Are Manchester United title contenders?

 After beating Sunderland 3-0 at Old Trafford Manchester United now sit top of the Premier League for the first time since August 2013 when they beat Swansea 4-1. A lot of pundits and Journalists are for the first time since the days of Sir Alex Ferguson (which seem a long time ago even though it's only been three years) people are talking of Manchester United being title contenders. This is especially more poignant as some of their competitors like Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool have had very poor starts to the season, although I am being quite charitable by stating Arsenal and Liverpool are "competitors". Only Manchester City have started brightly with some impressive wins, yet they suffered recent losses to West Ham and a 4-1 bashing by Tottenham Hotspur. This allowed United to rise above them to reach the top of the table by one point.

If you think back to the start of the season the football commentary consensus pretty much ruled out United completely from the title race because although they made good signings in midfield like Mempis Depay, Bastian Schweinstiger and Morgan Schnerderlin, they get rid of a lot of attacking talent like Robin Van Persie, Javier Hernandez, Angel Di Maria and Radamel Falcao, whilst not bringing enough replacements (aside from Anthony Martial, an absolute nobody for an eye-watering £36 million and was predicted to be an utter flop). Then you had the David De Gea to Real Madrid transfer debacle, which had been rambling on for the past year, culminating in that embarrassing e-mail "mistake" on transfer deadline day that killed the potential move.

However, ever since deadline day United have earned themselves some big wins such as a 3-1 win at Old Trafford against Liverpool and coming from behind to beat Southampton 3-2 away. Martial has exceeded expectations and shocked everyone by scoring 3 goals in 3 Premier League games, with all the goals being very composed finishes which have earned him rather primitve comparisons with Thierry Henry and Patrick Kluivert. But more importantly he gives a different edge to United's attack, because he is quick, strong, has good movement and looks to play on the shoulder of the last man, which is crucial as it gives space to likes of Rooney and Mata so that they can come to life on the ball in dangerous positions, rather than always travelling to their own half to get a touch of the ball. In other words; United can play in between teams and slice them open, instead of playing in front of them and creating barely anything.

It is true United don't exactly have that 30+ goal a season superstar, like Barcelona have in Suarez and Messi or Real Madrid have in Cristiano Ronaldo. However, if things carry on as they are United won't need that superstar that scores 30 goals. They could simply have a few players like Martial, Rooney, Mata and Depay score 15 goals each, with the likes of Schweinstiger, Wilson, Herrera and Fellaini contributing the odd goal. That way you can have a complete team effort in terms of scoring goals, without having to rely on one single man to do it. In addition, if the defence continues their good form with Smalling and Blind as the centre backs and De Gea remaining Goalkeeper making point winning saves, then United have a good chance of winning the title.

Notice how I say "good chance". I can't say this for certain as Manchester City and Chelsea will definetly bring themselves together and will still be in the mix come "squeaky bum time" to quote Sir Alex Ferguson. We still have a long season ahead of us and as happens in the Premier League there will be many shocks, twists, turns and drama. But if United can make it through a tough October with away games at Arsenal and West Ham but if United can still hang in there by Christmas then they have a chance.

In summary, Firstly United must get the best out of their new raw attacking gem Martial and others like Memphis and Rooney. Secondly they must keep David De Gea in the sticks, have a consistent defensive line and clamp down on the constant injuries. Thirdly Louis Van Gaal must keep on implementing his now fruitful "philosophy". If this happen then United have a great chance of being title winners come May.

Let's hope that happen.

Regressive Backlash to Maajid Nawaz & Sam Harris and Murtaza Hussain's Racialism

Yesterday I watched on stream a talk done by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz at Harvard University on the opening of their new book "Islam and The Future of Tolerance" which is an attempt to opening the intellectual conversation on Islamic reform . Personally I really liked the talk, I really admired their frankness and the civility though. I do feel that they could've been a bit more adversarial in this talk. The message I got from the talk was that we must be able to criticise bad ideas which is different from attacking people and only through conversation and dialogue can we bring about effective change and discredit bad ideas.

There is a point in the talk where Maajid and Sam refer to "regressives" (I love how that term is sticking now) who use the vaccous term Islamophobia (as opposed to anti muslim bigotry which is real and serious) to shut down and obfuscate the discussion around Islam and the difficult issues surrounding it. It was obvious Maajid was referring to Max Blumenthal and Nathan Lean who have called Maajid an "Islamophobe" and Sam Harris' "lapdog". I also chuckled when Maajid told them to "stop and check their priviledge". I'm going to let that slide though I think he was being half funny with that comment.

I was expecting a backlash from the usual suspects but I did not expect the utter stupidity and braindead abuse I saw on twitter directed at both Sam and Maajid.

Firstly we had Max Blumenthal who was hate watching the talk and tweeting as he went along.

First if all Max is being disingenuous. Sam Harris did not say "Islam is uniquely problematic", he said that there are a "few variables" within Islam that are "uniquely problematic". This may be a small point but it is I feel important to recognise the various nuances in someone's argument. A wonderful start for Max isn't it?

As usual he had to do a cheap jibe at Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I love how he thinks this is somehow a controversial statement bordering on bigotry. It is well known that you can read a very plausible interpretation of Sharia which mandates the punishment of homosexuals which is in some schools of thought is death. All ISIS is doing is putting these plausible interpretations into practice. Again I must state they are criticising ideas not people. Whether one agrees or disagrees with what their views are.

Then we have an alleged "comedian" Dean Obeidallah imply Sam Harris is an anti muslim bigot  and is comparing him to Mel Gibson who is an anti semite, Paula Deen who is a racist and Donald Trump who has said ghastly things about Hispanic immigrants. To me this "comedian" is either immensley stupid or is immensely devious but I know he's not funny. In the talk they talked about how worrying it is that hate crimes against muslims are risisng across Europe and why we must be very specific about Islamism so that we do not allow the hysteria to fester and grow which may end up in discrimination against muslims as people. But that seems to have gone over Dean's head which means his comparisons are erroneous and really cheapen racism, bigotry and anti semitism which are real and serious problems.



