ATTENTION!!!!!

THAT GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING US EXTREMELY DOWN MORALLY IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. ALTHOUGH, THIS COUNTRY MAY ACKNOWLEDGE  DICTATORSHIPS BY DEALING WITH THEM , IT AT LEAST, BRING DEMOCRACY NOT DICTATORSHIPS TO POWER WHEN IT CHANGES A RULING GOVERNMENT. THAT SEEMS TO BE NO LONGER THE CASE WITH OUR SUPPORT TO THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT ACTION IN YEMEN. THE GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING AWAY THAT ONE SINGLE MORAL THING FROM US.

BEFORE THAT HE DISAPPOINTED THE DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT THAT CAME TO HIM LIKE A PIECE OF CAKE. HE HAD THE WEAKER SIDE RULING WHILE THE STRONG MILITARY LED BY THE CURRENT DICTATOR ON THE OPPOSING SIDE. INSTEAD OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT BALANCE TO SAFEGUARD DEMOCRACY UNTIL NEXT ELECTION, HE CHOSE TO LET THE MILITARY SIDE 

TAKE POWER AND ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP.

NOW THAT DICTATOR IS ACTING LIKE THAT ISIS TERROR GROUP. HE EVERY NOW AND THEN FLEXES HIS MUSCLES ON THE FORMER ELECTED PRESIDENT AND OTHER  HELPLESS POLITICAL PRISONERS AND MOST RECENTLY EVEN ISSUING DEATH SENTENCES ON THEM.     

CRAMMING SOME INTERNATIONAL ISSUES 2

You changed the system in a shallow way that people never felt justice. Things were like a joke and many apparently were not held accountable to their criminal actions with the former regime. So beside the question of justice your change of government did not sound like a real change and many pro past regime acted as if they can continue their path just with different name. They, in fact, did not even bother to hide that. I saw someone speaking about how the killing by western powers and Iraqi government at that time exceeded the killing during Saddam's ruling. The Pro Saddam appeared to be in parliament and in government positions like nothing really changed. I wonder did the change of government of Hitler also made with such level of low just prosecution? You acted like the person who does a surgery with extremely low level of disinfection then wonder about the complications afterwords. 

Then came the issue of how to deal with applying democracy. There is a common Iraqi saying, which probably has its counterparts in other cultures, that if there were an international competition for wisdom words from common people I would have entered that competition with it. It has an amazing amount of psychology concentrated in it. The saying states that, in rough translation, fear the good person if he becomes hungry and fear the bad person if he becomes full. You may say, that is good but how can I know the good from the bad to apply that. The answer is yes, that could be very difficult but in a situation were you are changing a regime like Saddam's with all its immorality, to which group you think those who were on the side of such regime belong? 

Like that military leader who burned the ships showing no path behind exists, you needed to burn the mental ships that tempt the evil persons to seek the old system by as much as possible not giving an opportunity for that which can occur by the simple showing of any weakness in action. I would say if you want  justice and equality it is your lucky day; but if you want to mess things we can kick your behind and make you ultimately reach the same result. I wouldn't go after and beg anybody to participate in a democratic system. Instead I would say that democracy is what you will get, and when balancing with similar rights for others, it is the only thing you would get.

After giving democracy with protected rights, I wouldn't listen much to complaints of not sharing power that comes from deep refusal to accepting the essence of democracy.   

CRAMMING SOME INTERNATIONAL ISSUES 1

I need to go back to talk about the Supreme Crap of this country so I may cram these international issues here.

I want to talk about the mess of those in power in this and by extension probably also some other western democratic countries.

First, let me give you the very important advice not to compare your advancement in science and technology to that of things like politics and think you are most probably correct in your policies because you have such level of advancement there. These two things exist like each in its own universe.

Now, I want to start from my believe that democracy is for everywhere. If you put a group of cave men together who need to make a governing entity the other natural option to the mess and bad consequences of fighting for power is to see who is accepted by the most to lead and make him the leader. Just like how human desires for material things are basically selfish but human beings still live in societies instead of individually attacking each other there is no reason to see that this shouldn't fit selfish desires against democracy.

For people, who are much more ready to accept imperfection in carrying justice than the like of me your actions are very stupid.

You entered Iraq giving the gift of democracy. However, since the majority there are Shia, you decided to act like someone who spend his time cooking a meal for a homeless person but just before he allows that person to eat he picks some dirt from the floor and sprinkle it all over that food. You turned on all your warning lights and sirens on the Shia before they do anything  from much far away than you do that for yourself let alone those dictatorships around and their treatment of people including the Shia there.

Those dictatorships probably told you that Iran is coming and you stupidly failed, and even to this day continue to fail, in recognizing that it is the empowerment of the Shia they real fear not the empowerment of Iran even despite how their actions actually directly fit that. Here you see cops keep showing different violante reactions in arresting somebody while he keeps saying I am not resisting and an external person  really cant see any resistance from him but should assume you are doing your job properly. On the other hand a Shia just need to take a step forward and you would assume that he is going to do the worst things on earth.

