Bias Western Reporting At Its Lowest

When I read on the news that a Singapore-flagged commercial ship was fired upon by an Iranian naval patrol boat, I thought Singapore was just sucked into the Middle East conflict. However once I know the details, I understand this was just another incident of bias Western reporting on Iran.

It seems that a commercial ship, Alpine Eternity, accidentally struck an Iranian oil platform, damaging it. The ship was also damaged in the accident and went into port for repairs. During the repairs, the Iranians informed the shipping company that they must pay for damage to the oil platform. The shipping company refused.

With the dispute unsettled, the ship left port which of course got the Iranians hopping mad. A Iranian naval boat confronted the Alpine Eternity near Abu Musa island, demanding that the ship go back into Iranian waters. The dispute escalated from there with the Iranian naval boat firing warning shots at the ship. The Alpine Eternity called for help, the UAE coast guard responded and the Iranian patrol boat left the area.

So let me get this straight; a commercial ship struck and damaged an oil platform, refused to pay for the repairs, escaped into international waters without resolving the issue, got chased by the Iranian navy, and somehow this was the Iranian’s fault?

It seems that this is a perfect example of bias Western reporting, twisting facts to depict Iran as the aggressor. The ship hit an oil platform and ran! So the incident must be the fault of the Iranians!

I know being a Singapore-flagged ship doesn't mean that the ship is owned by Singapore, but I think the Singapore government might want to look into this dispute. Let’s not get drag into the Middle East conflict by the mischievous Western media. 

Nothing Learned

U.S Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, has resigned as reports surfaced about differences between him and U.S President Barack Obama. In short, Mr Hagel and President Obama have different opinions about whether to commit more American troops to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Currently, it’s too early to tell which way President Obama will lean but the fact that it’s still a question is shocking for me. After a decade of non-stop war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m amazed the United States of America still want to fight. Has nothing been learned in America?

Before you went into Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States of America was the hyper-power of the world. Since then, the U.S went into the Great Recession, had a housing bubble burst, and had their international reputation went into the toilet.

Now you are thinking of putting more troops into Iraq, and even intend to add Syria into that list? Truly, has nothing been learned in America? 

It Was A Mistake

It’s widely accepted that former American President George W. Bush was the worst U.S President America had in living memory, mostly due to the costly Iraqi War. Personally, I always thought that the man was well-meaning but incapable of the job.

One of the things he also appear incapable of is admitting a mistake. To this day, George W. Bush do not believe invading Iraq! In a recent interview, George W. Bush insists sending troops into Iraq was “the right decision” and he only regret the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in parts of Iraq.

Well guess what? The world only has the problems on ISIS because of the decision to send troops into Iraq! So if you "regret" the rise of ISIS, shouldn't "regret" the decision to send troops into Iraq. That’s not even counting the fact that you ordered troops into Iraq on pretense. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and did not have a nuclear program.

Not if you are George W. Bush. Such details don’t seem to register with him and 6 years after leaving the White House, he is still incapable of seeing what the world already knows. 

Going into Iraq opened a can of worms that the world is grappling with to this day. Going into Iraq was a mistake! 

History Repeat Itself?

As the U.S launched new air strikes against Islamic State (IS) militants, this time in Syria, U.S President Barack Obama hailed the support of Arab nations in the air strikes and proudly said that more than 50 nations had agreed to fight IS.

Honestly, I think President Obama need to can it on the rhetoric of having a coalition to fight IS. The fight is in the Middle East; he is bombing Syria without a United Nations mandate; doing it without the permission of the Syrian government; and doing it without the blessings of China and Russia. Does this remind anyone of anything? 

If your answer is Iraq and George Bush, then you are not alone. This is eerily similar to what happened before the Iraq War and we all know how that war turned out for the Americans.

Lotfi Ariffin Does Not Fight For IS!

