certifired_img

Books and Documents

Middle East Press (30 Aug 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Europe Under Attack: How Does A Terrorist Mind Tick? By Radwan Al-Sayed: New Age Islam’s Selection, 30 August 2017





New Age Islam Edit Bureau

30 August 2017

Europe Under Attack: How Does A Terrorist Mind Tick?

By Radwan Al-Sayed

Iran Is Too Close for Israel’s Comfort

By Yossi Mekelberg

Why Did Hezbollah Cede The ‘Starring’ Role To The Army?

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Egypt-US Relations: Who Is Misreading Whom?

By Mohammed Nosseir

Redefining and Empowering a New Arab League

By Ray Hanania

Why Jordan-Syria Relations May Improve Soon

By Osama Al-Sharif

Neymar’s Dubious Deal

By Hussein Shobokshi

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau

----

Europe Under Attack: How Does A Terrorist Mind Tick?

By Radwan Al-Sayed

29 August 2017

Several major or minor motives have been ascribed to terrorists, who have carried out recent attacks across Europe. It is averred that their major motive is the desire to exact revenge from states and communities “that oppose the Muslim ‘Ummah’ and Muslims.” Although terror attacks in Europe are usually claimed by the ISIS, many security agencies differ over the extent to which this terror group has links with the lone wolves conducting these attacks.

What thought drives the ISIS or the teenagers to kill civilians? It’s clear that they do not think like ordinary people. Therefore, we must understand the nuances of their religious extremism and the brutality it incites toward people in areas under their control.

A radical, whose orientation leaned towards al-Nusra Front once told me: “You must be harsh. You must not leave anything to chance while you build the new Muslim society following this prolonged period of corruption!” However, European societies are not the main targets of the terrorists. To begin with, terrorist groups want to recruit youths to carry out attacks in Muslim countries, i.e. in “Dar al-Islam” itself.

When this goal becomes difficult to achieve, they revert to the original aim established by Bin Laden, which is “to harm the infidels as much as possible.” Youths who may not be able to go to ar-Raqqah or Mosul can now find their so-called martyrdom in European countries by inflicting harm and exacting their so-called retribution.

Direct Link to Attacks Questionable

It is clear that these decisions are no longer taken in Syria or Iraq, either because Baghdadi has already been killed or because circumstances have changed. Outside Iraq and Syria, the ISIS network has become highly independent and the central command may not always be aware of the operations and at times may come to know of them after they happen.

In fact, there is now more space for the emergence of even lone wolves, local commanders and sleeper cells, like the Barcelona, Belgium and Istanbul cells have exemplified.

German officials who work in the Federal Ministry of Interior once told me that in Germany terrorists fall under three categories: radical Islamists, neo-Nazis and Left-wing extremists. Experience shows that neo-Nazis are the earliest to repent and mend their ways. Islamists are next to give up their radical path, while Left-wing extremists have been found to be the most difficult to reclaim.

Discussing the ideological triggers of radical Islamists – is it social marginalization, reaction to Western foreign policies and culture, or the ongoing wars raging in the Arab world – former officers from the ministry claimed that it is usually new converts to Islam or older people who want to take part in so-called ‘jihad’ out of a misplaced sense of guilt.

Initially, they prefer to take part in acts of violence outside Europe but they are not averse to carrying out terrorist actions in the continent itself. Those who carry out violent attacks in cities plan it for a long time. Many of them are not driven by any misplaced religious reason but are lone wolves who merely want to be known for their infamy or to become leaders of a local ring, like the Barcelona case illustrates.

Alarm Bells against Islam

The general attitude of Germans towards Arabs and Muslims has recently undergone a very negative change. I was told that various civil and non-governmental organizations have started distributing leaflets to families and are using media outlets to raise alarm against any change in the behaviour of young boys or girls in any household due to their introduction to Islam.

These campaigns ask people questions like: Has your daughter or son converted to Islam and have they begun to read the Quran? Have they started to isolate themselves and are they choosing new friends? Is your son going to certain mosques or has he started growing a beard?

After issuing such warning signs, the campaigners advise the families to better inform about the matter to civil or religious institutions so that they talk with the son or daughter to ascertain whether they are harbouring any violent ideas.

It is also being told that as parents or the person involved may feel hesitant to approach security agencies in this regard, it would be better for them to contact civil institutions as the latter will not divulge the details to the police.

In response, I asked the question: “Are other European cities adopting such measures?” The officials said: “No, life has a faster pace there.”

