Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 December 2015

The Jihadis - A Pawn for the West

A recent confab took place in Saudi Arabia which included "opposition" leaders from the factions fighting in Syria, namely Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, both affiliated to Al-Nusra Front who are a designated foreign terrorist organisation according to America - Saudi's greatest ally.

After great strides made in Syria against Assad it was about time that they'd be put back into their place by America's "enemy" Russia - but what has this achieved?

1) Allows the West to negotiate with the "rebels" temporarily until a deal is struck
a) Then wipes them out after claiming they have sided with Al Qaeda - similar to how most of the Jihadi factions were used and abused in the past after they've aided in the West's plans.

2) It forces the many factions on the ground to compromise the political solution for Syria
a) Giving up the Sharia in return for a liberal democratic form of governance, contrary to what most of the factions call for.

3) Preserves the face of America as it is the 'Russian Bear' that is delivering the blows while America are the peacemakers that will inevitably be the leader in coming to a political solution. 
a) At the same time it weakens the Russians, pulling them in to a battle that they'll never be able to come out of without a dent, both domestically and internationally. 
b) Creates a wedge between Russia and Turkey that will affect Russia moreso than Turkey due to its high dependency on trade after the sanctions with the European states. 



As for the Jihadi's, well... better luck next time. Sincere intentions, but the wrong method. However the sympathy shouldn't be with them but rather the millions of innocent Muslims that will die due to their carelessness and inability to stick to the Prophetic method of bringing Islam back as a State. 

May Allah make us one of those who persevere in the correct manner and in the manner that won't be detrimental to the Ummah of Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

Kam Kashem


Tuesday, 12 May 2015

The links US have with ISIS

The relationship between the U.S. and ISIS is a question posed by many. I will try to formulate as many links with evidence supporting my claims to help the reader in making his/her links as well as giving the reader an array of material to reference.

The Redirection - Seymour Hersh
In 2007 two-time Pulitzer Prize  winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in an article the new policy devised by America that "the U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection?currentPage=all

Camp Bucca - Baghdadi's launchpad
Baghdadi had served time in U.S. Prison Camp Bucca in Iraq before being released to then form ISIS. Abu Ahmed who also served time with Baghdadi in the same prison was interviewed regarding the ISIS leadership and formulation, giving a chilling description of how easy it was to form a group such as ISIS. He said “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else,”  “It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Arming the defectors
A trend had started becoming apparent in 2013 whereby all the ammunition and support the U.S. were giving so called moderate rebel factions, seemed to fall right into the lap of ISIS. Former Congressman Ron Paul denounced in an interview with Russia Today the plans to support western-backed forces have been helpful to ISIS. He said "The Free Syrian Army turned over the weapons that we (US) sent them to ISIS."

As well as that, a London based small-arms research organisation Conflict Armament Research revealed ISIS jihadists appear to be using US military-issued arms and weapons supplied to rebels via Saudi Arabia

America's allies are funding ISIS
The Daily Beast reported that "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

Yousuf al Salafi allegedly the Pakistan commander of ISIS had confessed during investigations that he has been receiving funds through the U.S. The article goes on to explain how in today's reality no funding of such large amounts go undetected by America now that the world trade in petrodollars for oil and gas.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/828761/startling-revelations-is-operative-confesses-to-getting-funds-via-us/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/ISIS_Mercenary_Admits_Getting_Funds_from_US/41364/0/38/38/Y/M.html

U.S. approved Jihadists - Abdulhakim Belhadj
Who is Abdelhakim Belhadj?

Having been a member of the "Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" or LIFG for decades, he would literally travel to Afghanistan where he would fight American soldiers in the wake of 9/11. He was even captured and enrolled in the United States' infamous "rendition program." Upon release from prison in Libya, he would promptly organize and lead armed rebellion against the government Muammar Qaddafi, with extensive NATO arms, cash, and even air cover.

2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report examining the demographics of foreign fighters caught in Iraq fighting then occupying US troops would reveal that the NATO-backed rebels in Libya led by Belhaj were in fact fighters drawn from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by both the US State Department and UK Home Office as a foreign terrorist organization.

In essence then, the United States and its NATO partners knowingly and willfully handed the nation of Libya and its people over to Al Qaeda. Despite Belhaj's documented terrorist past and present, US politicians would meet with him, showering upon him accolades, praise, and continued political and military support. Among these politicians were US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who met and literally shook Belhaj's hand while standing upon the ruins of Libya.