It’s no surprise that there are some people from Southeast Asia currently fighting in Syria and Iraq on behalf of the Islamic State (IS). IS has recruited people from all over the world, so this cannot come as any surprise. 

So when Yahoo news announced how the death of a Malaysian Islamist in Syria fighting on behalf of IS has sparked an outpouring of eulogies on social media, many people were rightfully concerned. However there’s just one problem.

Lotfi Ariffin, the Malaysian in question, does not fight for IS! 

He died fighting the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad on behalf of an Islamic group call Ajnad al-Sham, a rebel group that operates near the Syrian capital of Damascus which is not affiliated to IS or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. Having said that, according to his regular posts on social media, Mr. Lotfi Ariffin was a proud Islamist who believed he was answering a call for jihad in Syria.

That is short is the headache facing Western and Arabic states looking to take on IS in Syria and Iraq. Do they just attack IS or should they also attack other Islamic militant groups like Nusra Front and Ajnad al-Sham? How do they differentiate between the groups and if they attack all of them, would that make/force the groups to band together?

For people who are wondering why it is taking so long for the U.S and the Western countries to attack IS, this is just one of the big problems they are facing with no clear answer. 

Libyan Civil War 2.0?

Call them whatever you want, The Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL, the fact remains; ISIS has grown rapidly in strength and influence in both Iraq and Syria in recent times. So much so that the U.S. military has now become the airforce of the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their fight against ISIS.

If you have a feeling of déjà vu, it’s because we’ve been through this before. In 2011, the U.S, British and French became the airforce of Libyan rebels in the Libyan Civil War. Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in that war and many Western news agencies are already saying that Iraq will be “liberated” the same way Libya was “liberated” in October 2011.

Some people got short term memory.

I say this because the last time I checked, the Libyan Civil War ended up terribly. Since the loss of Gaddafi, Libyan rebels are in the midst of a civil war among themselves; there have been a massive proliferation of weaponry in the region; and the even the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was stormed!

No one came out of the Libyan Civil War smelling like roses, and the fight against ISIS is supposed to be Libyan Civil War 2.0? For the sake of the U.S., I hope not. Libya didn’t turn out well for anyone, and the last thing the world need is another Libyan mess!

Why They Are Still Fighting

As Israel and Palestinian faction Hamas agreed to a new three-day ceasefire, efforts are continuing in Cairo for a longer-term deal. Efforts that are hampered by Israel’s latest demand that they will not negotiate while under fire from Hamas.

That in short is the main reason why the two sides had been unable to come to an agreement thus far. Hamas has been doing far better against the Israelis than anyone thought they would and the Israeli government is trying to find ways and means to avoid giving Hamas a victory.

Since Israel launched "Operation Protective Edge" on 8 July, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has killed more than 1,900 Palestinians, but most of them have been civilians. In contrast, sixty-seven people have died on the Israeli side, but only 3 of whom were civilians.

If you just look at the numbers, you can clearly see that the IDF is winning the battle. However if you take into account that Hamas is heavily outmanned, outspent and outgunned by the Israelis, it’s kind of surprising they have done as well as they had. Not only that, with their tunnels, Hamas had proved that they have the capabilities to strike at Israeli military targets directly.

That is why the Arab world who initially treated the conflict with a collective shrug is now suddenly trying to find a solution for a ceasefire. Hamas’ capabilities in the field are embarrassing them and the longer it goes, the worse it is for them. And what if Hamas?

Hamas would benefit the most from a ceasefire. They have demonstrated their military capabilities to the world and their political aim of freely the Israeli siege have the full backing of the Palestinian people. The crazy thing about the whole affair is that the good field result of Hamas is probably what’s stopping them from getting what they want; the lifting of the Israeli siege.

That is why the fighting hasn’t stopped and negotiations haven’t gotten anywhere. All sides are so focused on not losing that Palestinian lives lost in the fighting are a secondary concern.