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/08/29/Europe-under-attack-How-does-a-terrorist-mind-tick-.html

-----

Iran Is Too Close for Israel’s Comfort

By Yossi Mekelberg

29 August 2017

Following decades of Israeli concentration on containing Iran’s nuclear program, it seems its main challenge is to contain Tehran’s regional ambitions, which are carried out via more conventional methods.

It might be the case that in prioritizing the issue of Iran’s emerging nuclear capabilities, Israel and other actors in the international community failed to see that a major danger was embodied in Tehran’s canny exploitation of regional disputes to advance its regional ambitions. Consequently, Israel can see Iran not only via satellite images, but also across the Golan Heights’ border with the naked eye.

The nuclear deal of two years ago, as imperfect as it was, at least created a hiatus, according to most reliable intelligence assessments, in Iran’s efforts to develop its nuclear-military capabilities. But this has not stopped Tehran from pursuing its ambition to extend its presence and influence throughout the region. Whether it is in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or even Palestine, Iranian footprints are clearly noticeable.

A nuclear threat to Israel from Iran has always been a remote and unrealistic possibility. Israel has sufficient conventional and allegedly unconventional military capabilities to deter Tehran from contemplating attacking the Jewish state with unconventional weapons or even conventional ones. Yet a permanent military presence in terms of personnel or bases in Syria is a completely new ballgame for Israel.

Two hastened visits by senior Israeli officials to meet US and Russian leaders to discuss this development signify the level of concern of Israeli decision-makers. First, an Israeli delegation led by the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen, who was joined by the head of the Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevi, met US President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Power in Washington.

The cease-fire agreement in southern Syria, and what it entails, was at the top of the agenda. Israel was completely marginalized in the negotiations to reach the cease-fire, as the draft agreement that was formulated by the US and Russia did not take into consideration its security interests.

Following the trip to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Sochi last week for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to express his deep concern that by the time the cease-fire is concluded; Iranian forces, Hezbollah and other Shiite militias will end up permanently closer to the border with Israel. This is a situation that Israel is adamant it will not tolerate. Neither appeals yielded the results it wanted.

The US has very little influence on unfolding events in Syria, and Russia, as much as it would like to see Iran play a much reduced role in Syria, is unable to make it happen. Cooperation between the two countries and support for the Assad regime are a matter of convenience, but their long-term outlook for Syria and their countries’ role in it are profoundly different.

In neither of the meetings were the Israelis given any guarantees that Iran’s influence in Syria would diminish. Tehran, which has invested immensely in the conflict in Syria, is in no mood to voluntarily surrender the influence it has gained there at a very heavy cost in casualties and economic terms.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has more than 1,000 military personnel in Syria and growing economic interests. Tehran has also mobilized and financed a 20,000-strong Shiite militia. It has a distinctive interest in preserving its almost only strategic ally in the Middle East.

To attain this, preserving the Assad regime, or something very similar to it, is essential. The regime’s dependency on Iran and Russia for its survival is almost absolute. This gives Iran an opportunity to consolidate its political, military, economic, religious and cultural influence.

Moreover, maintaining its position in Syria is essential to ensuring the supply line to its strategic ally, the Lebanese organization Hezbollah, and to its aspirations for greater regional power. In pursuit of this, Iran is determined to maintain pressure on Israel. With Hezbollah militarily better equipped than ever, and with Iran’s ability to inflict serious damage on Israel, permanent Iranian bases in Syria potentially present an even bigger threat to Israel.

Israel has few options, but none of them can either provide a full answer or are risk-free. It can lobby in coordination with regional powers and the international community to increase political and economic pressure on Iran. But this may yield very limited results. Iran feels so confident that its President Hassan Rouhani threatened to abandon the nuclear deal.

Alternatively, Israel could pursue a military option, as Netanyahu implied this week after his meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. This is a limited option, considering the congestion of multiple forces in this arena, in which any miscalculation could lead to unforeseen and dangerous escalation. In reality, Israel will have to learn to live with the close Iranian presence for the foreseeable future, and establish a credible deterrence to any Iranian or proxy threat.

Source: .arabnews.com/node/1152676

----

Why Did Hezbollah Cede The ‘Starring’ Role To The Army?

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

29 August 2017

Can someone explain to us why the Lebanese army, and behind it Hezbollah and the Syrian regime forces, allowed 250 terrorist fighters from ISIS who are besieged in Jroud, the barren, mountainous border area between Lebanon and Syria to peacefully be evacuated to the Syrian city of Deir az-Zour? That’s from the far west to the Far East and it’s more than 400 kilometres into the war-torn Syria.