Murtaza Hussain's Racialism

Then we have Murtaza Hussain who is part of the Greenwald clique at The Intercept that have a special vendetta against Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz. Murtaza himself  helped popularise the notion that Sam Harris was a racist and had a very specific anti muslim agenda in this awful article on Al Jazeera. He also has a habit of going for the ad hominem attacks instead of actual arguments when people criticise his views.

As we see here Murtaza goes straight to basically saying that Maajid Nawaz is an Uncle Tom without a moments hesitasition by labelling him Sam Harris' "well coiffed monkey". I will say that two thirds of that statement is correct. Maajid was "well coiffed" and looked very smart but to say that Maajid is being used by Sam Harris in order for Sam to hide his secret, neo con, Islamophobic, white supremacist agenda so that he can sanitize what he really advocates which is the creation of policies that will attack muslims is frankly not true in fact Sam himself that his opinions were the one that has been modified through his by Maajid not the other way round.

You notice this by the fact that Sam is more nuanced when he discusses this topic as he uses words like Islamism, Jihadism and makes the necessary distinctions. For Murtaza this isn't doesn't matter and he'll probably just glibly dismiss this as Sam sanitizing his views and masking his "agenda".

Furthermore he doubles down here. Trust me if he was a white man and he labelled a brown skinned person a "porch monkey" he would be fired. For those of you that don't know "porch monkey" is a historical racial slur for black Americans and refers to Blacks being thought of as lazy. As if they have nothing better to do than to sit at their front porch of their home.

And he triples down. I really hope this obnoxious clown realises just how stupid he sounds here. I'm not going to comment as to whether Murtaza is a racist or not but he does use very racialized language in relation to Maajid Nawaz. It's similar to how white racists would object to white people mixing with black people because it could bring dishonor on "the white race". The principle with Murtaza is the same, to him the fact Maajid (a muslim) is collabarating with Sam (an atheist) and are speaking in a very honest yet nuanced way about the problems currently with Islam, Islamism and Jihadism today is to him paramount to them viciously attacking muslims somehow and he must feel the need to stop this by labelling Maajid as a "porch monkey" to portray him as part of the white supremacist "system" in order to discredit Maajid amongst muslims. This just reveals he has no way of addressing either Maajid or Sam without having to resort to gutter racialized identity politics.


This is by no means the first time Murtaza has done this. Below you see him you see him call an ex-muslim a "chamcha colonial leftover". Chamca in Urdu basically means an "ass kisser" so Murtaza's insult is a variation of the native informant. This sort of tribal mentality that we label any reformist muslim or ex-muslim who criticises Islam in a way you don't like as being a "native informant", "porch monkey", "house muslim" is very dishonest and actually quite vile. Maajid and others should actually take it a sign of victory that he's getting called these names as it shows that these regressives have no arguments to refute him and can only resort to pitiful, racialized insults.

Finally we have this

I really must take issue with what is being said above. The idea that certain issue can only be assigned to certain people (e.g only muslims can talk about Islam) is just absurd. Islamism and Jihadism of course primarily harms muslims and that fact should be acknowledged however it also affects non muslims in the fact that in many muslim countries these actors do persecute non muslims and Jihadists have done numerous attacks in Europe and North America. And Sam Harris has even said this is issue the biggest global moral and political issue of our time. So Iyad get used to non muslims being interested in this debate I'm sure you comment on alot of topics that you are not directly related to so I could use the same facile argument against you. What matters is not the identity of the person making the argument but the content of what they are saying.

One must state that I don't think Iyad is a "regressive" I think he is a very interesting person who does say some wise things however in this instance I really must take issue with his quite frankly stupid tweet.

The secular liberal left has pretty much fractured. The were already cracks there in the aftermath of 9/11 best shown in the exchange Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens had looking into the origins of 9/11. However since the Ben Affleck-Sam Harris debacle on Real Time with Bill Maher I feel those cracks are wide open and there are two distinct sides in this argument engaging in a intellectual war that will define the secular left's moral stance on this issue. On one side you have people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Rizvi, Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, Sarah Haider and many others whose basic argument is beliefs and ideas matter and when people act upon those ideas and say they do, we must take it seriously, fight vigorously against it and support those fighting agaisnt it and advocating reform.

While the regressive opposition composed of characters like Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, Murtaza Hussian, the abysmal plagarist CJ Werleman, Cenk Uygur, Sam Seder etc who will do their utmost best to make excuses, crappy moral equivalences, engage in masochist self blame and general obfuscation which does not advance the idea of an honest debate but merely makes it toxic which does not help muslims and non muslims. Who wins in this intellectual battle matters as it will define what the secular left stands for on this topic which is so important as the secular left is the only force in the world that is best placed to fight against Islamism and the forces of Jihadism and if they buckle and fracture into oblivion then things are not going to be great in the future. Think on that.

Response to Olly Tozer on West's responsiblity on Refugee Crisis

My colleague at NOTA Network Olly Tozer wrote a piece today in which he argues that the West should take some responsibility in helping to create the current refugee crisis that is engulfing Europe. My response is borne out of our discussion on Facebook on this topic and it will be based more on technicalities and nuances rather than a direct rebutal because I do feel also that the west has some responsibility for the current mess in Syria though we arrive at this conclusion from different angles.