It is not that Iraq cant bring a leader like Lincoln. But the restriction you imposed on those inside and their attempt to fit with that restriction instead of their real inner realization to what justice is killed such possibility. From the first day I saw your tanks in Baghdad I said this is a joke and continued to hold my view regarding complying with forms versus complying with real justice. Despite all that,  reading the word militia in  your second amendment here shocked me. I thought this is what their constitution speaks about the militia while they act as if any militia is necessarily evil there? I realized how I left my inner calling to what is just and followed a form created by the west without realizing the wrong in that. So clearly things from here are more difficult to to be seen on their reality there.    

Since the attack of 2001, I have never seen what suggests that the Saudi Government is connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least not systematically. But for ISIS it did not take me any considerable time to look at the Saudi behavior and think this is a joke. 

As for ISIS being at the core a second identity game using a fraudulent claim of interest in the religion, I feel confident in that to the level that I may invoke it as part of a bigger picture construction to support other things and see how everything fit altogether but not for any inclination to have it supported by the other elements in that picture because it has enough support for it by itself. However, it seems that, at the outer layers, some still believed and joined that organization for religious reasons. This shows what level the mind boggling superficiality in following the religion has reached.The problem of following those who are connected to the religion merely by the words they use was augmented by the following to those who are intentionally trying to disfigure the religion and scare the west with it as being the bad alternative to their true identity.

If those in the intelligence see and understand things the way I often see conveyed by persons on the TV then the only thing that seems to me can explain falling to recognize the reality behind things orchestrated like a kids show is a high level of blindness caused by the sever problem of the identity complex here.    

        

The Saudi Government and the bus massacre in Pakistan

Why would the Saudi Government want to be behind that attack in Pakistan? One motivation stands out here which is to direct the attention away from its actions in Yemen. 

Looking at the big picture would show this more than a mere possibility. You have the timing, the style, and the taking care of the inability to answer for the outrageousness of the action in Yemen by trying to use something that stands on as much similar grounds and make a similar situation as much as possible. To that end you see how the use of  "We will continue such attacks" (Link) and "In the coming days.." (Link)  could serve the purpose of projecting a continuous  situation in order to be more analogous with what is going on in Yemen.

The style of not being a suicidal attack also fits here since you clearly cant easily do business with suicidal attackers.

We may also see more support and connections if we expand our view. For example, that last thing would fit with the Saudi connection to and playing the game of dual identity with ISIS. That is because it fits connection to the core of what ISIS is in being part of the Syrian resistance which is probably more capable of conducting and teaching military style attacks than other groups.  

                   

Here we go again 3

That attack in Pakistan seems to be, with good  probability, the making of the Saudi Government.

Also, I say again that, ISIS, which is at the root is nothing more than a second identity game played by some of the resistance in Syria, is part of one group with the Saudi Government and you probably are much more capable of taking that to the bank than you think. 

Here we go again 2

Actually, the world appears to have stopped counting in attacks like these on the Shia in Iraq a long time ago. Whether the Shia is majority and the other side is the minority or minority and the other side is the majority these attacks always happen from the other side on them (Although I still wouldn't equate a minority position having much less power to respond without committing similar injustice with those in position of power but do not know how to act. Those who have been in the leadership of Iraq probably needed to read the Constitution of this country paying attention to how it flows from the inner self  in order to recognize the importance of the connection to their inner selves and in turn the merits rather than the forms when trying to act justly) 

Here we go again

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/asia/pakistan-bus-attack/


Show me one attack like these committed by any group classified as a Shia. Yet it is the other side who attack more Shia claiming self defense even before anyone can see any indication of potential danger toward them.

Our very special shame in Yemen

This president granted the country of Saudi Arabia in the region the very special and unique privilege of attacking another  country targeting a specific group in it, which it always target, merely for its own interest or preference without any justification. Does he realize how shameful such position is? Moreover, unlike the interference that the Saudi government did in Bahrain to suppress the demand for democracy by that same general group, which happened also during his administration, it appears that he is making us take the position of actively participating with the Saudis action there as demonstrated by our ships escorting the Iranian ones away from supporting the attacked group there. Everybody should be held to his own actions and the mere wish by the Saudis for the rebels there to be equated with ISIS does not by itself justify treating them as such.  

This president also appears to have neglected  or failed to explain and show how his stand there would fit the most important thing that sets nations like this apart from the like of the Saudi government when they go to change the government of other countries. That thing is to bring the justice of establishing a democratic system. Instead he is supporting the demand requiring those rebels to surrender and give control back to a force that has the face of the Saudi government which is far from being  recognized as a trusted power for bringing democratic change and could have been part of the reason why those rebels had revolted to begin with. Regardless of how much those rebels seem to haven't yet made an established dictatorship and the degree with which their intentions are being pre judged, this president did not offer them an alternative path trusted in bringing a real democracy with basic protected rights at a level trusted in the action of a country like this when it seeks changing the regime.