran," an explosive piece outlining the Bush Administration's strategic and aggressive preparation for a potential attack on Iran.

When Hersh writes, everyone reads, and the world pays attention. Even the White House, through press secretary Dana Perino, was forced to respond to his article, publicly stating, "[The White House] is not going to comment on any possible scenario that an anonymous source continues to feed into Sy Hersh… We don't discuss such things… We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran."

During our first phone call, Hersh sounded hurried and rushed, a habitual trait I noticed, preparing for an international phone interview. "Listen, I got a call coming in from overseas, it's gonna' come in any moment. Just give me a call at the office," he informed me.

I persisted, "How about next week? We can do the interview over the phone. I can call..."

"No, no. I'm traveling to the West Coast next week. I'm busy, but give me a call the week after, all right? Let's do this later. Call my office. OK?"

"Great," I replied and hung up the phone, ecstatic after scoring potential interview time with the Pulitzer-winning journalist.

Fast forward one week. I'm casually sitting behind my desk with my laptop in front of me, calling Hersh's office number to leave a message on his machine reminding him of the interview upon his return from the publicity trip.

The phone rings. It rings again. Instead of a soothing, feminine, robotic automated voice message, a surly and flustered voice answers, "Hello?"

"Um, uh, hey, Seymour? This is Wajahat..."

"Who?"

"Uh, Wajahat Ali? Anyway, I wasn't expecting you. I called to leave a message on your voice mail, and you pick up. Great! How was your trip? I thought you'd be back next week..."

"Ugh, it was terrible. A terrible trip. I'm having a horrible day. That trip was just... who…who are you, again? Why are you calling?" questioned an obviously irritated and surly Hersh.

"I'm calling to schedule an interview we talked about last week, remember?" I answered oblivious to his current temperament.

Little did I know this simple question would unleash the notoriously intense feistiness and doggedness of Hersh, a man whose words and attitude cut straight to the point, fast and furious, shooting off half a dozen questions in a row without pause. His aggressive style reminded me of an ethnic, immigrant uncle: blunt, honest, gruff, but oddly endearing.

"Why do you want an interview? Who are you again? Islamic... what? Islamic? Listen, you know I did Jazeera right? Al Jazeera? They're Muslim (pauses). Oh, God. I mean, so, so what? What, you want an interview or something? Is that what you want? I... I usually do the pimping for my pieces for 2-3 days after they're published, but once it's done I move on. I move on, ya' know? That was last week. This is this week. I got a lot of reporting to do [sighs, sounds overwhelmed]. I got a lot of reporting to do."

I've been hit with a freight train, and I'm just trying re-attach my jaw let alone talk. My brain fires off an intelligent and lucid response, but before my lips can move, Hersh is on the loose again.

"What do you want from me? I mean, I really don't like doing this. You know... these interviews. Once it's done, I move on. I... I mean... you shoulda' called last week. Why didn't you call last week?" he asked.

"Um, I actually did call last week, but you said call back in 2 weeks," I answered calmly and logically.

"Oh," replied Hersh, and for a second I sensed a silence, and thus an opportunity.

"Mr. Hersh, it won't take long. I just wanted your thoughts on the recent..."

"I hate it when people ask what I think. Who am I? I mean who cares what I think? Who cares about my thoughts? I just hate that. I hate answering that. I'm a reporter. I report the facts. I'm just a reporter. I'm just being up front with you."

I am momentarily stunned. However, the ethnic, South Asian salesman in me comes alive and, like a snake charmer, I'm prepared to cajole, console, placate, and adulate in order to convince my reluctant client. But before I can utter a word, Hersh retaliates with a blow.

"Ok, a sample question. Suppose we did this interview, what would a sample question sound like? Hit me with a sample question. Go!" commanded Hersh.

The bell rings. The Heavyweight advances, and now you're on your toes for Round 1.