Israel's Own Goal

Ever since war started between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, one thing has been obvious; Hamas and the Palestinians has been winning the media war. Even the United States, Israel's one constant ally in the world, has now been showing more and more frustration with the Jewish state.

The reason has been simple. Over 1000 Palestinians has been killed in the conflict and most of them has been civilians. Also Israel has been bombing various infrastructures in the Gaza Strip which has been not involved in the fighting. Schools, hospitals and Gaza's sole power station has been knocked out by Israeli bombs and missiles. Of course, Israel is denying everything, often claiming that Hamas has been firing rockets from these positions.

Then came this live CNN report.

CNN correspondent, Karl Penhaul, was delivering a live report from the Gaza Strip when a building just 200m behind him got bombed by a F-16 fighter jet! Smoke was seen billowing from the sixth floor of the residential building soon after and the whole thing was caught live.

Yes, that includes the fact that no one from Hamas was firing from the building! Man, talk about an own goal. Penhaul quickly reported that the CNN crew has been reporting from the position for a few days already and not once had anyone seen any rockets coming from the building.

All live! Well, so much for the idea that Israel is not targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip. 

2 Coups; Same Results?

Anyone who read my blog knows that I think the current military coup in Thailand is an exercise in futility. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha may be in power now but his rule will probably end in tears because in any general elections which is even remotely fair, the red shirts will crush the yellow shirts at the polls.

As I wrote last week, the only way for the yellow shirts to win is to NOT have free and fair elections. Even then, there’s no guarantee things will go smoothly for him. He can just ask former military chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt.

Over a year after ousting Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, and the Muslim Brotherhood from power in a military coup, al-Sisi is now trying to gain some respectability by winning an election. It is an election that no one doubt he will be win because he is the only viable candidate.

It is also an election the Muslim Brotherhood is boycotting.

The call for a boycott is working as voter turnout in the election is so low al-Sisi and the military government has no choice but to extend voting into a third day. The Egyptian election is supposed to last only 2 days but with voter turnout rumored to be at 15% (at most), al-Sisi is desperate. If only 15% voted for him, this means 85% of the Egyptian people are against him because he is the only candidate! So voting is extended. Yes, that's how "fair" the Egyptian election is. 

So Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha and the Thai military better not be too comfortable in their position right now. It is always calm before the storm.

The Eventual Winner?

"This is a turning point in the crisis, both militarily in terms of the army's achievements in the war against terror, and socially in terms of national reconciliation processes and growing awareness of the truth behind the [attacks] targeting the country."

These words were uttered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who believed that after 3 years, the Syrian civil war is now at a turning point. He is right and it is turning in his favor!

This is an analysis most observers, including Western diplomats who wish to topple al-Assad, agrees with. The reason is simple. The West insistence that moderate Syrian rebels like the Frees Syrian Army (FSA) turn their backs on the extreme rebel group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), have split the Syrian rebels and al-Assad has waste no time in taking advantage of the situation.

Not only that, the Syrian government is steadily taking territory from FSA, using the age-old tactics of trying to wipe out the weaker force first before going after the stronger ISIS. After suffering attacks from their follow rebels, ISIS has been consolidating their presence in eastern Syria, basically abandoning the rest of Syria to the Syrian government and FSA. A straight fight the Syrian government is winning handily.

So after scoring a succession of military victories, President Assad will be forgiven for gloating about the future. The chances of him ultimately winning the Syrian civil war is a very possible possibility. 

Do Not Rule It Out

The U.S Secretary of State, John Kerry, has publicly said that the U.S will help Iraq fight al-Qaeda-linked militants who had taken over the city of Fallujah, but the Americans are not planning to send troops back into Iraq. Honestly, as war-weary as I know the Americans are, this is a bad decision. 

