Super Duper Tuesday

8 02 2008

The outcomes of Super Tuesday in the US were as expected: A virtual tie between the two Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama whereas on the Republican camp, a win by John MacCain although Mike Huckabee did better than expected whereas Mitt Romney went home with the most to lose.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are well known for their conservative and traditional ideology. Mike Huckabee manages to win many conservative votes from his rival, Mitt Romney, as well as from many Republicans disgruntled by MacCain’s relatively Liberal views. Hackabee may well go on to claim a political victory for being able to secure many votes over what many had predicted and was able to pocket a sizeable share of delegates even though his two rivals had shared every state save Iowa pre-Super Tuesday states. Even though Huckabees chances of overtaking any of his rivals seem extremely narrow, especially when it comes to MacCain, he as well as Romney are continuing their campaign to obviously secure a ‘running mate’ position as well as being chosen the Vice President – notice how Huckabee and Romney increasingly claim they will reach the White House as opposed to the Presidency.

As for the Democats, Hillary Clinton was the clear, albeit extremely narrow, victor on Tuesday, winning the biggest and most important states on offer and securing more delegates than Obama. She will go on to claim that she faced Obama’s full-throttle momentum accumilated after his victory in Iowa. However, Obama was also pleased, he won more states than Hillary and proved his ‘Beltway’ and nation-wide popularity. He will also be oblied to highlight the fact that his momentum is still in full swing and, even though hindered, was not stopped by even Hillary Clinton – a heavy-weight Democrat whom not-so-long-ago had double digit leads over any of the second-bests in the race.

The Republicans now have a decisive leader for the Presidential election whereas the Democrats don’t. This could prove to be damaging as the General Presidential Elections approach. The Republicans can now focus most of their energy at bashing at the Democratic nominees, while Clinton and Obama continue to bash at each other more ferociously in the days to come.


The Mystery of Fatah Al-Islam

24 01 2008

Fatah Al-Islam has been shrouded by mystery and confusion since the day it officially declared it’s existence. Their story and plight has become politicised by frankly every single party involved in Lebanese politics – this includes outsider party’s as well as national one. Sadly, the misinformation broadcast by every politician, political party, news outles and governments has led to the obstruction of unveiling the truth behind this militant organisation either due to the inaccuracy of information gathered or journalist and freelancers’ fear of being accused of lying and siding by a political party – and in effect have all their research disregarded as well as their record stained – if they dare declare their findings.

We’ll start with the basics. Fatah Al-Islam became known in May 2007 after it officially declared it’s existence and fought the Lebanese National Army in the same month. It’s leader is Shaker Al-Abssi, a notorious criminal and hardcore militant who used to be an ex-Fighter Pilot for the Libyan army, sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan as well as jailed in Syria for smuggling weapons and is now again wanted by the Syrian Authorities.


The March 14 camp in Lebanon (US/Western-backed) claims that Fatah Al-Islam is a small splinter or sleeper terrorist group in Lebanon under Syrian direction and support (including arms and finances). Meanwhile, the March 8 camp (Syrian/Iranian-backed) claims the contrary. That in fact, Fatah Al-Islam is a group created by the March 14 camp in order to weaken the relatively strong Army – essentially the only barrier to a confrontation with Hezbollah and total control in Lebanon. Read the rest of this entry »

The US Elections

12 01 2008


I must admit, there is no escaping the charade called ‘US Elections’. It’s importance makes you sad when you realise the irony in that the candidates standing for the ‘Most Powerful Person’ job, are the most racist, extremist, dumb and/or ignorant among their faction or party.

Never the less, it is a very entertaining occurrence. Once every 3 or 4 years, in the run-up to the elections, you get to witness candidates from all the spectrum: the desperate (Guilliany), the old (McCain), the odd (Romney) and so on. There are two exceptions this year. They are, ofcourse, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

I think I am being unfair when I call Guilliany the desperate one. Maybe he fits the Rhetoric one. I mean, in some speeches he says the words Terror, 9/11 and Islamist/Fundamentals almost in every sentence, before every full stop and after every comma. He can’t stop it. When Clinton shed a tear (or two – it depends who counted), I was struck by the slyness of US politics in that people will do anything to rise into office – even if that means they make themselves look like wimps.

Obama, on the other side, is inspirational and truly worthy of the leadership post. While Clinton attacks him, he calls for unity. While Clinton sheds her crocodile tears, Obama is inspiring people with his incredibly inspiring and charismatically-said speeches. While Clinton is copying Obama’s message for change (even though she undoubtedly represents the status quo, Obama is busy thinking up new ingenuities to attract the masses and their votes.

By now you have probably guessed where my allegiance lays in this battle. Although, I have to come to terms with reality. Obama, working up the hard way, will fall. Meanwhile,Clinton will fox and cry and copy her way through to the office the easy, cheaters way. I will not give my reasons for this opinion, but lets just say having common sense on foreign policy means your demise after your slight rise.

It really is a shame. The winning candidate will lead the whole world – both free and totalitarian – and decide the fate and course of our little blue marble.

The Lebanon Street

11 01 2008


Let me set a scenario. If someone one day took your iPod away from you and you tried to negotiate with him to return it to you and they promise you that you will have it back in 14 days. After this time limit expires, you ask for it back but you gain no reply. Then some months later, after continuously trying to convince the thief to return your iPod and they either don’t respond or refuse to do so, and after reporting the incident to the police they also do not respond, you decide to take matters in your own hand.

So one day you creep into this persons house and take your iPod back, but they notice. The thief tried to attack you but in the process you end up giving them a slap and running away back to your own home. The next day, they approach you with another person, who is supposed to be your friend too. The thief punches your face blue, and your friend decides to not stop the fight but rather fuel it by giving the thief a knuckleduster and a knumbchuck to beat you up with.

Would you, as a sane person, ever talk to that ‘friend’ who had just betrayed you so brutally?

Read the rest of this entry »