(Slightly flustered and caught off guard) Ok, I have one. Here's a sample. Recently at the Democratic debate, Senator Mike Gravel called out Hillary Clinton for voting on Senator Lieberman's aggressive resolution against Iran that condemned Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. What I want to ask is, should we expect anything different from the Democrats if they are elected in regards to US foreign policy, specifically in regards to Iraq? Iran?

SEYMOUR HERSH: I have no idea. I would certainly hope so. How would I possible know? I don't see them doing anything different with Iraq, despite concede it. Just concede it – I don't know what else they can do that is different. And who says they're going to win? I don't see that they are going to win. I'm not sure they are, and I don't know why people think that. They haven't done anything different. They haven't brought anything new to the table that hasn't already been said by the Republicans. They just talk the talk. They talk the talk. If I knew this – I mean, who would win (the presidential race), I'd be at the race track everyday. Not reporting. You just don't know. No one knows. Listen, this is politics, and I'm just a guy who writes – who writes stories about the war. When people ask me about politics it drives me crazy! I'm not a fan of politics. I don't like discussing politics. You can't make me something I'm not.

I understand. Trust me, trust me, I'm not trying to. But, there you go, that would be an example of a sample question if we did an interview...

What!? We are doing an interview! What the fuck were you doing?! This is the interview! Get out your recorder, let's go. Let's go.

Ok, great, let's do it. Private contractors in Iraq, specifically Blackwater, have been on the news nonstop for the past few months regarding numerous allegations of reckless shooting and violence. What's your take on this?

Oh, there's been a lot of wrongdoing by them. A lot of arrogance. [Blackwater] drive around like they own the world over there. They increase a lot of resentment amongst the Iraqi civilian population against us [The US] by behaving like this. Listen, if you're an occupier then you act like an occupier. Occupiers act like occupiers. There is no way that Iraqi people will ever respond in any positive way to what Blackwater does.

How will the Iraqis respond to this? You highlighted the Abu Ghraib scandal in your book, Chain of Command. You know private contractors CACI and Titan were responsible for much of those abusive interrogations and you described the blowback resulting from [Abu Ghraib]. What's the blowback on this one?

There is no way Iraqi people will respond to will – they have never responded to will. It's exactly the same problem we encountered in Afghanistan. I mean, a lot of people who normally would have been or should have been supportive of us, I mean, they should have supported us initially, those people have come to realize they don't like us since we became an "occupier."

You know being an "occupier" is risky business. It is really hard to be "occupier." Occupiers never win. They never have. They've always ended up getting squeezed out. Anyone, I mean anyone, who has been following this war closely knows Blackwater is doing just what they've been doing all along. They only reason it's in the news is because of the absolutely egregious way they behaved, and the fact Iraq decided to go public against them. Listen, Blackwater is operating they way they've always operated. They only take care of their clients and their client's needs. That's what matters. Anyone else who isn't the client doesn't matter.

Recently, a maelstrom has been raised over the new Mearsheimer/Walt book "The Israel Lobby" describing the influence of...

I don't know... Israeli Lobby? I don't know if I'd call them an Israeli Lobby.

Well, do you buy it? The influence and pressure of certain pro–Israeli lobbies on the US government? What's the level of influence, if any, or is it overblown?

There's AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee). You have AIPAC. It is a powerful lobby, you know, it's an interest group. But Israel... Israel doesn't need a lobby. It has direct connections right here, right here in town (Washington DC). I mean, of course, it's a monumental force. But that's the reality. It's been a reality forever... in my life at least. Money talks is the old cliché, and B.S. walks. But you know, it's just interest groups. That's the way they are, and everyone does it. Everyone.

Right.

For example, the Muslims – that's a good example. They solidly voted for Bush (2000 election).

The Muslims came out en masse and voted for him...

Right, I mean the Muslims, the interest group, it's not nearly as organized, or powerful or well funded as others, but you know, there was enough money and enough percentage of votes that made a real effort in the Muslim community. [The Muslims] are conservative. Conservative in how they follow their religion, you know, very conservative. They [Muslim Americans] keep their heads down, out of trouble, just keep your head down they believe, and they say, "just mind your own business." And the Muslims are successful in business; they have a high degree of talent in making money in areas of big business. In the business world – for example in Lebanon – you can see it with the Shia there. So, it is inevitable. Anyway, that's how interests group work, always. But, I can't calibrate the numbers for you to determine their influence.