This same man is now seen leading the Libyan faction for ISIS the Washington Times reported


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/3/frank-gaffney-jr-us-backed-rebel-reportedly-leads-/










Friday, 6 February 2015

Opinion: Forcing the Jihadis to shake hands

It is interesting to note that Jordan's response to the killing of the pilot was to kill al-Rishawi who is a prominent member of Al Qaeda as well as Ziad Karbouli also top aide to Al Qaeda's Zarqawi.

The execution would have strengthened the already growing link between Al Qaeda militants or Al Qaeda linked factions such as Jabhat al-Nusra to ISIS. The two groups have always been separate in terms of military and resources but the actions of both Syrian regime and the 'Satanic Coalition' have further pushed them together under common goals. 

We know the coalition strikes have hit al-Nusra more so than ISIS even though the intended war is on ISIS - thereby further pushing the two groups together and pulling them around like a puppet on strings, controlling their actions and emotions. 

Whereas Assad has targeted ISIS recently and thousands of armed and trained, by the West, Syrian rebels defected to ISIS rather than al-Nusra only a month or two ago. It seems there is a ploy to align the Jihadi's together in a well rehearsed Western puppet show.

We have seen in the 'Battle for Arsal' it was the first time large scale fighting from Syria spilled over into Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces are battling both ISIS and al-Nusra front leaving it in a lawless state. 

The barbarism of ISIS will now be a chip in the shoulder for all those who align themselves to them in the fight against Assad as well as the coalition, allowing the West to group up the Jihadi's inside a death pen and deal with them once objectives have been achieved in the various regions. 

Sources:






How the Jordanian revenge beheading only unites ISIS with Al Qaeda and al-Nusra for the West's proxy war on Syria and MidEast

http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/02/04/wider-implications-for-jordan-s-revenge-against-islamic-state/i15c?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRomrfCcI63Em2iQPJWpsrB0B%2FDC18kX3RUtJL%2Bbfkz6htBZF5s8TM3DUVtFXqBR9kEAS7M%3D

Neither of the jihadists executed by Jordan are connected with ISIS in its current incarnation, but with al Qaeda. For example, one of them is Ziad Karbuli, an Iraqi national linked with the late al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and who had been detained in Jordan on death row since 2006. Through their execution, therefore, Jordan has inadvertently strengthened the link between ISIS and al Qaeda.

This is significant because the two groups have been engaged in a battle over resources and legitimacy since the start of the Syrian conflict. ISIS has been trying to present itself as the "true" al Qaeda, causing the latter to increase its military activities worldwide as well as within Syria to affirm its influence. Despite initial condemnation of the brutality of ISIS, al Qaeda's Syrian offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra has recently begun engaging in similar activities itself, such as beheadings and other forms of public violence.

One reason behind this is that al-Nusra has felt upstaged by the Islamic State and has escalated its violent acts in order to assert its presence in the face of its rival. But another reason is that the actions of the international coalition set up to fight ISIS have pushed the two groups together.

The coalition airstrikes in Syria have targeted both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, thereby presenting the groups with a common enemy. The Syrian regime's attacks on ISIS following the organization's advance in Iraq in June 2014 also shifted the position of ISIS away from the regime, aligning the organization with Jabhat al-Nusra, which still regards fighting the Assad regime as its primary objective. In the Qalamoun area bordering Syria and Lebanon, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have begun cooperating against the Syrian regime and Hezbollah.

The coalition's mediocre support for the moderate Syrian opposition in southern areas of Syria not only contributed to the Free Syrian Army's vulnerability to attack by al-Nusra brigades but also pushed some members of the two entities to maintain a working relationship based on material necessity and backed by sharing the mutual goal of fighting the Assad regime.

Today, several towns along Syria's south-western border witness al-Nusra presence. In the north, a number of towns have shifted their alliance from al-Nusra to ISIS due to a number of reasons, from fear to coercion to seeking material gains.
Now that ISIS and al-Nusra have been pushed towards one another even more as a result of the Jordanian executions, a similar shift of allegiance is likely in southern Syrian towns as well. If that were to happen, Jordan, which has borders with southern Syria, would find itself with ISIS on its doorstep overnight.

This bears bad news for the coalition. The south is where the Free Syrian Army retains more control than anywhere else in Syria, and where the coalition is planning on empowering the moderate opposition through training and weapons provision. Being confronted with ISIS in the area derails this plan.

