The Apple, Shah, Hamas and Mr. Bush

The election of Hamas to place a terrorist organization in charge of the government is not an entirely novel experience. It has happened before that terrorists have risen to power to rule the people. After this letter I will repost a related letter on the Shia-Sunni phenomena from last year. There are a few interesting points of politics occurring presently that involve some American interest. It is easier to understand the player positions when the leaders have simple names that are cliché’s or representative. With Yassir gone its not so simple with individual Palestinians of course, yet Hamas or violence makes their plan self-evident. CEO Eiger of Disney/ABC somehow enticed Apple CEO Steve Jobs to become Disney’s majority shareholder, and so some must wonder if he will continue to support the Disney Fag Days at the Florida themes Park? The state of Israel has tougher decisions.

Games theoreticians will have a field week with options Israel has for addressing the Palestinian problem in the control of a terrorist entity dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The Gaza Strip is right sidled up to the Southern border of Israel, and recently they were given control of the Egyptian border crossings. One should have foreseen the rise of Hamas to power years ago of course, as the Palestinians gaining a solid physical base close in would make the effort of flooding the area with as many weapons of mass destruction as possible.

The United States is concerned about the Iranian attempt to develop the bomb and become a member of the global assured destruction policy (Gad) or the need to not be able to resort to gun plane diplomacy when needed. Yet is the administration taking the Iraq political situation into account, and attempting to contemplate how Iraqi Shia would react to destruction of Iranian nukular plants by American or Israeli military forces?

Scientific American’s present issue has a fine article on building two styles of nukular weapons that will at least give amateur bomb builders a good place to start. Scientific American pointed out that enriched uranium could be used to make a nuke with less than 100 grams that are available for theft or trade at more than 135 nukular facilities worldwide. Of the two types of bombs modeled on those of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Nagasaki bomb requires the least amount of enriched uranium to build, while the Hiroshima bomb is probably simpler to build yet requires a bit more fissile material.

From watching American public television most people know that a Nagasaki type bomb needs an implosion created by packing the uranium into a perfectly symmetrical, rather thick layer of plastic explosive such as semtex and with a serial wired instantaneous blasting/cap-det cord wrap. The Nagasaki bomb seems a bit tougher to build…with one piece of uranium packed and propelled to strike a larger clump of uranium making a blast. Though some wish to deny the existence of Suitcase nukes, the same public television show on nukes has plutonium in a cylinder nuke that was no larger than 18 inches by 7 inches…it was more of an attaché nuke. Yet that sort of device would have been very restricted, and given through tech transfer only to the Communist Chinese perhaps.

If the Bush administration considers blasting Iran’s nukular facilities, it may disrupt a primary source of nukular material production, yet it could also aggravate the situation and create sympathy amidst radical Muslims that hate being ruled by computer instructions from outsourced plants in China and India contracted by third parties. Some wealthy terror symp could purchase via political or even criminal bribery some enriched uranium and pass it on to undesirable elements, perhaps event violent Hamasinians, to wreak havoc upon Israel or Washington DC.

Israel’s many options with the takeover of the Palestinian authority by a terrorist organization that is in de facto default on all of the prior peace agreements, include retaking all of the land given to the Palestinians under the obsolete agreements and refilling the areas with safe settlers that are trustworthy. Yet that could stimulate an intafadah and new rounds of hate that even anti-hate crimes laws won’t stop, so Israel instead will want to try to entangle the Palestinians in prosperity that brings moderation as comfort creeps over the lifestyle of fatalist self-detonation with a Kamikaze headband when gloriously possible. Israel may also seek to target the Hamas leadership if it meets in their ‘Congress’, or perhaps Mr. Abramov could be released if in stir to lobby the worst of Hamas with free junkets abroad, good food and whatever else worked so well in the District of Columbia.

The Hamas if in charge of a neo-sovereign state might funnel terror payments here and there, and without oil ‘food’ will not work to train them off the low-cost semtex method of negotiating. The election of Hamas may be a consequence of Bush pressure upon Syria and Iran, and was a good tactical move, if one prefers stupidity, or perhaps necessary violence and force as the only realistic method of doing things in the middle east, to peace, prosperity and higher education such as one would imagine might rationally develop.