First of all without getting into a debate on The Iraq War and I realise it is a sidepoint however I think he and others really overestimate the effect of the invasion of Iraq in relation to the rise of ISIS and the Syrian civil war. While yes certain things related to the invasion did help ISIS rise such as the decision by Paul Bremer to sack the entire Iraqi army (mainly Sunni Arab based) this did help create the basis for the Sunni insurgency which would mutate into ISIS later. However people often miss out other bigger factors such as how during the 90s Saddam Hussein effctively turned Iraq into an Islamist state. For example he initiated The Faith Campaign which was meant to increase the role of Islam in the public and political life of Iraq. It gave more freedom and funding to Islamist groups, it introduced certain Sharia ordinaces and punishments such as beheadings for prostitution. He funded Jihadist groups like Islamic Jihad in West Bank and Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan. He created a paramilitary group called the Fedayeen Saddam to enforce this new ideology and if you look at the propaganda videos they look very similar to ISIS. This is one reason why many of ISIS commanders have links back to Saddam's regime and were "Islamized" during the 90s. The broader the point is that once Saddam's regime went which was inevitable invasion or no invasion I pretty sure at least something similar to ISIS would've been created to protect Sunni Arab power vs the aspirations of the Shia majority. 

In our discussion on Facebook Sam (my other colleague) says there is a case to say that the west's invasion of Iraq in 2003 created the opportunity for extremism and sectarianism to become more prominent. I dont necessarily disagree that Saddam's overthrow did obviously create a political vaccum that had to filled but my argument is this would've happened whenever Saddam's regime ended with an invasion or without an invasion from the west. Saddam Hussein's regime at the time was quite weak and slowly disintergrating and perhaps was one uprising away from being toppled. When you have had over 100 years of constant foreign interference in your internal affairs and 40 years of divide and rule by the Sunni Baa'th party with Saddam utterly guttering the political culture of Iraq by wiping alot of secular opposition thereby making Islamist parties like the pro-Iran Dawah party the most "credible" opposition in addition to Saddam himself "Salafizing" the Sunnis in the 90s then don't be surprised if there is some after effects after the regime is gone. I am willing to bet money that if Saddam's regime had survived until the Arab spring it is likely that we would've seen what we now see in Syria but much more intense because the repression, extremism and sectarianism was on another scale to that of Syria. That's Iraq done with.

Secondly, he says "the west's reaction to the Arab Spring has massively contributed to the refugee crisis, particularly in regards to Syria. Our support of the Syrian rebels has done nothing but prolong the violence and instability, thus developing an environment in which ISIS can flourish.Initially, the US, UK and others supported the “Free Syria Army” (FSA), which also involved supporting splinter groups looking to topple the Assad regime."

So the argument we have here is the west has contributed to the violence that created the refugees by supporting the rebels which include the "Free Syrian Army". I love how Olly puts Free Syrian Army in quotes as though he was being ironic about them. I feel Olly is implying since he later quotes Patrick Cockburn (don't worry I'll get to him) that there is little distinction between the secular nationalist rebels and the Islamist rebels. I would contend that the reason why there may seem to be little distinction between these groups is the secular & moderate rebel groups like FSA + YPG/YPJ have been out gunned and out supported by the Islamist groups which means the Islamists would dominate the public face of the opposition to Assad.

In addition, Olly claims the US + UK has "supported" the FSA but the evidence he gives is the setting up of training camps in Jordan and giving them £8 million in non-lethal aid. However this shows the support is weak as they have not provided heavy weaponry to opposition fighters nor established a no-fly zone in Syria, let alone attacked Assad directly. If the west really was truly serious about overthrowing Assad then more pro-active actions would've been taken such as the examples I provide.

I would also be careful of quoting Patrick Cockburn who has been exposed as a distorter of the truth , is  practically a shill for the Assad regime under the pretense of "realism" (see here where does his upmost best to endorse Assad, while seeming not to.), he's also written articles slandering the Kurds accusing them of ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Turkemen refugees with virtually no evidence at all.

His argument is also basically based on the idea that all Syrian rebels are essentially Salafi jihadists little better than ISIS and that Sunni sectarianism is their key driver and therefore all non-Sunnis like Alawis and Christians rally around Assad for protection. This is just flat out not true.

Cockburn also ignores the existence of non-jihadist rebel groups, who do gain ground on some fronts but as I said before are under supported and are losing their influence. He erases the support of sizable numbers of Alawites and other minorities for rebel groups and for the Kurds. His narrative additonally ignores the existence of resilient Kurdish resistance to both Assad and jihadism such as YPG/YPJ, as well strengthening co-operation between the Kurds and Sunni rebel groups for example here 

I feel that Assad supported by Putin and Iran have done more to escalate the violence which creates refugees than the rebels especially since Assad started the war by massacraing the protestors calling for democracy and has continued his indiscriminate slaughter by barrel bombing civilians which has created more refugees than anything ISIS or other non-state actors has done in Syria. One of the reasons why ISIS and other jihadis may seem popular is because their narrative is more attractive. They portray themselves as the vanguard of Sunni Islam and propigate this weird idea that there is a Crusader (USA)-Zionist (Jews)-Rafidah (Shia) conspiracy to destroy Sunni Islam. So when you have Assad barrel bombing civillians and Sabiha death squads killing Sunni children and raping Sunni women and nothing is done about it it gives validation to the ISIS narrative amongst some Syrians where they would reluctantly ally with them for "protection". 


Next up Olly claims "at least Assad kept the Jihadists on a short leash". I do not think this is exactly true, Assad has had a very complex relationship with Jihadists. For example he allowed Jihadists to travel through Syria into Iraq to fight American troops and sabotage a potential Iraqi democracy. We know at the start of the Syrian revolution Assad released jihadists from its prisons as part of his "amnesty" while it was killing off secular and peaceful activists and protestors. This was a deliberate tactic done by Assad in order to divide and discredit the opposition by increasing the likelihood it would be more associated with Islamism/Jihadism and confessional dividion rather than secular nationalism and a united front against dictatorship.There's also been reports of Assad doing secret oil deals with Al-Qaeda and ISIS often out of neccessity.