The presence of ISIS in the south would also push Jordan to escalate the level of its engagement in the Syrian conflict. It will be forced to change from a supporter of its patrons, the United States and Saudi Arabia, in their fights against ISIS and into a participant in frontline warfare with the organization. This will in turn trigger further entrenchment by not just those two countries but also other members of the coalition in the war as they scramble to aid their Jordanian ally in its fight against ISIS.

Such a development would heighten the reactive nature of the coalition's strategy towards ISIS.

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

The Sanctions of Mass Destruction: How the US deal deadlier massacres without nuclear bombs using Petrodollars.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/03/the-sanctions-of-mass-destruction/

Fueled by Petrodollars

The Sanctions of Mass Destruction

by GARIKAI CHENGU
Under the late King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia played a role most treacherous in world affairs: its oil fueled U.S. militarism and its money funded Islamic extremists.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps the greatest inherent contradiction of U.S. foreign policy.
Prior to the 20th century, the value of money was tied to gold. When banks lent money they were constrained by the size of their gold reserves. But in 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon took the country off the gold standard. Nixon and Saudi Arabia came to an agreement whereby the only currency that Saudi Arabia could sell its oil in was the US dollar and the Saudi Kingdom would in turn ensure that its oil profits flow back into U.S. government treasuries and American banks.
In exchange, America pledged to provide the Saudi Royal family’s regime with military protection and military hardware.
It was the start of something great for America. Access to oil defined 20th-century empires and the petrodollar agreement was the key to the ascendance of the United States as the world’s sole superpower.
The petrodollar system spread beyond oil and the U.S. dollar slowly but surely became the reserve currency for global trades in most commodities and goods. This system allows America to maintain its position of dominance as the world’s only superpower, despite being $18 trillion in debt.
Threats by any nation to undermine the petrodollar system are viewed by Washington as tantamount to a declaration of war against the United States of America.
Within the last decade Iraq, Iran and Libya have all threatened to sell their oil in other currencies. Consequently, they have all been subject to crippling U.S. sanctions.
At the height of World War Two, President Truman issued an order for American bombers to drop “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 140,000 people instantly. The gruesome images that emerged from the rubble were broadcasted through television sets across the world and caused unprecedented outrage, forcing U.S. policy makers to devise a more subtle weapon of mass destruction: sanctions.
Sanctions are often viewed as a less destructive alternative to military force. Nothing could be further from the truth. American sanctions have killed more innocent people than all of the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ever used in the history of mankind.
The Financial Times newspaper quoted sanctions expert Geoff Simons who proved that “two-thirds of the world’s population is subject to some sort of U.S. sanctions.”
Sanctions are clearly the 21st century’s most potent weapon of mass destruction.
They told us that Iraq was a nuclear threat; Iraq was a terrorist state; Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It all amounted to nothing. What the U.S. administration did not tell us was that the main reason for toppling Saddam, and putting sanctions on the people of Iraq, was the fact that Iraq had ditched the dollar-for-oil sales.
The United Nations estimates that 1.7 million Iraqis died due to Bill Clinton’s sanctions; 500,000 of whom were children. In 1996, a journalist asked former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, about these UN reports, specifically about the children. America’s top foreign policy official replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions policy is nothing short of deliberate genocide and impoverishment.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. Central to Gaddafi’s vision for a united Africa was a common African currency made from gold and Gaddafi planned to quit selling Libyan oilin U.S. dollars. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency.
Had Gaddafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, the Colonel would certainly have done extremely well for his people, and for the world at large. But Africa has the fastest growing oil industry in the world and oil sales in a common African currency would have been especially devastating for the American dollar, the U.S. economy, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.
It is for this reason that President Clinton signed the now infamous Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The Libyan people were unusually vulnerable to the effects of sanctions, because Libya imports 75 percent of its food, and oil exports make up 95 percent of its revenue. The United Nations Children’s Fund reported that these sanctions caused widespread suffering among civilians by “severely limiting supplies of fuel, access to cash, and the means of replenishing stocks of food and essential medications.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions are grievous crimes against humanity.
Not so long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa, with the highest regional standards of living. Nowadays, intervention and sanctions have turned Libya and Iraq into two of the world’s most troubled nations.
Iran is yet another nation increasingly troubled by American sanctions. An intelligence report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around. The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the United States has engaged in over 50 military invasions and interventions.
Much like Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, the United States has used the imaginary nuclear threat to enforce sanctions upon the people of Iran.
In early 2007, during an OPEC meeting, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for a “credible and good currency to take over the American dollar’s role and to serve oil trades”. By December 2007, Iran had stopped selling its oil in U.S. dollars. Three months later, the nation set up the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) on Kish Island, which allowed exchanges of oil, petrochemicals, and gas between countries in a basket of currencies other than U.S. dollar.
Iran’s petrodollar defiance resulted in America imposing a crippling set of sanctions on seventy-five million Iranian citizens. Sanctions of mass destruction have cost Iran $120 billion in lost revenue since 2010; and, they even include a ban on the importation of certain medicines and foodstuffs. Despite Iranian government subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the sanctions regime, in some cases showing three and four fold increases. Senior U.S. politician, Brad Sherman, remarked, “critics of sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”
Sanctions are as morally indefensible as they are counter-productive. The more America imposes sanctions on countries for non-dollar trading, the more those countries will respond to American sanctions with increased non-dollar trading. Therefore, imposing sanctions on nations for trading crude oil in other currencies is akin to crudely attempting to put out a fire by dousing it with petrol.
Ever since 1980, the United States has steadily devolved from the status of the world’s top creditor country to the world’s most indebted country. But thanks to the petrodollar system’s huge global artificial demand for U.S. dollars, America can continue exponential military expansion, record breaking deficits and unrestrained spending. Today, a global U.S. dollar reserve currency allows Americans to enjoy some of the best standards of living.
America’s largest export used to be manufactured goods made proudly in America. Today, America’s largest export is the U.S. dollar. Any nation that threatens that export is met with America’s second largest export: weapons, chief amongst which are sanctions of mass destruction.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Pretext for War in Afghanistan haunts Bush and Blair 10 years on.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/16551-the-man-who-haunts-bush-and-blair