One must consider the pressures of decay that beset the west in the form of amoral abortions and bills to compel homosexual culture upon the masses, perhaps through devilwood brainwashing in movies, computer animation propaganda, or even corporatist favoritism of amorality as a way to have more spineless masses of consumers to rule. If only the Muslims were not possibly damned infidels on their way to eternal hell because they don’t believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, they might not be such a bad bunch of people if they had perfect democracy with liberal rights and justice for all, did not repress people in crude forms of decadent tribalism mushroomed into ‘modern’ states and so forth. Neither Iran north the west has achieved moral and political perfection or anything remotely close, and it is rather disgusting to the idealists amongst us.

It seems unreasonable that Iran should want a nuclear force de frappe to prevent gun plane diplomacy by the adventurer fossil fuel class in government perhaps. Yet America’s role with Iran should be very briefly reconsidered here. It must be remembered that it was all the Brits fault that Iran’s democratic ruler was deposed for the Shah, some have said, because he wouldn’t give the Brits all the oil profit they wanted. The United States of course blundered badly in supporting the Shah with his evil torturers in a secret police force that was internationally terrorist and sadistic. The United States supported an imperial government that resembled that of Ivan the Terrible perhaps with the peacock throne perhaps like that of one of the tsars I saw in Helsinki long ago with talons on the handgrips. A government that supports torture of the people isn’t worthy of existence obviously.

Because the United States was the Shah’s main supplier of advisers and weapons, the revolutionaries considered the U.S. Government it’s main foreign oppressor and they were right. It would be a good thing if the U.S. Government could admit it was wrong for a change instead of pretending that it always makes the right decisions. The choice to support the Shah was a tactical one that developed as a result of regional and global strategy to gain allies to fight the global communist line-up of states. The decision in that context might have been correct, but in the post-cold war context it was entirely wrong. Starting with an apology to Iran for support of the Shah’s government would be a good place to start.

The United States of course hasn’t got a pragmatist like Ronald Reagan around to flank pride and stupidity with secret Iran-Contra or hostages for weapons deals of course, and Mr. Reagan also new that Keynesian economics of stimulating deficit spending has its limit too, unlike the present President that ‘only’ borrowed 350 billion for a federal deficit last years and how much more to pay the interest on the federal debt (maybe 400 billion?). The hostage crisis was the most famous event that had less than four or five casualties in recent American history, and its possible that Iran’s revolutionaries did support terrorism against an America at ‘cold war’ with them...but the taking of the hostages was a logical development sort of like the French storming the bastille perhaps during their revolution without the Jacobean head-chopping of course. And that raises the question of interest to me…why is it the United States fears Iran, or hates them, or whatever? It would be good if someone would explain it publicly because I really don’t understand that point.
Is the administration in possession of substantive secret information that Iranians are ‘out to get them Americans’? Is the meaning phonetically ‘I Ran’ like a red flag for the bull of foreign policy so far as to overcome right reason? If that is the case when they bomb Tehran or wherever if needed maybe they should drop some energy bars made and Alaska water with vitamins and flavor too.
*****************
In the Middle East tribal affilliation had been more important than any other perhaps until terrorist affiliations or plastic explosive empowered 'gangs' became social organizations with an inertia for-themselves. Democracy had virtually no historical reality in the region before the formation of the State of Israel. The Ottoman Empire ruled more than 400 years followed by an occupying British Imperial power of a beneficial nature for a time. Simply creating a democratic concept in the political thought of the majority of Iraqis which are the Shia and Kurds will be a remarkable improvement for-itself.