Although Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has not asked for help and the Iraqi army could very well defeat the militants without American help, ruling out helping the Iraqi outright sent out a bad signal to the rest of the world. Or to be more exact, it sent out a bad signal to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Taliban will see what's happening in Iraq and go, "hey, we can do that here in Afghanistan after the American leave later this year!" And you know what? They would be right. Even if you are not sending any troops back to Iraq, the U.S government should/must not publicly say sending troops back to Iraq is out of the question.

Think about it; The U.S invaded Iraq in 2003; ended combat missions in 2010; left in late 2011; 2 years later, al-Qaeda took over a city; and the Americans confirm to the world they will not sent troops to help the Iraqi government they left behind. That's almost as if you're are leaving a playbook for the Taliban.

Even if it's true, even if the world knows it's true, you still must not say you are not going back to Iraq. That's not just bad policy, that's giving hope to your enemies.

The Russian Masterstroke

Despite what U.S President Barack Obama has publicly said about how he “have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions", let’s tell it as it is; anything less than an attack on Syria by the U.S would be a climb-down from their earlier stated intentions.

Yet with most of the world against a strike on Syria and, according to media reports, most of the U.S Congress as well, President Obama may have dug himself into a hole he can’t come out of. So if I am him, I would be on my knees thanking Russian President Vladimir Putin for giving me a way out of the mess that is the Syrian civil war.

Taking advantage of a mistake by U.S Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia has proposed that in return for the cancellation of strikes by the U.S, Syria will place their chemical weapons under international control. Despite all the American talk about how the threats of strikes made the Syrian agree to the Russian proposal, let’s us tell it as it is; President Putin just saved President Obama’s bacon.

I’m sure there are still a lot of wrangling for all the parties involved, but everyone wanted a face-saving way out of the mess and the Russians gave a proposal that satisfied everyone. Russia, Syria, and the U.N averted a military strike; the U.S, U.K, and France do not have to support an attack on another country without U.N approval, and President Obama have avoided a potentially painful defeat in the U.S Congress.

All these potentially embarrassing pitfalls have now been avoided by the Russian proposal. Say what you want about the Russians, this was without question a diplomatic masterstroke by them and the world should be grateful. 

The Common-Sense War?

Does the U.S government has proof that Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the chemical attack on Aug 21 outside Damascus? Do they even have evidence that the attack was done by the Syrian military? They say "Yes", but the U.S government has not shown any of it yet to the world.

Now, we know why. It seems that their so-called evidence depends on..."common-sense".

Over the weekend, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during a public relations blitz that a  "common-sense test" dictates that the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack. He admitted that the White House do not have "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" but "common-sense" says that President Assad was responsible for the attack.

Really? That's the best the U.S government got? They want to launch an attack on Syria based not on evidence but on "common-sense"? Look, common-sense may have a place in this world but no one launched a war based on common-sense! After all, common-sense says that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we all know how that turned out. If common-sense is the best the U.S government has, then I am totally against an attack on Syria.

If the U.S government want support from the world for an attack on Syria, then they need to come out with "evidence". Common-sense is just not going to cut it. Hell, it's not even close!

The Senseless Rush To War In Syria

As U.N. experts are still investigating the poison gas attack in Syria, the United States has left the world that there is no doubt they are going to launch military strikes against Syria. They will be doing it alone.

For all the talk about a coalition, outside America, no one is actually rushing to help the Americans attack President Bashar al-Assad. Russia and China will stop any resolution at the U.N. Britain cannot attack after Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in parliament over it. Turkey and the Arab states have no real military power to attack Syria, and France don't have any real power in the region to help in any meaningful way.

Not only that, U.S. President Barack Obama is going have to drag the United States of America into another Middle Eastern war against the wishes of Americans. One poll showed that less than 40% of Americans support an attack against Syria.

So I have to ask; what's the rush? The U.N. are still investigating, there is no support from any other countries, so why is President Obama insisting on attacking Syria before the U.N. finish their investigation? It makes no sense.

It makes as little sense as President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. The man was winning. The Syrian rebels were on the backfoot for weeks already; why would the man use chemical weapons now when he didn't use them earlier when he was actually losing the civil war? It makes no sense.