Over the past couple of years, it's become fashionable and clichéd amongst certain circles to compare our involvement in Iraq to the Vietnam War. Now, you've been there, you were there reporting on Vietnam, breaking the My Lai massacre story back then. And here you are now with Iraq. As a person who has actually lived through it and reported on both, are there any similarities, or is it premature to compare?

One thing is similar. We are out there fighting in a country with uneducated, 18 year old boys with weapons. They're frightened... frightened. They're frightened because they don't know the country, they don't know the culture. They're not even interested in knowing about the culture. Fear is there. [The US soldiers] never see an enemy sometimes, and weeks go by. And they continue to lose fellow soldiers, they lose them to snipers, they lose them to mines, and eventually and inevitably, they take the war to the people they can see. And in Iraq, that's the local population. Happens in all wars. All of 'em. Civilians are the ones treated differently.

Vietnam was always a tactical mistake. We lose the war, we are driven off in '75, and in four to five years we are back in that country playing Monopoly with Vietnam's economy. You know, making investments, several investments in that country. That is not gonna happen here. We are in a strategic debate with about 1.3, what, 1.5 billion Muslims. We are in a real strategic war here, and we really misplayed it. We did more for Osama than he could do for himself. We played a part in recruiting for him. This is a part of the world where America is not going to be wanted. Same thing in Afghanistan, especially in the Southern part of Afghanistan.

You make a good point. You know I'm Pakistani-American, son of Pakistani immigrants, but I have family there still. And we talk to them often and I used to visit all the time, but the level of anti-Americanism in that country is amazing, which it didn't have 10 years ago, but now, it's just overwhelming.

Well, I specifically was discussing the southern region of Afghanistan.

But the border between the two...

Yes, right, you're right. Like Afghanistan, Pakistan is the same issue, the exact same issue as with Afghanistan in terms of a tremendous lack of popularity for our government amongst the people there. This will increase particularly as we pit Sunni against Shia.

So there's this rise of anti-Americanism unfortunately around that region. In your research, have you found the main cause of hatred against America?

American violence. It's the violence. Do we know... I mean, how many bombs are dropped? How many shells are fired? Who knows what the accurate number is? I know I don't. There was, last year I think, I believe there was a number reported in the "The Lancet" that said the Iraqi causalities numbered in 600,000 killed [The Lancet medical journal reporting published in October '06 estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population]. That number is breathtaking… it's breathtaking. I believe, however, the numbers and causalities are actually much greater than have been reported.

Every family in Iraq knows someone who has been killed. Americans are invariably blamed. We are going to have serious situations resulting from that. This is a society [Iraq] that does deal with revenge. We probably created a lot of new jihadists and martyrs and anger, anger with how we behaved and the resulting casualties that are innocent Iraqis.

On the ground in Iraq, what specifically causes the blowback against our troops, what causes the violence?

Americans are frightened. They are frightened in Iraq. Not frightened in, you know, a cowardly way. But frightened like anyone... I mean, it's natural to be like that, anyone would. You're a solider in Iraq, you're now manning a checkpoint there. You don't know the language, you don't know Arabic. You don't know their culture. Now, [the Iraqis] arrive at the checkpoints. They miss the checkpoints. You yell at them to stop, but they don't understand you, they don't speak the language, so they keep driving. They don't stop. You open fire. And now you've made enemies. We are occupiers right now.

I want to get back to the Sunni-Shia comment you made. As you know, America has history in that region, specifically the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. We know that the US, through then Vice President Bush, was heavily involved, trying to bleed both sides against the middle, weakening the Shia theocracy of Iran and hedging bets for the Sunni regime of Saddam. So, now, is it going to be good 'ol "divide and conquer" with the sectarian situation? How will US forces and policy play with the Sunni-Shia dynamic in the Muslim world?