In fact Assad has done more to build up ISIS than to defeat it. Terrorism expert Peter Neumann pretty much lays out the story in detail of how and why this was done here.There is additional data obtained by NBC News which supports the argument that ISIS and Assad deliberately dance around each other and would rather fight off smaller opposition groups before a final showdown. For instance: 

"Around 64 percent of verifiable ISIS attacks in Syria this year targeted other non-state groups, an analysis of the IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center's (JTIC) database showed. Just 13 percent of the militants' attacks during the same period — the year through Nov. 21 — targeted Syrian security forces. That's a stark contrast to the Sunni extremist group's operations in Iraq, where more than half of ISIS attacks (54 percent) were aimed at security forces."

It also says:

"JTIC's data shows that his counterterrorism operations — more than two-thirds of which were airstrikes — skew heavily towards groups whose names aren't ISIS. Of 982 counterterrorism operations for the year up through Nov. 21, just 6 percent directly targeted ISIS".

This clearly shows Assad is very selective about when he fights ISIS, he only fights them when it is unavoidable.

There is a mutual benefit for both parties engaging in this temporary tacit alliance. For ISIS it allows them to kill off moderate competition amongst the opposition such as the FSA and even dominate the other Islamist rebel groups. While for Assad ISIS is a valuable asset as they can devalue and paralyse the opposition so that he can achieve his strategic goal of forcing the world to choose between Damascus and the Salafi Jihadists based in Raqqa.

I'm not saying Assad and ISIS are best buddies of course they are hostile and they would fight each other for power if it really had to come to it. However it is wrong to say that ISIS and Assad are arch enemies or thats Assad always suppressed Jihadists. What is true is sometimes Assad will ally with Jihadists when it suits his strategic intrests and will fight them when it threatens his power or when he is unable to control them to his advantage.

Dont get me wrong I am not uncritical of the west but more for having a non policy rather than doing too much. They have not publicy opposed Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states active support for reactionary theocratic rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahar Al-Sham and The Islamic Front. They have also not opposed Turkey's very lax approach in terms of making sure ISIS recruits dont have easy access to Syria throught the Turkish border. The west has also been pretty mute on Turkey's recent bombings on Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan & Syrian Kurdistan therby weakening groups like YPG/YPJ who are very effective in fighting ISIS and controlled the large liberated zone of Rojova in Northern Syria.

Then we have the Obama adminstation's position on Syria which has been one of reluctance. Although publicly Obama has said Assad should go but this hard rhetoric has not been translated into actions. The best instance of this would be the infamous "red line" debacle where Obama failed to act after the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta on 21 August 2013. Part of the reason for this is understandable skepticism from Congress and the American electorate fot the United States to get involved in another Middle Eastern adventure which has made Obama weary of directly intervening in Syria against Assad.

I would also argue that there could've some sensible defensive measures taken that could've reduced the damage done to civillians such as creating an international buffer/safe/no fly zone and possibly giving the FSA some heavy weaponry so that innocent civiilians would'nt fear being barrel bombed by Assad's air force and the FSA would at least have a chance of getting closer to victory against Assad.

Ultimately we don't disagree that the west does have responsibility in allowing Syria to decay into this Hobbesian state (if you can even call it a state anymore) but we come from this in different angles. Olly sees western responsibility in terms of them getting too involved in the war by backing and arming the rebels which to him allowed ISIS to rise to prominence and wreak havoc in Syria and Iraq. For me it's more about the west not taking sensible actions that could've empowered moderate opposition to Assad and reducing the violence to civillians. I'm saying these solutions would've been perfect or that they would even solve the problem of Assad and ISIS or even reduce the amount of refugees to zero but they would've saved civillian lives reduced destruction and therefore reduce refugees. That's a topic for another day.

Response to Karim Safieddine on New Atheism and Israel

Karim Safieddine who goes by the name of @Arab_Secularist on Twitter wrote an article in which he derides "New Atheism" for its apparent "Pro-Israel" stance he specifically targets Sam Harris.

First of all I'm not a fan of this term "New Atheism". To me it just reeks of propaganda and often used as a pejorative for Atheists who have anti theistic opinions especially by the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan and well known Twitter jester CJ Werleman. Kyle Kulinski once said "New Atheists are Atheists who are finally speaking out". There is nothing "new" about anti theism and this absurd hysteria that surrounds the "New Atheists"often makes people forget anti theistic critiques of religion preceding them from the likes of Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, Thomas Paine, Ludwig Feuerbach and Lucretius.

Karim's argument is that the "New Atheists" are soft on Israel and "avoid to hold Israel unaccountable" for its brutality. He bases his argument entirely on things Sam Harris has said on Israel and completely ignores the other "New Atheist" figures. Karim and other critics of "New Atheists" seem to be committing the same fallacy that they accuse "New Atheists" of committing in relation to muslims which is the hasty generalisation where one generalises an entire group of people based on the actions or words of a few. So he might aswell have titled his article "Sam Harris and Israel".

In fact there is divergence of opinions on political issues amongst "New Atheists" for example on the issue of Israel-Palestine Hitchens was a committed anti-Zionist and derided people like Daniel Pipes for minimising the suffering of the Palestinians. Richard Dawkins last summer tweeted about how the destruction of Gaza was "obscene" and he also expressed bemusement at "why should Palestinian Arabs be the ones who pay for the crimes of Hitler" when talking of the establishment of The Jewish State in 1948.  PZ Myers who is often called a "New Atheist" wrote a blog post where he called for the USA to "end support for Israel" and attacked Sam Harris for his views on Israel so there are "New Atheists" that acknowledge Israeli brutalisation towards Palestinians.