The Soviets of course tried to support various communist party start-ups in Iraq unsuccessfully, and Saddam Hussein liquidated its entire membership long ago. Iraqi political structures have tended to follow authoritarian lines with a basic impossibility of implementing democratic dissent. Saddam Hussein's rise to power grew with support from Syrian Baathists and his own Tigriti familial association that supported an infrastructure of ethnic/religious relatives. The Sunni influence for Saddam Hussein was minimalized and subordinated to his Baathy socialism made by Afflack in Syria early in the 20th century. It's pan-Arabist philosophy of secularism made it easy for Hussein to purge everyone outside of his own party. in that regard he was rather like Adolph Hitler and the Nazi S.A. of which Arnold Swarzenagger's father was a member that broke heads and liquidated dissidents in order to consolidate Adolph's rise to power. Iraqi's in a post constitution rejection by Sunni voters era will still have a majority in power yet one without as much legal protections for the Sunni minority which chooses to allow al Qa'eda to defend its own interests synergizing with the Saddam Hussein pre-war trained suicide bombers and Syrian terrorists that are perhaps in surplus after the partial expulsion of Syrians from Lebanon by the United States this year. Sunni terrorists in al Qa'eda and Sunni suicide bombers working for a post-defeat ghost infrastructure of Saddam Hussein's Baathy Party based on tribal and affiliated sympathetic tribal power in Faluja and the Tikrit area essentially have antipathetic political goals though each likes to blow opfor members to smithereens.

Even so, with an actual government in Iraq able to increase its military and political authority, and to offer benefits, privileges and real power to those that participate, the inducements for Iraq's Sunnis to become members of the Iraqi government will be substantive enough to draw more and more to join it and perhaps eventually agitate for more sovereignty and authority for Sunni federal rights they will lose by voting down the Iraq constitution October 15, 2005. The issue has been of changing allegiances has been mathematically demonstrated in the well-known prisoner's dilemma and diner's dilemma.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PrisonersDilemma.html
http://www.cli.org/DRJ/unscrup.html

11:48am Oct 7, 2005 EDT (#1705 of 1706)
Shia and Sunni in sectarian liturgical and doctrinal practices certainly will need to develop more tolerance. Yet democracy is essentially about societies letting individuals coexist within metastructural paradigms in law that permit a state to function and to guard equal rights in the law while permitting individuals and organizations to pursue their own enlightened self-interests fulfillment. It is the remedy for a fractious society. Saddam Hussein believed the right way was in blood, death and terror...some of which continues in Iraq after his arrest by co believers in that method of rule through terror.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia1.htm

...quote follows...

"Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Persian and the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, had taught and preached in Najaf after being exiled from Iran by the Shah in 1964. Khomeini's presence in Iraq had an impact on the Shia political movement in Iraq, but his influence in that movement was overshadowed by that of Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, a native Iraqi and an Arab. The Iraqi Shia later became supporters of the al-Dawa and al-Mujahidin parties. The al-Dawa party was guided by the philosophy of Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, a leading figure in the Shia Islamist movement until his execution by the government in 1980.'
Repression of the Shia of Iraq is at the core of authoritarian history in Iraq. Because the Ottoman rulers were Sunni they feared the vast numbers of Shia in Iraq and placed Sunni rulers in power. The article cited above mentions that the policy of Sunni rulers continued during the British era and onto the Baathy era. The British also were concerned about a Shia majority and their potential to ally themselves with Iran. It appears that the U.S.A. hasn't made that same mistake so far. The article also mentions that many Arabs converted to Shiism, and that Iraqi Arabs tended to place their Arab identity before that of their loyalty to Shiism, which of course follows the Middle Eastern trait of tribalism with tribal laws. The closure related one is the more violence one is justified in using, or obligated to use against one's that harm one's relation(s). Modern technological instruments like cell phones tend to overcome much of the more traditional hierarchical power structures that supported tight affiliations in tribal political elements. Economic structures of the industrial and post-industrial era with their international basis also tend to undermine the insularity required for pure tribalism and economy historical based on animal herding and farming. I think the prospects for international trade and commerce can be good in Iraq, especially if Iranian Shia can find a way to develop a populism in politics that permits free trade yet denies authoritarianism in whatever form from traditional dictatorship to neo-corporatism and so forth.http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/19/int1.htm

'Shia Want Tough Sunni Stand Against Zarqawi' Iraq’s 4.5 million Kurds are mostly Sunni but are not Arab...and they rejected the idea that Iraq should be an Islamic state.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/08/07/int7.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html