Brother versus brother. It's going to be brother versus brother. Sunni versus Shia. There's an incredible sectarian war happening right now in Iraq. Things are always tense between both groups there. We know Saddam mistreated the Shia when he was in power. But, it was nothing then like it is now. The killing now is unbelievable.

The new policy of America is that we are going to work with Israelis and moderate Sunnis, those include Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. We're going to join forces with Western forces in Europe. Then, America and Israel are going to go after people we don't like. People like Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah. There is a coalition forming, a coalition that forms and pits brother against brother, a fitnah. You know that's not an exact meaning of the word, it's an Arabic word. But it's fitnah [dissention, disunity]. And we have strange bedfellows working with us... Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia... all are going to be used to put pressure on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. It's a unique notion. It's "the Re-direction..." you are seeing it right now. I wrote about in the New Yorker. It's called "the Re-direction."

["The Re-direction," according to Hersh in his March piece, is the Bush Administration's new policy towards the Middle East. In order to undermine Iran, which is Shiite, the administration has decided to cooperate with Saudi's Sunni government in Lebanon to engage in "clandestine operations that intend to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria."]

You are seeing tremendous pressure now. For example, now, right now in Lebanon, America's position, the Bush Administration's position is to support the Siniora government as an example of their belief in democracy. We are not interested in hearing the complaints of the Shias [Hezbollah] and other groups.

[Hersh elaborates on this point in the same article, where he quotes an official who states, "We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we're spreading the money around as much as we can… In this process, we're financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences… It's a very high-risk venture."]

Let's talk of Iran. Based on what you've said and written, and what we've heard countless times by the Administration regarding Iran's potential nuclear capability, their hostility towards America, and so forth, is there real, credible evidence to suggest that, indeed, Iran poses a threat?

Oh, the White House believes it. They believe that, no question. They believe Iran's Revolutionary guard, the Government, it's all part of one unified group that is dedicated to help kill Americans. [The White House] describes the Revolutionary Guard as an active, radical commando unit. Of course our intelligence community is bitterly, bitterly divided over this. And the Administration has not even come close to making its case on this. We have to remember, when it was 1992, Saddam fell after the war, and for a brief time, you know, for a brief time there was a rebellion against Saddam's regime by the Shia. We did nothing. We knew about it, and we did not nothing. We let Saddam fly helicopters to kill these Shias. Since then there has been a lot of bitterness against America. So, there is always two sides, right? Two sides to a story? Well, this has six, seven sides.

But what does the White House say, or believe, that Iran concretely does to help the insurgency in Iraq?

America says that Iran supplies arms. They supply arms, weapons, IEDs – which - do you know about them? They are these improvised explosive devices, these explosive devises that are incredibly effective. They think Iran is supplying intelligence on several issues, and they see Iran as being directly responsible for what's happening in Iraq.

So, according to your sources and research, in your opinion, has Iran actually done anything to warrant this belief that it is a legitimate threat to America?

Well, Some believe, like I do, some people believe that Iran is doing nothing different than what it has done for the past two to three decades in supporting the Shia. I mean, that's what they are in interested in... to support the Shia. But there is no notion that this government, our government has proven its case yet. They US may do what they want to do against Iran. I mean, who is going to stop this president? Who is going to stop him? I don't know.

OK, so are we good?

We are good.

OK, no more right? Promise no more phone calls?

Promise. No more phone calls.

this comment is telling:

So there's this rise of Anti-Americanism unfortunately around that region. In your research, have you found the main cause of hatred against America?

"American violence. It's the violence. Do we know... I mean, how many bombs are dropped? How many shells are fired? Who knows what the accurate number is? I know I don't. There was, last year I think, I believe there was a number reported in the "The Lancet" that said the Iraqi causalities numbered in 600,000 killed [The Lancet medical journal reporting published in October '06 estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population]. That number is breathtaking… it's breathtaking. I believe, however, the numbers and causalities are actually much greater than have been reported.