The deal seems suspicious as it’s based on a ceasefire between the Lebanese army – though it has not fought for the past four years there – and ISIS. When it comes to this deal, it seems the Lebanese army is the one ending the siege of the murderers in exchange of taking the corpses of Hezbollah’s fighters and learning where its soldiers are buried.

ISIS had abducted nine Lebanese soldiers and the army recently found the remains of six of them. Why didn’t Hezbollah play the starring role as usual?

It is because the deal obviously reflects a defeat and represents a scandal. It’s therefore a good excuse to say that the army struck the deal considering it is a legitimate power. As long as Hezbollah claims that it controls mountainous areas, it will not be logical or even understandable why it would allow so many ISIS fighters to leave in exchange of the remains of the dead.

This is why the families of the dead soldiers viewed the deal as a betrayal to their sons. It’s all based on the army’s statements that they seized control of Qalamoun and that there are only 20 kilometres left to seize control of out of an area which area is 100 kilometres.

Safe Haven for ISIS

The truth is obvious. Hezbollah was not capable of controlling this area and it justifies the agreement by saying that it’s not a strategic area anyway. However, this is not true as it’s a safe haven for ISIS where it can threaten all of northeast Lebanon with it terrorist operations, and it’s only few kilometres away from Syria’s borders.

Hezbollah is saying that the deal with ISIS aims to clear the area from ISIS and impose control over it so it can focus on fighting the Americans in the Syrian Badia region! Of course no one believes these claims! The mysterious part is how will ISIS fighters go to Deir az-Zour? It’s a long journey that in the times of peace take five hours. During these circumstances it may take an entire day or more.

What concerns us about this small battle within the context of Syria’s big war? We’re trying to understand the forces’ formation on ground through it. If ISIS can save its fighters who are besieged in the Jroud and the Lebanese region of Qalamoun and secure their transport to the faraway city of Deir az-Zour, then this means it’s still strong unlike everything we’ve been told.

This means that any agreement which the Russians and the Iranians impose on Syrian warring groups later will be just an illusion of peace.

Legitimacy of the Regime

This does not mean terrorist groups are not collapsing in their strongholds in Syria. It’s actually true and it’s mainly a result of the western coalition’s strikes as the Iranian-Russian alliance only focuses on fighting the Syrian organizations that are fighting the legitimacy of the Assad regime and they are trying to force these factions to accept its political project.

The difference between defeating an armed Syrian faction and a terrorist group like ISIS and al-Nusra Front is that terrorist organizations are capable of surviving after defeat and becoming underground groups since they are ideological parties that live in a secret organizational environment.

Hezbollah wants its name to be associated with victories because it popularly lives off them. It let the Lebanese army sign the Qalamoun agreement so people get angry at the army and condemn it. The people will conclude that it was the army who agreed to the deal of evacuating ISIS fighters in exchange of recovering the corpses of dead soldiers.

However, everyone views this as a losing deal and an embarrassing defeat. This time, Hezbollah made its choice and ceded the “starring” role to the Lebanese army which is still helpless.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/08/29/Why-did-Hezbollah-cede-the-starring-role-to-the-army-.html

----

Egypt-US Relations: Who Is Misreading Whom?

By Mohammed Nosseir

30 August 2017

Did the cutting and delaying of $291 million in US aid to Egypt come as a surprise to Cairo, which had been certain of President US Trump’s full support? Cairo reacted quietly to the decision, saying it reflects poor judgment over the decades-long strategic relationship between the two countries.

It also said it would decline a meeting (that eventually took place) between senior White House adviser Jared Kushner and Egypt’s foreign minister. Trump called President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to underscore the “strength of the friendship” between the two nations.

The bilateral relationship is monitored closely by many American experts, who are presently arguing about whether the withholding of US aid relates to the deterioration of human rights in Egypt, or to its ties to North Korea, which Egyptians had not been aware of. Nor do we know the magnitude of Egyptian support to North Korea that could have upset the US to this degree.

Egypt wants to receive the full amount of US aid, unequivocal endorsement of its domestic policies, and American blessing of its regional political activity. But it also wants to preserve its independence from the US.

Egypt believes it deserves to be rewarded because by fighting terrorism on its soil, it is serving the entire world and preventing terrorism from spreading to the West. So Egypt thinks its relationship with the US should be a one-way road in its favor.