Yvonne Ridley

However, today, Middle East Monitor can publish the real story about the man who was used so ruthlessly to start the war in Iraq; it was his evidence, extracted under torture, which George W Bush and Tony Blair exploited to push for the invasion.

Powell revealed that the source for this information was a top asset, the most senior Al-Qaida operative in captivity. While he did not name him at the time it transpired that the intelligence had come from a Libyan man called Ibn Al-Shaikh Al-Libi. The details he passed over would turn out to be a tissue of lies and an embarrassment to US and UK spy agencies the following year.


It was the Libyan's evidence that had led to reports about the Ricin Plot when, just a few weeks earlier, sections of the British media scared the hell out of readers by revealing that anti-terror police had raided an Al-Qaida "factory of death" where equipment to make the deadly poison ricin had been found. One of the tabloid newspapers had a map of Britain plastered over its front page with a massive skull and crossbones in the middle just to make sure that readers realised the real horror of the situation. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that, "The danger is present and real and with us now."
Yet the truth is that within 48 hours of the police raid Blair knew that the "poison-making equipment" was actually a coffee pot; scientists from the government's Porton Down "military science" laboratories informed Downing Street and the police that the suspicious substance was nothing more dangerous than coffee granules. Nevertheless, Tony Blair continued to let the British public believe that Al-Qaida was out to get them.

Blair also:
  • Remained silent and allowed Colin Powell to brief the UN on a lie;
  • Remained silent and allowed the public to continue to be terrified;
  • Remained silent and allowed a group of innocent Algerians to be locked up for more than two years until their trial; and
  • Remained silent when the trial collapsed after the jury at the Old Bailey discovered that there was no ricin and there was no plot.
When I tracked Ibn Al-Shaikh's family down to their home in Ajdabiya in north east Libya they told me that they believed that their son's death was some sort of macabre gift from Muammar Gaddafi to Bush and Blair. Of course, such an allegation is difficult to prove but there is no doubt that the news of his death will have come as a relief to those who were uneasy that the "man who started a war" was no longer alive and able to tell the world his account of what had happened in the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

What I have established is that Ibn Al-Shaikh did not take his own life; he was actually killed on the direct orders of the then Libyan leader Gaddafi. The date given to world was true, but the cause of death was not; Ibn Al-Shaikh did not commit suicide. People to whom I spoke who had met him in Abu Salim doubted the suicide story, as did his parents.