Also what is this plan of a "limited, narrow" military action to attack Syria? Qassim Saadeddine, a former Syrian army colonel and spokesman for the rebels' Supreme Military Council, has openly crowed about how the rebel groups had been sent a military plan of action and that they will "take advantage" when the strike happens. He even told Reuters that their military plans include preparations to attack some targets that are going to be hit in the air strikes. Sure sounds like he know something, doesn't it?

Could it be that this rush to war was because...well the rebels needed some serious help or they would be swept from the field? That makes far more sense than anything else so far in President Obama's argument.

The Fickle Egyptians (Part 2)

Last month when the Egyptian military ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in a military coup, I commented on the fickle nature of the Egyptian public. Some people commented that my view was wrong; one even said that I was oversimplifying things.

I stood by what I written then, and recent developments in Egypt has I’m afraid proved me right. The Egyptian people are fickle. I said this because there is no other explanation possible to the news that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the man ousted by the Egyptian public in 2011, is set to be released from prison within 2 days!

Frankly, ever since the military coup, you could see this coming. A military man himself, it’s no surprise that Mubarak has supporters in the military and that the Egyptian military leaders see him as one of their own. What’s surprising is the non-reaction of the Egyptian public to the news. President Morsi, the first freely elected president of Egypt, is now in prison, while the longtime dictator of the country is going to be released. The Egyptian public treated the news with barely a shrug of their shoulders.

2 years ago, Hosni Mubarak was the bad guy everyone came together against. Now he is being released by his people and no one in Egypt cared! The sense of absurdity in the air takes my breath away and I don’t whether to laugh or cry at what’s happening in Egypt. Good thing to come out of this; at least now no one can argue against my view that the Egyptian people are fickle. 

Shifting Reports

As the Egyptian military are poised to start taking action against supporters of ousted President Mohamed Mursi, you will notice one thing as you read the news of Western media like BBC and CNN. They are shifting their reporting to be against the military.

Now some people may believe that this is a simple case of the western press not wanting to be seen supporting the Egyptian military as they crackdown on supporters of deposed Islamist president Mohamed Morsi, but I think the reason for the shift is different. They have realized that the Egyptian military (surprise, surprise) has no intention to give up power!

When the military coup took place, the Egyptian military made all the right noise. They claim that there will be elections within 4 months and a civilian government will be in place after that. Recently as Western mediators admitted defeat in getting the Egyptian military to come to an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood, that date was quietly changed to 9 months!

The Egyptian military has (shockingly) moved the goalpost for an election that would kick them out of power. What a surprise! Totally unexpected! No wonder the Western press is now doing a 180 turn right now! No one could have seen that one coming.

America Play Its Hand

Since the first day when the Egyptian military staged the coup that ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, it had been a suspicion of the world. The suspicion was that there was no way the Egyptian military would have staged the coup without the approval, or at least the tacit acknowledge, of the U.S government.

The suspicion was that despite what they say publicly, privately the U.S government was more than happy to see the back of President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government. The suspicions are now all in the past tense because U.S Secretary of State John Kerry has now all but admitted it.

In his strongest support yet for Egypt's new leadership, Kerry told a Pakistani television station that the Egyptian military was "restoring democracy" when it ousted Morsi on July 3. In his words, Kerry said that the military was “asked” to intervene by protesters and even so far to claim that the military “did not take over” the government.

Talk about a bloody joke! Not only did the U.S government not called the military coup a coup, they are now even saying that Egyptian military did not take over the government! Talk about a statement that defy common sense! If there was any doubts about America's position on the coup in Egypt, this most definitely settled it. 

The Clueless Coup

Since the coup in Egypt last week, ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood has been on the ropes with hundreds of supporters been arrested by the Egyptian military. However they will take heart from one thing; outside been good at arresting people, the coup leaders has been clueless about everything else!