Every family in Iraq knows someone who has been killed. Americans are invariably blamed. We are going to have serious situations resulting from that. This is a society [Iraq] that does deal with revenge. We probably created a lot of new jihadists and martyrs and anger, anger with how we behaved and the resulting casualties that are innocent Iraqis."

---------------------------------------------------

especially since it flies in the face of the Blairite/New Labour line that hatred of the West is something done by
a) Wahabbis,
b) political Islam/Islamists,
c) Muslims who hate "us" for our freedoms, or
d) People who are simply putting all of their frustrations on America

this lie/line has been not only trotted out to defend American intervention abroad but was also peddled by surrogates working within the Muslim community (i.e. Ed Husain/Irshad Manji/Khaled Abou el Fadl) both in the UK and US. How ironic that an investigative reporter, who happens to be a Jew incidentally, helped expose this lie.

regards,
sh

Kudos, Wajahat, on not only salvaging this potentially disastrous interview, but turning the experience into a great read, which I enjoyed as a member of the media and as just a consumer of news. Instead of drying it out and excising the personal experience behind the story, you put yourself out there and I totally empathize with it. A testament to your skills. It's a dog-eat-dog world, and you just bit off a piece of a big terrier. Good show. (And if the backstory was merely an hilarious but fictional setup, then you got yourself another sucker.)

mr ali- youve got to have those questions at the ready next time!
i mean, there will be a future next time, right?

he said no more phone calls- which means youve been calling him recently- it doesnt necessarily mean no more phone calls ever-
but you need to given him some time to forget-
and respect his time!!!!
next time- get him to comment on facts- hes a facts guy- not opinions guy-
kwaleed- seymour hirch is legendary in m mind-
heres a link- look at his archives
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628fa_fact?currentPage=1
peace all

Wajahat Ali, you asked Seymour Hersh about Iran in Iraq, why didn’t you ask him about Israel in Iraq? I have some information about this on my blog here:

http://gettingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/11/mainstream-media-claims-iran-is-fueling.html

Hersh says, ”We did more for Osama than he could do for himself. We played a part in recruiting for him. ”

Hersh is wrong; Usama Bin Laden did more for the United States than for the Muslim world. When the muhajaden defeated the Russians in Afghanistan, this facilitated the fall of the Soviet Union, making the United States the number super power in the world. In the meanwhile, millions of Afghans had been killed and Afghanistan’s infrastructure had been devastated. The United States did nothing to help in reconstructing the country.

By the way are you aware that the FBI’s webpage on Usama Ben Laden makes no mention of the 9/11 attack? See http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Why would an attack which killed 3,000 people not be specifically mentioned?
Journalist Ed Haas investigates this,

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

See complete article at http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Here is a youtube video of a news report that asks the question why has Usama Bin Laden not been indicted for 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUQczDktgI

There is a growing grassroots movement questioning the official “explanation of 9/11” http://www.911truth.org/ When will Seymour Hirsh join the movement for 9/11 truth?

MOST interesting randalljones!

Is there all this rejoicing merely because Hersh spoke to Ali? Hersh is no more than another reporter who happens to have been around in DC for a long time. There are a lot of people like that there. Don't get carried away into thinking he is a Muslim sympathizer! He is just a fair reporter. So calm down!

Kwaleed's comment is telling 'In spite of being a jew, he exposed these lines!' So, in your mind kwaleed, all jews are muslim haters? Are they? But...but...I thought Islamic people were peaceful and loved everyone and did not think poorly of any peoples....even jews!

>>> But...but...I thought Islamic people were peaceful and loved everyone and did not think poorly of any peoples....even jews!<<<

Well Weisskopf. You are hardly one to give Muslims a lecture on loving the jews. Really.

>>> http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628fa_fact?currentPage=1 <<<

Well. This is a fascinating article. On how the Israelis are in bed with the Kurds. And probably how a future Kurdistan will end up being a satellite state for the Israeilis amidst the Arabs. More violence. For years and years to come.