After the Libyan regime was toppled, one of the most senior prison guards accused of carrying out some of the most heinous crimes against inmates in Abu Salim was captured. I was allowed to meet him in a prison in Zawiyah, where he was being held anonymously and for his own safety; hundreds of ex-prisoners and their families wanted to mete out their own form of justice without his vile torture and abuse ever being discussed in an open court.
This man had nothing to lose by speaking to me and he met me freely and of his own accord. He told me quietly and in detail that Ibn Al-Shaikh had indeed been murdered. He described his injuries and explained that his body was left hanging by a bed sheet in his cell to give the impression that he had committed suicide.
It remains to be seen if any letters of thanks from Western governments to Gaddafi surface among the thousands of documents recovered from Libyan government offices following the 2011 revolution yet to be translated and read. Only recently did it emerge that Blair had written to Gaddafi thanking him for the "excellent cooperation" between the two countries after British and Libyan counter-terrorism agencies had worked together to arrange for Libyan dissidents to be kidnapped and flown to Tripoli, along with their families.
That letter was written in 2007 at the end of a period during which the dictator's intelligence officers were permitted to operate in Britain. According to the Guardian newspaper, they were approaching and intimidating Libyan refugees in an attempt to persuade them to work as informants for both countries.

Friday, 23 January 2015

Kerry: World Needs ‘Long-Term’ Commitment to Fighting Extremism - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kerry-world-needs-long-term-commitment-to-fighting-extremism-1422034191

"We need a commitment to the long-term," Mr. Kerry told the forum, set in this Swiss mountain resort. "We have to do a better job of offering alternatives to violent extremism."

The chief U.S. diplomat, at times becoming emotional, drew parallels between today's fights against Islamic State, al Qaeda, and African militant groups to the emergence of European fascism leading into World War II.

Who Are The Houthis Of Yemen? : Parallels : NPR



http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/01/23/379282727/who-are-the-houthis-of-yemen


The Houthis of northern Yemen were an obscure group until recently. But they surged to prominence in September, when the Houthi militia took over parts of Yemen's capital, Sanaa.

Yemen's president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, was weakened by the Houthi advance and agreed to a deal that allowed the militia to keep control in a number of key areas in Sanaa.

The fragile deal fell apart this week as the Houthis seized the presidential palace and placed more demands on Hadi, who resigned on Thursday. This has plunged Yemen into uncertainty.

Letta Tayler, a senior researcher on terrorism at Human Rights Watch who has closed followed Yemen, spoke to NPR's David Greene about the Houthis, a minority in Yemen who practice an offshoot of Shiite Islam known as Zaidism.

DAVID GREENE: Who are the Houthis?

LETTA TAYLER: They are a real wild card. They're a rebel group from northern Yemen. They have rapidly morphed into the armed faction of a full-fledged political movement. And I guess the most important thing for Americans to know is that part of the Houthi slogan is "God is great." But then it continues, "Death to America, death to Israel."

Does this suggest Yemen is moving into a very dangerous place?

Well, it could indeed be moving into a very dangerous place. But despite the slogan, the Houthis have not harmed Americans, nor have they harmed Israel. It's AQAP [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula] in Yemen ... that is kidnapping and in some cases killing, foreigners. It's not the Houthis. So again, they're a wild card. We really don't know which direction they might go.

Does the U.S. fight against al-Qaida in Yemen fall apart?

Well, ironically, the one thing that we know that the Houthis and the U.S. government have in common is that they both want to get rid of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. So it may actually work out. It may not be entirely implausible to envision the Houthis and the United States joining in the fight against AQAP. So even marginal but sincere action against the AQAP by the Houthis might be a step forward.

There's something incredibly striking about this narrative.

This is often the way Yemen is. Yemen's politics and intrigue makes the word "Byzantine" seem simplistic. We don't know if Yemen is really sliding into chaos or if it's just continuing to hover on the brink. But we do know that this is a serious challenge for the U.S. government. ...

Combating terrorism is a priority for the Yemeni people, but it is not nearly as high on the priority list as ending government corruption, creating jobs, providing a good education system, ensuring that the country does not run out of water.

So these are the concerns of Yemenis. Yes, AQAP is one of those concerns, but most Yemenis see AQAP as more of a problem for the U.S. government. And they see the U.S. government coming in, not to help fix its own problems, but rather to take out elements of AQAP that may be a threat to the U.S., but not to resolve any of the deep problems of Yemen.

Does anything give you hope for the future of this country?



Every time I go to Yemen, I think, "Can things really get worse?" And then somehow they pop back up. I think the thing that gives me the most hope is the Yemeni people. There are so many people filling the squares and the streets of Yemen who genuinely want change, who will continue to press their demands peacefully, no matter how often they are tempted to try to shed blood. Let's not cross this country off just yet as a failed state.