Meanwhile, under Trump, the US has a very clear and practical “what’s in it for me?” foreign policy. This policy is based on the premise that the US, as the global superpower, should only privilege nations or alliances that truly deserve it. Nevertheless, it is well known that the US political dynamic comprises multiple players that work on influencing and manipulating one another.

Cronies of Egypt’s ruling regime are convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the Trump administration, influencing its decision to partially withhold aid. Egyptian state media often describe a former US ambassador to Egypt as a Brotherhood agent.

These cronies have been working to strengthen the relationship between the two nations by advocating for their viewpoints with key influencers in the Trump administration. These deceptive actions and narratives are not only popular among Egyptians, but also among many state executives and legislative representatives.

Meanwhile, American scholars and journalists have been strongly condemning Egypt’s domestic policies in many areas. Almost all American political scholars described the 2013 ouster of then-President Mohammed Mursi as a military coup or, less critically, as a popularly backed military coup.

Additionally, many American pundits believe that Egypt’s current policy is provoking terrorists, who could eventually expand their activities to other nations. In Cairo’s view, these scholars are enemies of Egypt, and their aim is to see the Brotherhood re-assume leadership of the country.

Egypt often demands that Western nations not interfere in its domestic affairs, while asking them to help boost its economy — a challenging proposition for many countries. Neither side is willing to voice its differences publicly.

The amount of withheld aid is insignificant to Cairo, so it will presumably overlook the issue and maintain its current internal policies until the matter fades away. This philosophy has served Egypt well in the past.

I doubt that Trump is genuinely worried about human rights in Egypt, or that he cares about Cairo’s support of North Korea. Either issue could be more usefully addressed without involving US aid, which is often used as a tool either to appease American political stakeholders who call for real change in Egypt, or to signal that the US penalizes countries that support North Korea.

Establishing a genuine relationship between Egypt and the US requires a direct and candid exchange of viewpoints. Equally important is dialogue between political experts on both sides that is open to the media and the public. Withholding US aid to Egypt has become a deceptive tool that is misguiding many citizens in both countries, although both governments are aware of its ineffectiveness.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1152691

----

Redefining and Empowering a New Arab League

By Ray Hanania

30 August 2017

Every day I get press releases about pro-Israel activists and spokespeople appearing on TV and radio programs to defend the country. Israel and its allies are spending millions to develop effective communications strategies to manage public perceptions of it as a peace-loving victim and Arabs as violent terrorists. One of the best-funded campaigns is the drive to merge criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

I rarely receive anything from pro-Arab activists fighting racism against Arabs. They are out there fighting, but ineffectively. They are in disarray, much like the rebel factions competing against each other in the war for freedom against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his neo-Soviet colonialists and Iranian nannies.

Communications is the new battlefield. Technology makes it easier to empower words and messages. The pen is mightier than the sword, and in today’s technological world, the pen has been replaced by cell phones, text messaging, social media and instant video messaging.

Israel is one country. The Arab world consists of 22, including a dozen that are stable and effective; the rest are consumed by political and economic turmoil. The concept of the Arab League was great, but it needs to be restructured. Differences between the 22 Arab countries have always stood in the way of effective consensus.

The UN embraced one agenda advanced by Western interests, which is why even today UN votes are inconsistent and hypocritical. The US, which helped found the UN, decides which atrocities are addressed and confronted. The US always condemns atrocities in the Arab world, but not those committed by Israel.

The Arab League needs to be reorganized and its mission redefined. What is its mission? Trying to keep everyone happy? The Arab world is today influenced by moderates and extremists. The extremists include Syria, Iran and Qatar, and their violent stooges fueling extremism throughout the region.

The moderates include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. They have a challenge defeating the extremists because the latter base their empowerment not on how many people they represent, but on violence and loud rhetoric. One fanatic can create more chaos than 100,000 moderates can achieve peace.

So why try to bring all 22 Arab countries together? Syria and Qatar do not deserve voices in the Arab League. That is the first step to making the new league effective. It needs to marginalize them until they renounce extremism. The second step is to better define its mission, which is to bring Arabs together.

The Arab world is changing in a bad way, losing its identity and embracing individualistic and selfish agendas driven by politics and religion. The power of the word “Arab” needs to be restored. Arab empowerment can change the world for the better. It can also put real pressure on Israel, which is exploiting the Arab world’s disarray.

Israel talks the talk of peace, but walks the walk of conflict. Its government pretends to want to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, but embraces policies that strip Arabs of their rights, including in occupied Jerusalem.