Of course there are other outspoken Atheists that are more sympathetic to Israel such as Bill Maher and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. All I'm saying is the people associated with "New Atheism" do not have a monolithic opinion on Israel and it is quite unfair to generalise their opinions on the conflict based on what Sam Harris said in his podcast.

As far as Karim's general criticisms are concerned I actually don't disagree with all of it. I agree with him when he criticises Sam Harris for minimising the suffering and hardship of the Palestinians which included the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 -popularly known as Nakba which is very important in the Palestinian story- that led to the creation of the refugee crisis. We now have a situation where 4th generation of Palestinians either live in exile, squalid refugee camps, dispossession or under occupation and humuliation. This isn't something that can be glibly dismissed especially as there are elements within the Israeli far right who would want to and have openly said they would have rid of the Palestinians.

I also think he makes a good point when he says that it is a mistake to see the conflict cause as purely a religious one. The conflict is a battle of two secular nationalisms that represent two small peoples of equal size and have equal stake in the land fighting over territory, identity, culture, history and injustice though it took until the 1970s for the world to see this as the true representation of the conflict. This is not to say religion played no part as both the Zionist movement and the Palestinian movement used religious imagery and mythology to justify their claims to the land but they were not theocratic movements.

The Palestinian national movement is not a monolithic movement as you have groups like Fatah which is in principle a secular and social democratic party and PFLP which was a Marxist group founded by a Christian named George Habash alongside Islamist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

However ever since the 1967 war religion has had a bigger influence on the conflict from both sides. On the Jewish side Religious Zionism became more popular which eventually led to the rise of religious based and right leaning groups like Jewish Home, Likud, Shas and to the more extreme end National Union, The Kahanists and the ideological settlers on the West Bank.

The hard line and messanic elements of this movement hold on to Eretz Yisrael which the idea that God gave The Land of Israel exclusively to the Jewish People and therefore in order to achieve this more land has to be gobbled up through settlements and if possible expulsion of Palestinians then finally the Jewish people will be saved.

It's obvious that this is sheer utopianism and a barrier to peace as it gives the impression to the Palestinians that the Israelis aren't really interested in peace and only interested in stealing their land. These extremists are not only a threat to Palestinians but also a threat to Israel's increasingly fragile secular and democratic nature.

Since the 1980s Islamism became a significant part of the Palestinian movement with the rise of Hamas the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. ( in part with help from Israel to fight the PLO) In addition Islamists have co-opted the Palestinian issue as a vehicle for their blatant genocidal anti-semitism and their fantasy of reviving a caliphate that will unify the muslim world whether it is the muslim brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahir, Hezbollah and their Iranian paymasters and the various Salafi Jihadist groups.

This does change the dynamic of the conflict because the rise of religious extremism on both sides means that the parties of God hold a veto on the peace process which makes peace harder to achieve and holy war more likely because the hysterical rhetoric breeds more hatred and suspicion of the other especially as the extremists are making absolutist and exclusive claims to the land based on the religious identity of their respective tribe.

Karim claims that Hamas has supported the two state solution since 2006 based on the "repeated statements of its leaders" he does not give any evidence for this. I have to say it seems ironic for Karim to lambast Sam Harris for blindly believing what the Israeli government says but why should we believe anything Hamas says either? It's all well and good for them to write letters to The Guardian and other Western media outlets saying "they have no quarrels with Jews only with Israel's policy". It's quite funny as Salafist Jihadis deride Hamas for their "moderate" stance vis-a-vis Israel.

On the other hand when Hamas speaks to Arab audiences then this "moderate" tone wears off. They essentially repeat the same violent fanatical rhetoric for instance in 2012 Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon that the Jews should be annihilated. This combined with the fact Hamas has not altered its charter to demonstrate its change of view and its deliberate taregetting of civilians with its rockets shows we should be very skeptical whenever Hamas is in one it's "moderate" phases.

In summary for all the good and interesting points Karim brings up I frankly think it is absurd to claim "New Atheists" (already a bad and very vague term) have some kind of "marriage" with Israel and by Israel Karim means the Israeli right. Especially as he bases his entire argument on things Sam Harris only one member of the "New Atheists" has said and ignoring the diverging and nuanced opinions of other "New Atheists" like PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Karim seems like a reasonable person and I hope he soaks in some of my criticisms which hopefully will make him think through his position.

Safieddine

Safieddine

Film Review: Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

 After four years, Tom Cruise and his crew comes up with yet another episode in the "Mission:Impossible" franchise. I thought it would be tough to come up with something to top "M:I Ghost Protocol". The 2011 film directed by Brad Bird was simply too awesome, and so far my favorite of the whole series. This new one may have just matched that awesomeness.

 Ethan Hunt and his IMF team come face to face with the Syndicate, a rogue operation engaged in international terrorism led by the chillingly ruthless and cunning Solomon Lane. Equal to IMF in talent and resources, the Syndicate sends the mysterious female agent Ilsa Faust to obtain highly secure computer files from a highly secure location. The IMF team though gets caught right in the thick of this complex web that again brings them around the world from the United States to Cuba, Austria, Morocco and England. Meanwhile, they also grapple with CIA head Alan Hunley who would like nothing but to see IMF dissolved.

Tom Cruise is visually older now, but he can still pull his Ethan Hunt character off so well. He has got his strong action star charisma going on with the bravado he displayed in those death-defying stunts he did reportedly without a double for this film. His crazy plane-hanging stunt that we see in the trailer happens before the opening credits, so do not come in late. His car and motorcycle driving skills were so fantastic in those breathtaking chase scenes. He was said to have had training to hold his breath for up to six minutes to be able to do that long thrilling underwater sequence.