[Edited by moderator]

>Kwaleed's comment is telling 'In spite of being a jew, he exposed these >lines!' So, in your mind kwaleed, all jews are muslim haters? Are they? >But...but...I thought Islamic people were peaceful and loved everyone >and did not think poorly of any peoples....even jews!

thanks for the insult, but if you could also learn how to READ carefully, this was what was said:

"who happens to be a Jew incidentally..."

I said that to draw attention to something. There are many in the Arab/Muslim world who ascribe all of their political problems to nefarious "zionists" and "jews" - this line of thinking is particularly well peddled by the dictatorships in the Muslim world who seek to justify their states of failure by playing up these sentiments (explains why the Egyptian state controlled TV serialized the forged Elder Protocols of Zion). Interestingly it also explains why "American"ized Muslims (through heavy Saudi financing) voted for Bush in 2000 (since Lieberman the Jew was on the ticket of Gore). To date no one has taken any responsibility for that wise decision.

So the comment was meant as a tongue-in-cheek reference to this sentiment which is sadly, due to ignorance, common amongst Muslims, thanks for taking the bait.

regards,
sh

MRS. A and hajibaba,

Regarding the link to Seymour Hersh’s article about Israel and the Kurds, there is more to Israeli involvement in Iraq than this, such as the interrogation and torture of Iraqis and in training assassinations squads.

See http://www.antiwar.com/orig/elmer.php?articleid=2959
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html

In addition, there are probably Israeli agent provocateurs, just like there are American and British agent provocateurs. fueling the violence in Iraq.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089

kwaleed,

You wrote, Interestingly it also explains why "American"ized Muslims (through heavy Saudi financing) voted for Bush in 2000 (since Lieberman the Jew was on the ticket of Gore). To date no one has taken any responsibility for that wise decision.

There is no evidence the majority of Muslims voted for Bush just because some of the Muslim leadership endorsed Bush.

I find it hilarious when people talk about Muslims getting funding from the Saudis. The matter of fact is that the Saudis invest trillions of dollars in the United States. The United States makes additional billions of dollars more selling sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia. They do not have the qualified personnel to operate the weaponry, so they are dependent on the United States to defend them.

All Americans, regardless of religious or political party affiliation, benefit from Saudi funding.

i have to admit randall that when the elections came around in 2000 the muslims i my mosque, because they really didnt have a firm idea themselves, all wanted to swarm to bush because the leadership was stumping for him.

my mosque was approached to find someone to work the polls, so they sent me because im very noisy politically and opinion-wise-

i argued and politicized against bush endlessly- people there really seemed to have no idea whatsoever-

it was a mystery to me-

even the director himself- who directed peoples votes toward bush really didnt know why he was doing so-
so it was to him that i directed most of my debates-

o yes, regarding the seymour hersh article, my intention was to direct people to seymour hesh in general, not that particular article which i happened to have in my bookmark-

archive his other articles, all of them valuable.
peace

Mrs.A,

Maybe the Muslims were confused about who to vote for because there is no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

I don’t think anecdotal evidence really proves anything. There are many websites and blogs that praise Ron Paul. There are polls showing that he would get a high percentage of the votes. The media has reported that he was able to raise a lot of money and he had the highest percentage of donations from the military. Yet in every primary election he has always come out last or second to last.

kwaleed,

Was that a bait for simpletons like me to take? ok - then I took it! Indeed you are the cleverer of the two of us! Or....wait a minute...no! It could not be that you hastily covered up your blunder..could it be?

Anyway - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say this - I am needling you guys just so I point out how the comments you (meaning all of you) make thinking it is innocuous, appear to someone who is not one of you!

