! مخاض شرق أوسط جديد

نشر موقع

Armedforces

الأمريكي

مقالة بعنوان

حدود الدم

وفيه تصور لخريطة الشرق الأوسط الجديد التي بدأت أمريكا تتحدث عنها طبعا

من الملاحظ ان الطابع العنصري هو السلاح المستخدم .. اي الفتنة هي المطلوبة على ما يبدو

محنا ناقصين ... اللهم يا كافي

لمزيد من التفاصيل + خريطة تصور الوضع فيما بعد المخاض و الولادة !!!! ... وهذا هو المقال

-/-/-

بدأت تتحدث الإدارة الأمريكية عن شرق اوسطجديد خاضع كليا لإرادتهافقد نشر موقع

Armedforces

الأمريكي مقالة بعنوان

حدود الدم

وفيه تصور لخريطة الشرق الأوسط الجديد التي بدأت أمريكاتتحدث عنهاطبعا

الكل خاسرون تقريبا ... واكبر الخاسرين هي السعودية

التقسيم الجديد يقوم أساساعلى القومية والمذهبية وعلى حد زعم الموقع .. فإن الشرق الأوسط الجديد سيحتوي على الدول التالية

دولة للشيعةجنوب العراق ، شرق السعودية، غرب إيران

دولة إسلامية مقدسة الحجاز

دولة للأكراد شمال العراق ، جنوب تركيا، اجزاء من ايران وسوريا

دولة سنية وسط العراق واجزاء من سوريا

دولة وسط السعودية

الاردن الكبير الاردن الحالي مع شمال شرق السعودية وجزء من الضفة الغربية وستكون موطن فلسطينيي الشتات

اليمن ستتوسع لتأخذ جنوب السعودية

كما تمتد يد التقسيم لتشمل باكستان وافغانستان لخلق دول جديدة مثل بلوشستان ووغيرها

الصورة التي جعلتني أقف حائرا ومتفكرا في حال العرب

وهذا مقال حدود الدم كما ورد في الموقع

Blood borders

How a better Middle East would look

By Ralph Peters

International borders are never completely just.
But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force
together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between
freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism,
or even peace and war. The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are
in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had
sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to
provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in
the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be
consumed locally. While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional
borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly
religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's
comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international
boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats. Of course, no adjustment of borders,
however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some
instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried.
Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as
their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps
accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant
"cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still
fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis,
Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting
wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide
perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire. Yet, for all the
injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major
boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East. Even those
who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an
exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of
national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that
international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war —
for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's
"organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the
difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal,
man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until
they are corrected. As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable,"
declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember
that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have
never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the
Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives
avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips). Oh, and one other dirty
little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works. Begin with
the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope
of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its
pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security
concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained
with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes.
Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf
battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic
squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those
that are studiously ignored. The most glaring injustice in the notoriously
unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an
independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds
living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise
because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population
of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest
ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by
every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since
Xenophon's day.

والدول الرابحة والخاسرة هي

From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its
paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise
a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst
aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of
religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and,
above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may
provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the
rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front. If the
borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties
of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the
bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.

WHO WINS, WHO LOSES

Winners — رابحون

Afghanistan

Arab Shia State

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Free Baluchistan

Free Kurdistan

Iran

Islamic Sacred State

Jordan

Lebanon

Yemen

Losers — خاسرون

Saudi Arabia

Afghanistan

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Kuwait

Pakistan

Qatar

Syria

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

West Bank

لا تجعلوا العدو يفعل بنا ما يريد ولنكن معا ضد هذا المخطط الفاشل

منقول