As the lead female in the cast, Rebecca Ferguson nailed the role of Ilsa Faust. (Her name was obviously a reference to Ingrid Bergman's character Ilsa Lund in "Casablanca", a major setting in this film.) She was the one character who had that subtle air of duplicity that makes you doubt whether you'd trust her or not. She obviously has sex appeal but her character was the key game changer in the story of this film, and Ms. Ferguson does not disappoint in this pivotal role. She had us on the edge of our seats in those spectacular action scenes of hers, especially for that vicious knife fight at the end.

The ensemble work of the cast behind Cruise and Ferguson was impeccable. Simon Pegg was perfect as tech whiz Benji Dunn. He provided comic relief without ruining the pace of the film because it did not feel forced but more importantly, it does not detract from the direction of the plot and does not become a distraction. Sean Harris was positively creepy as the villain Lane, so sinister without the excessive hysterics. Jeremy Renner (as Brandt), Ving Rhames (as Stickell), Alec Baldwin (as CIA Director Hunley) and Simon McBurney (as MI5 head Attlee) were all on point in their portrayals of spies of various abilities and affiliations.

All those complex action sequences were executed faultlessly. The brilliant cinematography, fast-paced editing and the driving musical score all contributed to the success of these scenes. Among the memorable sequences this film will be remembered for are the opera house assassination attempt scene in Vienna, the underwater data card-switching scene, the car chase scene through the narrow streets of Casablanca with Cruise driving a 2016 BMW, and the very exciting multiple motorcycle chase scene on a zigzagging road.

Perhaps having a new director for every film in this series has kept this franchise from becoming stale. After illustrious names like Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams and Brad Bird at the helm previously, Christopher McQuarrie (who first gained fame as the Oscar-winning writer of "The Usual Suspects") writes and confidently directs "M:I Rogue Nation" as excellent cinematic entertainment with just the perfect mix of non-stop action, political intrigue, technological savvy and witty humor.

This is a film I would definetly reccommend if you are willing to waste £9 this summer.

My take on Iran nuke deal? Historic or Disaster?

  

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this.” – President Barack Obama, May 21, 2015 via Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic

Earlier this morning after marathons of negotiations and endless extensions of deadlines there finally was an agreement between Iran and the world powers in Vienna in regards to its's nuclear proliferation. You can read the full text of the deal here nicely given to us by Max Fisher.

I'll quickly summarise the terms of the deal (though I will advise to read the full text if you have time and a whisky bottle)

- 12 month breakout for 10 years

- US, EU, UN sanctions to be lifted

- 2/3 of centrifuges to be disabled

- Slash existing stockpile

-"Broader access" to UN inspectors

 - Arak reactor to be redesigned to "support peaceful nuclear research" which will be monitored by IAEA

- Must disclose past activities

- Ban on arms sales to Iran to expire in 5 years

-  Ban on sales of ballistic missiles to end in 8 years

-  Monitoring of mines & factories

 The announcement of this deal has broadly produced two reactions on the twitterspehere. The people who are generally right leaning claim this deal is a disaster and shows the appeasement of Obama to the Iranians and will gurantee Iran will be a nuclear state which will be a serious security threat to Israel and The Middle East generally. Commentary Magazine lead with Iran Deal: The Right to Despair. Daniel Pipes called this deal a catastrophe.

The other reaction comes from more liberal minded people which says that this deal is "historic", gurantees peace in our time, stops Iran from getting a nuke and is a better alternative to war which is what those bloodthirsty neocons want and quite possibly may lead to the liberalisation of Iran. Slate published an article which effectively makes this argument.

The caricatures of parts of these two positions comes from Ben Shapiro of Brietbat.com and Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept.

My view is that this deal is not quite Munich 1938 nor is it 1989 when the Berlin Wall was torn down and Obama is not Neville Chamberlain. It is neither historic nor a massive disaster. I do think that this deal will postpone Iran getting nuclear weapons capability in the forseeable future because the deal means Iran will agree to destroy over two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges it installed and redesign the Arak reactor to produce  less than 1 kilogram of Plutonium a year for peaceful nuclear research and it extends Iran’s breakout time for a nuclear weapon. Of course this all depends on Iran holding to this agreement but this is some positives coming out of the deal.

However there are problems with this deal.

Firstly there is the ending of the arms embargo after 5 years and sales of Ballistic missiles after 8 years and the sanctions relief which will give them around $100 billion. I'm sure they'll use some of that money to help their battered economy which will help the population who are going to hold them to account on that front since they can't use the sanctions card anymore. In addition the population will see this deal as the regime retreating because they have negotiated with "The Great Satan" (something Khomenism defines itself against) so the regime will have to somehow reconcile this in their propaganda. The regime in response has stepped up executions and persecution in the last few months to show the population that they are not weak.

But is there any doubt that they will use a good proportion of that money to strenghten support for Assad which effectively means Syria (what's left of it) is officiallly Iran's lapdog and the ultimate betrayal of Syrians and the moderate rebels who have greatly suffered as a result of Iran's support for Assad.

Also lets not forget it might increase support for it's proxy militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and The Houthis in Yemen. Who knows Hamas might get some of the loose change. In other words expect Iran's imperial ambitions (or "resistance" according to Chomsky) to increase in the coming years.

Then there is taking Qasem Soleimani and The Quds Force off the sanctions list which I feel is a bad concession as General Qasem is directly responsible for the deaths of Americans and other innocent civillians and still causes mischief in the region today (on a shoestring budget I might add). This I think will be a hard sell to Congress.

Secondly is to with the idea of "snapback" sanctions if Iran was to violate the terms of the deal. When allegations of violations come up the powers have to agree that a violation has taken place and there is no gurantee they will all agree to sanction Iran again especially Russia and China who may have future business intrests in Iran and combine that with the fact that effective sanctions take time for them to fully come into force and take its deabilitating effect.