As for Randall's point about the Saudis, he is correct. My stay in Saudi Arabia was entirely predicated on them buying more complex crap from us (yeah, from 'us'; you , me, and the rest of the USA)! They have no idea what they are buying and worse yet, what to do with it! Like - for example - last week's sale - JDAMs! Who on earth are they going to target with the super-sophisticated JDAMs? Well, apparently the Americans told the Saudis that they need it in case Iran attacks them using Syria! Iran! Yeah! Sure! From my visits to Iran, Iranian population is so young and the kids there are the last people in the region who want to go attack anyone! In any case what the Saudis need is manpower to counter a human wave tactic which is the most likely way Iran will attack, if it does. JDAMs are useful only if you want to bomb with great precision (as the US claims it does!) If Iran attacks Saudi Arabia, trust me, precision bombing is the last thing you need!

But don't get me wrong, I am glad the Saudis bought the JDAMs! I think I see a Road trip! :-) The only thing the Saudis ask of people like me is 'Don't go to Israel!' If they see an Israeli entry stamp, it can make things very awkward for people with names like mine to enter Saudi Arabia. :-) No problem sheik! I will go to Israel after I retire!

Jesting aside, it must be obvious to anyone, that these massive arms sales are made to not benefit anyone but us - in the USA! We are the ultimate winners in this crazy race my friends. Yes - you are my co-conspirators though unwilling, in this drama. Which is pretty much why Muslims vote for Republicans. Oh, also, Mrs.A, the other reason is that a lot Pakistani dominated mosques tilted to Bush because they thought he was against India! Haven't you guys yet understood that money makes all the difference?

At the end of this Oil-age, I predict that the US will have gotten back all of its petro-dollars by selling Arms, the Europeans will have pretty much done the same by selling infrastructure. The Chinese will control all of Africa and the USA will be overrun by Mexicans!

I think I will go to Israel soon!

And it is with the greatest satisfaction that I note...The moderator has censured Hajibaba and not me! While my messages appaer offensive, it appears Haji's messages are even more so!

>Was that a bait for simpletons like me to take? ok - then I took it! >Indeed you are the cleverer of the two of us! Or....wait a minute...no! >It could not be that you hastily covered up your blunder..could it be?

the only thing covered up was your ignorance. Please go and look up the definition of "incidentally" before deciding to pipe off.

>At the end of this Oil-age, I predict that the US will have gotten back >all of its petro-dollars by selling Arms, the Europeans will have >pretty much done the same by selling infrastructure. The Chinese will >control all of Africa and the USA will be overrun by Mexicans!

those arms are useless especially given the record of Arab dictatorships and armies in the region. It was a militia from Lebanon that has ever defeated Israel in war, not fossilized dictatorships running on failed slogans and bankrolled by you and your friends in washington.

secondly, nice of you to conveniently leave out the fact that once the Oil Age runs out, Israel will economically dominate the region since its two biggest potential rivals (Iraq and Iran) will have been exhausted courtesy of the regional policeman in the region (U.S.) the rest of the countries will essentially function as sources of cheap labor and raw materials for Israeli businesses (if the "peace" process is allowed to go forward).

>I think I will go to Israel soon!

the sooner the better.

regards,
sh

Well Weisskopf. You certainly have the right to gloat, no one can hold that against you. The Saudis chose to get in bed with the devil (USA), so it has served them both well.

I remember seeing the documentary where the bedouin King Saud went to sign a treaty with Roosevelt on a aircraft carrier battleship back in the 1940s. Basically, the Saudis chose the Americans as their protectors/friends (aulia). This is totally against the dictates of the Holy Qur'an. A Muslim is not supposed to seek "protection" from a non-Muslim of the kind that will compromise His/Her faith. One can make alliances that are mutually beneficial for protection against common enemies, but the Saudis are a virtual satellite state of the Americans.

This has obviously served the Saudi dynasty well. You have to look at it from their point of view. Was it not for their protection by the Americans, they would have long ago disappeared into thin air. No shortage of Arab neighbors who would like to take over the Saudi oilfields and the prestige of custodianship of Mecca and Medina. Bunch of ineducated bedouins on camels, they were dead in the water in the post WWII era. So they made the smart decision, become donkeys for Americans to ride on and live a long prosperous life. Or try to unite under the flag of Islam, and be dead and buried before sunset.