Once they ousted President Morsi, the military quickly named Adly Mansour, a relatively mid-level judge, as interim President who said he wanted to form a government of national unity. However that one statement is about the only they got right since the coup because outside that, it has been a comedy of errors. Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize-winning diplomat, was supposed to be prime minister, but his appointment was blocked by the Salafist al-Nour Party. The al-Nour party then withdrew from the talks to form an interim government when over 50 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were gunned down by the military in a sit-in protest.

Interim President Adly Mansour and the military had to quickly change tack. They named Hazem El-Beblawi, a liberal economist, as the interim Prime Minister, and Mohamed ElBaradei, who was supposed to be Prime Minister, is now the interim Vice-President. Interim President Adly Mansour also announced a new election timetable. The timetable was rejected as expected by the Muslim Brotherhood, but it was also swiftly rejected by the National Salvation Front (NSF), the main liberal opposition coalition who had supported the coup.

So now you have 2 important political parties who had at first supported the coup now withdrawing their support; a Prime Minister who is now the Vice-President; and an election timetable rejected by almost everyone. Oh, and for the kicker, the military has announce an arrest warrant for Mohammed Badie, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a move almost certain to enrage the supporters of the Brotherhood, but what's worse is that the arrest warrant came less than 24 hours after Interim President Mansour, the man they appointed, tried to offer the Brotherhood posts in his government.

This has to go down as one of the worst coup in history. A week after successfully ousting an elected President, the Egyptian military still cannot form a government to show to the rest of the world. It makes you wonder if they exactly had any plans on what to do after ousting President Morsi. So far, the answer seem to be a big 'No'. It seem the Egyptian military's hatred for the Brotherhood had overridden their common sense. 

The Fickle Egyptians

One year after the first democratic presidential election in Egypt, President Mohammed Morsi has been ousted by a military coup. The first freely elected president of Egypt was overthrown by the Egyptian military just one year in office by protests similar to that of the Arab Spring uprising.

If that prove one thing, it is the fickle nature of the public. Just 2 years ago, the 2011 Arab Spring toppled longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. In the free elections that followed, the Muslim Brotherhood handily won it. Just one year ago, Mohammed Morsi won the presidential election; another free election won fairly by the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Now the people in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, are cheering as the Egyptian armed forces announced they had dropped the Islamist leader in a coup. They also suspended the newly-drafted constitution which had been put in place by the Egyptian parliament after the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, took control of state media, blacked out TV stations operated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and arrested the head of the Brotherhood's political wing. Now all under the cheers of the people in  Cairo's Tahrir Square.

Cheering a military coup for ousting a freely elected President who won a election which almost everyone admit was free and fair. Yes, saying the Egyptian people are fickle is not only correct, it might be an understatement. 

Choosing Sides

As expected, the U.N. General Assembly again condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a non-binding U.N. resolution but as they say, the devil is in the details.

While the resolutions did pass the 193-nation assembly, the votes in favor of the resolution has dived. In August last year, a similar resolution condemning the Syrian government passed with 133 votes in favor. This time, there were only 107 votes in favor. The missing 28 votes voted became abstentions.

While it’s normal to think that the 28 countries choose not to support the Syrian opposition this time round did so because of unease about the fractious rebels, I’m afraid that the reason is more mundane and realpolitikal. They changed their votes because now they are unsure if the rebels are going to win. Reuters even managed to get a senior Western U.N. diplomat, speaking anonymously of course, admitting this.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of President Assad personally, but everything is relative. Between the fact that President Assad seems to be winning, terrorists among the rebels, the kidnapping of U.N. peacekeepers by Syrian rebels, and rumored use of chemical weapons by the rebels; you seriously have to wonder if the Western powers are on the right side of the conflict.

Right now things are still considered “fluid” on the ground. If you want to switch sides, now is the time. Once one side got the clear upper hand, if they had not yet, then switching sides will be far more difficult.