Thirdly is the effect of this deal will have in terms of the broader chaos in the Middle East as it will alienate the already paranoid Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, The Gulf monarchies and possibly Turkey who will view the implication of this deal as The United States appointing Iran as the de facto regional chief of the Middle East.This may well lead them to eventually develop nuclear programs of their own ( or in Saudi's case buy them off the shelf from Pakistan) which will create a scenario that we've never seen in a very sensitive part of the world and Israel will then have to rethink its very sensible nuclear policy.

This would also be exploited by ISIS to fit into their narrative that there is a Zionist-Crusader-Rafidah alliance to destroy Islam and will furhter entrench themselves and seek to consolidate support amongst the Sunni tribes of which they rule over in their totalitarian theocracy and then seek to further expand this caliphate they've created.

Also this deal will have to be approved by the US Congress and the Iranian parliament which may be difficult especially for Obama as he is going to have to sell this bill to a congress that is already quite hostile to him and "will skim throught this deal with a fine toothcomb" (to use the words of Chuck Schumer) and will latch on to any holes to find any excuse to oppose this deal. Obama however has set up his stall on this potential obstacle by saying he will "veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.” So expect a fight in Congress over this but I think about in the end the deal will just about pass.

Congress will find ample evidence to back up their case. For example the arms embargo, the fact that very little of Iran's nuclear infrastructure will be dismantled, the very likely possibility that Iran will use the windfall they will get to fund their proxies in Hezbollah in Lebanon and to their crackpot militias in Iraq, taking Qasem Soleimani and Quds Force off the sanctions list, whether the inspection regime is tight etc.

Then there is Israel.

As expected the Israelis were not happy with this deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu called this deal a "historic mistake". He also says that "Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves."Israel has legitimate reasons to be unhappy about this deal because Iran is a threat to Israel via it's proxies in Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria and Hamas in Gaza.

However I think Israel's argument in defense of its position on Iran has been poor because they've made it an issue only of Israel and even a pet obsession of Nethanyahu by constantly referring to comments by Ahmadinajad and Rafshanjani about wiping Israel off the map with a bomb and committing another Holocaust and making primitive cartoons equating Iran to ISIS

The problem Israel and its defenders face is that it has to convince alot of people (many of whom are quite hostile to Israel) to see it's point of view but it's not going to achieve this by hyperbole, hysterical talk and playing the "doomsday" card or to put it more accuarately the "Holocaust card" rather than convincing people through reason.

Let me be clear the toxic anti semitism Iran preaches is very worrying and it is a threat to Jew's globally through its sponsorship of international terrorism and it fully intends to continue this policy.

But to compare Iran to Nazi Germany as Danny Ayalon did above is misleading and quite primitive as it shows they do not understand the threat Iran poses or how you're going to deal with it because comparing anything to the Nazis now means you're under the realm of Godwin's law and any legitimate Nazi anologies will face diminishing returns. Also it leaves you open to accusations of sensationalism and scaremongering which will then lead to people not taking you seriously which will dangerous for Israel especially at a time  when it now must be sober and calculated in coming up with cohesive policy to counter Iran other than hawkish dick measuring rhetoric.

Even though there is alot to be worried about this deal the only grain of hope I can find from this is the effect it will have on the population. It will show that the regime has cowered to some degree to The United States or "The Great Satan" something the mullahs have always politically defined themselves against in every way eversince the 1979 Islamic "revolution" (more like counter-revolution but that story will be for another day).

So for them to actually negotiate with the west will show them as being weak which is why alot of the population is happy about this deal because the implication of this deal is that the regime wants a closer relationship with The West which was a necessity because the sanctions battered the economy and they had to do something about it. The people will embrace this closer relationship with the West as it will mean an improvement in the economy which will improve the lives of ordinary Iranians.

But more significantly it will entice their ambitions of making their soceity more open, more modern and improveent in human rights -especially for its ethnic and religious minorities-which may lead in the long run lead to a political and social crisis in Iran as the people will have higher expectations of their government and the government will have respond in a way that does not contradict "Islamic values" and their totalitarian interpretation of Velayat e Faqih. The regime has already tried to counter balance this new sense of hope by ramping up the number of executions in the last few months in order to mantain control over the populace.

Alot of the deal's defenders repeat the claim as made above that the deal will ultimately lead to the liberalisation of Iran and lessen the Islamist terror the regime inflicts on the population. I hope they are right but I'm very skeptical of that, I think it will lead to the regime being more oppressive to show people that nothing dramatic is changing and Iran will remain "Islamic". There is a battle in Iran between the mostly secular youth of Iran and the theocratic mullahs and it will inevitably lead the abolishment of that theocracy when that revolution will occur I don't know, I just hope it will occur before Iran has the chance to develop nuclear capability.

To Conclude. Is this deal "Historic" and will it gurantee "peace in our time"? No because to put it simply this deal does not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapon's capability it merely delays it and puts a few speed bumps along the way or as Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal puts it. "It just kicks the can down the road for the next guy to deal with". My fear about this deal is that it's not a Munich 38 but that its more like the Agreed Framework of 1994 which according to Bill Clinton (every liberal's hero) was meant to stop North Korea from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Look how well that turned out. North Korea broke the agreement in 2002 and now has a stockpile of nuclear weapons that has destabalised East Asia and has made it untouchable and kept it in the news. I fear Iran will do the same lying and cheating and the "snap back" sanctions mechanism won't work thanks to Russia and China.

Let us also not forget the windfall it will inevitably use to fund and support it's terrorist proxies to solidify its regional hold in the Middle East. Which will mean more work for bigtime Iranian mischief maker Qasem Soleimani.

Is the deal a "Disaster"? Yes and No. The sanctions relief will result in an empowered Iran to cause even more chaos when it was aleady doing so on a shoestring budget, this will alienate America's traditional Sunni allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who may eventually decide to start their own nuclear program which will be a disaster for the Middle East and solidify their alliance of convinience with Israel.