Disarray in the Arab world, the ineffectiveness of the Arab League and the extremism embraced by many Arab activists in the West have made it easier for Israel to cast itself as the victim and Arabs as the oppressors, when it is in fact the other way around.

The Arab world has always needed a tough father figure to impose order and achieve goals. Just because the US pretends that Western democracy is fair, that does not mean the Arab world should make the same mistake and embrace Western democracy. Instead, the moderate leadership of the Arab world, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, should reorganize the Arab League’s membership and mission.

The real mission is to communicate to the world who Arabs really are, to advance the cause of Arab moderates, and to confront extremists, whether they are militias such as Hezbollah or tyrannical governments such as those in Syria and Qatar.

Qatar has done much over the years to undermine the influence of the Arab League, blunting moderate voices and challenging moderates like the current head of the Arab League, Ahmed Aboul-Gheit. Qatar opposed his appointment mainly because they continue to embrace a radicalized and extreme religious agenda in conspiracy with Iran and Syria.

The Arab League needs an effective and articulate spokesperson, and a powerful PR and public affairs mission, to strengthen moderate voices, confront Israel’s obstinacy and call out extremists in the Arab world and especially in the West.

The Arab world’s future rests in the West. If the former fails to support moderate Arab voices in the latter, they will fail in their fight against Middle East extremists, who survive because the image of the Arab in the West remains distorted, stereotyped, vilified and confused with the image of Muslims. This is an intentional tactic by the Arab world’s enemies.

We have failed to use the PR weapon. What are we waiting for? Semantics have meaning. How you convey messages empower the powerless. A fundamental communications campaign can make a huge difference for Arabs and Muslims. We can criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic, and we can call out extremism in Qatar and Syria without being anti-Arab.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1152686

----

Why Jordan-Syria Relations May Improve Soon

By Osama Al-Sharif

30 August 2017

Jordan and Syria could soon be opening a new chapter in relations, following an indirect exchange of positive remarks by officials in both countries. Butheina Shaaban, special adviser to Syrian President Bashar Assad, last week said relations with Jordan are destined to improve.

She later told a visiting Jordanian non-governmental delegation that Damascus is ready to respond to positive steps that Amman may take. A senior Syrian official was also quoted as saying his country is looking to the future, not the past, vis-a-vis relations with Jordan.

Responding indirectly to these statements, Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Al-Momani on Friday said: “Our relations with the Syrian state and regime are going in the right direction.” He added that his remarks are “a very important message that everyone should hear.”

These positive statements point to a willingness by both sides to turn the page on what was often a tense and distrustful relationship following the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in March 2011. While normalization is yet to start, and may take a number of confidence-building measures before achieving its goals, it should not come as a surprise that Jordan may be the first regional country to move closer to Damascus.

Since the Syrian conflict erupted, Amman has chosen to follow an independent course, and has adjusted its position in response to developing geopolitical realities. But the fundamentals of that policy have remained firm and unchanged: Jordan has always insisted on preserving Syria’s territorial integrity, while calling for a political resolution to the crisis.

It has also underlined the importance of preserving Syria’s state institutions in order to prevent the country’s collapse and fragmentation. Unlike other regional players, Jordan never called for Assad’s removal as a condition to ending the crisis. That decision was left to the Syrian people.

But that did not prevent Amman from criticizing Damascus’ response to the popular uprising and condemning atrocities committed by all sides. And while Syrian officials, including Assad, attacked Jordan on many occasions — accusing it of training and funding rebels, and allowing “terrorist fighters” to enter Syria — Amman’s response was always prudent and diplomatic.

Jordan was among the few countries that kept its embassy in Damascus open, while allowing the Syrian embassy to function. Only when the Syrian Army lost control of the border crossing between the two countries did Jordan close it from its side. And despite the huge economic burden, Jordan continued to receive hundreds of thousands of refugees, allowing them to work and benefit from health and education services.

While keeping communication channels open with the Syrian opposition, Amman’s position was always clear in calling for a negotiated political solution to the crisis. It backed the Geneva process, and joined the Astana technical talks as an observer. It played a crucial role in the fight against Daesh in Syria, especially in preventing the terrorist group from expanding its presence into southern Syria.

Jordan was quick to welcome Russia’s enhanced role in Syria, and viewed Moscow as a capable player that could preserve the country from fragmentation and influence the Assad regime’s position toward accepting a political settlement.