Its a shame of course as Muslims, that the Saudis are completely subservient to the Americans in every way possible. But that is the sign of the times, one is better off getting fingered by a non-Muslim colonialist state than trusting a fellow Muslim neigbour. Every Muslim nation prefers to form alliances with the Americans or the British or the French or the Russians or the Chinese. Pity.

Actually - I am not gloating. You see that as gloating because I am not Muslim. What I am saying is simply the reality.

But you guys are all wrong about one thing. While we, the Americans, gave them arms, they also had, and continue to have, the best chance to build a great nation with American help. Which force in the world can prevent the King of Saudi Arabia from asking great educational institutions like MIT and Stanford for help in setting up campuses? And actually they have done so (though not as much as they could have). What prevents them from becoming a great thinking nation instead of a foolish consumer nation is thier own intellectual fetters. You guys can debate about what those are!

You see, all those wonderful things that Islamic scholars did in the medieval times was because of one thing - intellectual freedom. That kind of freedom comes with a cost - skepticism. Modern Islam does not tolerate skeptics. They have to overcome this aversion towards anyone who doubts that the Quran is the word of god. Not only that they have to even tolerate atheists. But where is the hope for that?! Even people like me are branded Satan just because we don't believe in your faith literally!

Even you guys here, who are the cutting edge of liberal Islam today are deeply entrenched in this 'literal word of god' nonsense. Then where is the hope that the mutawwas in Saudi Arabia will let go of thier strangle hold on Islam?

It takes hundreds of years and many generations of people to change such thinking. I am hoping Iran will lead the way because they are so young and modern. We shall see.

As for your theory that Israel will dominate, I cannot but smile and say how wrong you are to think Israel can 'dominate' anything! Israel is in survival mode for the last eighty years and will be so almost forever in the foreseeable future!

Islam does not impeded the growth and development of technological advances. It's mere media propaganda and media manipulation to the masses that causes some to think Islamic traditions can't coexist with modernization.

In Islam there is a taxation system called the Jezeeah. The non-Muslims pay this tax. The Muslims pay the another tax called the Zakat, which is based on or about 2 percent of ones wealth. It's like a flat tax. Non-Muslims living under Islamic laws are not under obligations to abandoned there beliefs, Christian, Jew or Atheist. They are allowed to have there places of prayer and carry on with there beliefs to a degree. There is of course some restrictions to living in any society and the Islamic society has it's restrictions, which are too numerous to indicate here. There obligation from the non-Muslim to the Islamic government is only the taxation system(Jezeeah), which provides protection for them and the adherence to the law of the land. Much like the United States, the taxation system and the law of the land govern much of our lives.

Why should one government to another, dictate the norms and societal acceptances, when there is clear fundamental differences in there methods of existing on earth. It makes more since to continue the development of mutual trust, friendship and cooperation between civilized nations. Psychoanalysis through media manipulation should not be the tool used to cause dissension between nations. Understanding and cooperation is needed. Let the Nations and it's people solve there own problems. We as Americans need to stop the manipulative political games.

Weisskopf, It's worth noting that in the history of Islam, there was always the protection of non-Muslims under the Caliphs, during the periods when the Muslim lands were under the Shariah. During the Nazis wrath of murderous terror, Millions of Jews, were welcomed, protect and aided from Hitler's German Christian crusade. Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture.

weisskopf- the mosque i went to was a university mosque and had almost no pakistani memebers.

it was the conservative nature they were voting for, not any supposed anti-india allaince, which simply unture at that point.
and also that the republicans correctly recognized a new voting block on the horizon, and so paid attention to them, painting democrats as godless socialists- and the democrats basically ignored the muslim constituency.
india firmly allied itself with israel-usa in 2000 (actually 1992)

i think you just made that idea up in your imagination, as it doesnt make any historical or political sense.

also, you seem to view the entire muslim world through the lens of your limited experiences in saudi arabia.

which is fine, but narrow.

...and you...mrs.A? how many countries have you lived in other than the good ole us of a?