It also reveals a part of a broader strategy on Obama's part to lessen American hegemony in the Middle East, appoint Iran as the regional strong man and contract out the fight against ISIS to the Iranians and not to moderate Sunnis which will be disastorous. There is evidence that this is beginning to happen such as Ameica giving air support to Iranian proxy militias in Iraq as they fought to took back Tikrit from ISIS and reported support for US designated terrorist group Kaitab Hezbollah as they fought to take back Amerli from ISIS in September 2014.

This counter terrorism policy will be counter productive if carried on because the atrocities these crackpot militias commit against Sunnis such as burning villages , lynchings and other abuses. This will enforce the paranoia amongst Sunnis especially those of military age that if these Shia militias take back territory from ISIS that Sunnis are effectively fair game then they will look to ISIS for protection and support from the "crusader-rafidah" conspiracy against Islam.

In the end history will judge whether this deal was "Historic" or a "Disaster".

The Serena-Sharapova "rivalry"

I'm not a tennis nut, I don't watch it much aside from Wimbledon but I know enough about it to know the big names and I know the rules of it. I used to play it as hobby when I was younger but I went off it.

Anyways, in the lead up to the Semi-Final of Wimbledon (Women's singles) between heavyweights Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova there has been alot of hype over their "rivalry". For example The Telegraph titled their preview to the match as "Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams have a rivalry built on antipathy, mistrust and malice". The Guardian had "Serena Williams v Maria Sharapova a rivalry that threatens to catch fire" as their title. The Australian used the words "arch rivals" to describe them.

If you looked at the stats you would come to conclusion that if this is a rivalry then it is the most lopsided rivalry there is in sport. Before today Williams has a 17-2 record over Sharapova, she has beaten Sharapova 16 consecutive times (some of those matches have been quite brutal for Mighty Maria) and she last lost to Sharapova in 2004.

Last I checked The act of rivaling is to compete for superiority in a given field. Therefore, it suggests some comparability of skill between the rivals. When it comes to US tennis star Serena Williams and Russian Maria Sharapova, no such rivalry exists-no matter how many times their relationship is described as such in the media.

When the two "rivals" actually turned our for their semi final encounter at Wimbledon today: surprise, surprise, Serena emerged as the victor (yet again). 

Maybe this rivalry talk emerges from that fateful match in 2004, when then-17-year-old Sharapova shocked the world by beating Williams in the final at Wimbledon. It was obviously a spectacular performance by the youthful Sharapova. But it was also 11 bloody years ago! Williams’s record of performance since has been undeniably superior and dominant.

In the decade since, Serena has won 16 out 17 matches against her younger opponent-five of them Grand Slams. In a Wimbledon rematch in 2010 Williams carried the match easily: 7-6, 6-4. They’ve met 12 times between 2010 and now, and in those years, Sharapova has only won a single set-including during the Olympics final at Wimbledon in 2012, in which Williams utterly trounced her once more (6-0, 6-1). That 2012 Olympics Final is what I call the definition of a "beat down".

Alot of the hype around these two is based around the fact that they apparently have a beef with each other  and glib talk of ex-lovers.  Indeed, publicly they come off as practically friendly. “I love playing Maria,” Williams has said. “I think she brings out the best in me. I think I bring out the best in her.” At the end of the day whatever fury may exist between Williams and Sharapova it did not emerge on the tennis court.

Why the lopsidedness in this "rivalry" then? Serena just has the upper hand over Maria. It really is as simple as that. 17 consecutive victories can no longer be explained away as an anomaly. In Bryan Graham's analysis Williams "has mastered an oppressive, pugilistic style that Sharapova has neither the nerve, nor tactical versatility to match".

Watching the match myself it seemed that Serena made mince meat out of her Maria it was like watching one of those scenes from a National Geographic show of a lion running down an antelope: There was the swipe of a giant paw and a cloud of dust as the poor creature got taken down and gutted. The rather modest score of 6-2 6-4 did not reveal the ocean of difference between them. The sprayed and erratic shots of Sharapova and the forcible power of Williams.

The fact Williams seemingly barely broke a sweat in crushing Sharapova is scary when you think about it because Sharapova is no slouch, she is regarded one of the best players of her generation along with Williams and has a reputation of being a battler and a fighter, however the fact that Serena dominates Maria whenever they play is astonishing. Serena hasn't just gotten the better of her biggest rival; she's beaten her more often than she has beaten anyone else, and she has done it without mercy and has resulted in a few trouncings and steamrollings.

One of those trouncings came in the 2007 Australian Open final when Serena steamrolled Maria 6-1, 6-2. Another one came in the 2012 Olympics Women's Singles Gold Final which was just an absolute destruction of Maria, as someone once said "From the director of the Desolation of Smaug comes the Decimation of Maria". It wasn't a case of Maria had a bad game it was just that Serena was just too good and she demolished Maria in under 63 minutes and in devastating style. Her one-sided victory was laced with such devastating power and vicious accuracy that for large parts of the contest Sharapova looked like a bewildered onlooker. At least the pain was over quickly for poor Maria. At one point in the first set Serena had more aces than Maria had points!

I understand why there is this rivalry hype because these two ladies are icons of Tennis and regarded as the best players of their generation plus the sponsorships both women get as a result of their stardom, so whenever they play it will generate quite alot of hype. However when the stats clearly show Serena has 17 consecutive victories over Maria since 2004 and consistently trounces and demolishes Maria its time you stop calling that a rivalry. Its plain and simple domination.

On a side note you have to feel abit sorry for Maria maybe one of these days she will get this monkey off her back and actually score a victory over Serena but she has drastically improve her game and especially her serves. Also I predict Serena will win Wimbledon and get her "Serena Slam" and make history.

Bye Now