More importantly, Jordan’s King Abdullah was able to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to exclude southern Syria from major military operations, allowing Amman to use its influence over moderate rebel groups in the south to focus their efforts on fighting Daesh.

These efforts were translated into the trilateral agreement last month to enforce a de-escalation zone in most of southern Syria. The truce there has held so far, and allowed Damascus to begin negotiations with rebel groups in Daraa, which should result in reconciliation and a peaceful end to the conflict in the south.

More importantly, the pacification of the south should allow Damascus to take control of the border crossing with Jordan, resulting in the opening of that vital link soon. It should enable the repatriation of Syrian refugees in the near future, and the beginning of reconstruction.

Throughout the past seven years, Amman and Damascus have kept some channels of communications open, at least at the military and intelligence levels. Both countries have a shared interest in preventing southern Syria from falling to Islamist militant groups. Jordan’s key objective was to secure its long border with Syria. This is why the return of the Syrian Army to these borders is viewed positively by Amman.

Jordan was quick to read the changing political mood in many Western capitals regarding Assad’s fate. Its initial policy toward the Syrian crisis has given it flexibility, and while a political solution has a long way to go, a normal bilateral relationship may give a much-needed boost to that process.

Source: .arabnews.com/node/1152681

-----

Neymar’s Dubious Deal

By Hussein Shobokshi

29 August 2017

During this time every year, the world returns to buy-and-sell deals among international football clubs. This is the so-called transfer season. However, this year the transfer of the Brazilian player Neymar from Barcelona club to Paris Saint-Germain club was in the spotlight.

It made headlines not merely as sports news but as a political issue as well. The deal was exaggerated and unprecedented, prompting surprise and opening questions about the motives of this dubious deal across the world.

The reported amount that changed hands is 220 million euros, but other financial details, which were not disclosed, suggested that the total deal was between 500 and 800 million Euros, which is of course, an astronomical figure that cannot be followed by a natural or normal sports deal.

Paris Saint-Germain is owned by the coup regime in Qatar and this regime has been making negative news headlines because of evidence and proof that Qatar and its regime are involved in financing and supporting terrorism in the Middle East.

It is a known fact that any amount exceeding one billion Qatari riyals must be approved by Hamad Bin Khalifa, the former Emir personally, and this is precisely what happened in the case of the purchase check for Neymar. The check was issued by Qatar National Bank owned by Hamad Bin Jassim personally, which proves that “Hamdeen” have the complete control on all affairs in the state of the coup regime in Qatar.

The dubious deal in which Qatar wants to score more than one point is that it is helping a great and gifted player of the most important country in Europe, its heart (France), to move to the country’s most popular club which enjoys the support in the street. The French media is therefore a pressure force on the French administration.

Advertising Campaign

This is a summary of what has been communicated to the leaders of the coup regime in Qatar regarding the Neymar deal. They have been told to regard it as a public relations and advertising campaign to improve the country and its regime’s image in one bold move that deserves any expensive payment.

But the deal raised some reservations among some of the European football federations, the first of which is the Spanish Federation, which called for an investigation into the dubious deal. It also called on the media to wait for the acceptance of the Qatari money because it may be dirty money like the Russian mafia and Colombian drug money, which is invested with the sole purpose of whitening it. Today the phenomenon is known internationally as money laundering.

The Qatari coup system has taken into account the importance of using and exploiting the most popular sports football around the world in order to improve its image and gain worldwide political attention. It sought to establish sports channels and purchased exclusive broadcasting rights for the most important sports tournaments in general and football in particular.

It won the right to host the World Cup in Qatar in 2022, with bribery and corruption charges, leading to investigations and resignations. It tried to transplant one of its employees (Ibn Hammam) in the corridors of decision-making of the International Federation of Football (FIFA), but he soon got exposed and was subsequently fired.

The Neymar deal has nothing to do with football but a new attempt by the coup in Qatar to change the subject and push away the finger on it in the terrorist financing files, but the issue is bigger and Neymar and his deal will not whiten the face of a black, bloody and ugly regime.

Blurb: It made headlines not merely as sports news but as a political issue as well. The deal was exaggerated and unprecedented, prompting surprise and opening questions about the motives of this dubious deal across the world.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/08/29/Neymar-s-dubious-deal.html

-----

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/europe-under-attack--how-does-a-terrorist-mind-tick?-by-radwan-al-sayed--new-age-islam’s-selection,-30-august-2017/d/112375




TOTAL COMMENTS:-    


Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content