The Times of India
17/12/2007
NEW DELHI: India is sceptical of a future Pakistani government under the stewardship of Benazir Bhutto.
In one of the first comments by the Indian leadership on a future Pakistani government, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan said, "Her track record is not necessarily something that would make us believe that she will follow to the letter and the spirit of what she has said."
In an interview to a TV channel, Narayanan was doubtful whether Benazir could follow through with her promises that she would close down terror camps, private militia and even flirted with the possibility of giving India access to Jaish-e-Mohammed's Masood Azhar and LeT's Hafiz Saeed. "It's difficult to believe she will.
One has to go by what she did in the 90s, so one is sceptical... even if she wishes to do so, the single most important entity in Pakistan remains the army and the ISI and I find it extremely difficult to believe that prime minister Benazir Bhutto, if she becomes that, will have a free hand in doing all the things that she wishes to do," Narayanan said.
It's the first time India has openly talked about Benazir's lousy record with terror — she is generally regarded as the founder of the Taliban, along with her minister Nasrullah Babar. She had openly admitted to being the one to cement Pakistan's nuclear proliferation ties with North Korea and under her tutelage, terror camps against India had flourished. Narayanan's comments also coincide with foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee's statement welcoming the lifting of emergency in Pakistan.
Musharraf, however, comes in for "grudging respect" by the NSA. He reaffirmed India's official line that it would continue to do business with Musharraf. "I must say there is a certain amount of grudging respect for the manner in which president Musharraf has managed to overcome his previous struggles. He's moved from a military president to a civilian president. He's managed to see there is no boycott to the election to the assembly. To some extent, he has managed to ride (it out). At least definitely in the short term it should be possible (for him to succeed). If he manages to do so in the long term then, of course, he's a very able person," Narayanan said.
Musharraf remains India's favourite Pakistani leader, and while Musharraf's popularity may be ebbing in his own country, in India as in Washington, he is a "credible interlocutor". "We will do business with whoever has the stamp of approval in Pakistan," Narayanan said.
He added that while in the longer term Musharraf's future depended on the army standing united as well loyal to him, as of now "I don't see any sign of cracks in the system". "If you take the corps commanders and generals, they are all on the same wave length. When ambition emerges it may be different. But at the moment, I don't see any major cracks," the NSA said.
But the immediate future in Pakistan is more cloudy from the Indian standpoint than either Pakistani or American.
Putting his finger on the nub of the issue, Narayanan said, "The basic point is how does a civilian President play out in Pakistan when the army is still the dominant force? Next, we will have a Prime Minister shortly. Therefore you will have three authorities or centres of power - a civilian President, the Army Chief and the Prime Minister - as against one single unified element earlier.
Dec 17, 2007
Dec 15, 2007
Paktoonistan
We have got to stop using overly aggressive tactics against our own people; as such tactics are very counter productive.
One thinks of the Lal Masjid incident which reflects the prevalent state tactics pertaining to all matters security. A good state should have a mixed bag of tactics, not just one. There were women and children in the Mosque, and greater mercy and care should have been shown as good Muslims and as fellow Pakistanis, other wise it looks like the elite are taking insensitive orders from Washington saab. Ordinary people read into such traumatic things the wrong way.
The standard procedure is you cut the water, electricity and gas supply to a building occupied by such types. You keep talking to the insurgents, and you try and get the insurgents into one particular part of the building. You supply them food which makes them sleepy, and then with tear gas, tazers and rubber bullets you storm the place.
Obviously the fundies were staging an epoch making rallying campaign for their supporters, with arms that may have been supplied by state agencies, with sophisticated communication systems, and the government fell into that trap of giving them free air time, day after day, after day. Now every ‘Fundie pagal bacha’ Israeli/UK/American/ISI trained in Pakistan will try it out for Shaheed. Instead the government should have ordered a media blackout, incrementally dealt with the ‘Pagal bacha’, whilst using the incident to find out which personnel in state agencies were compromising state policies. But still it is easy to be wiser after the event, and especially if one is not burdened with the pressure and responsibility of actually dealing with it in the ‘heat of the moment’ hey?
My overall view point is let the insurgents be in FATA, and not try and pursue them at this juncture. Priority should be given to controlling and managing the medium and big sized towns and these should not fall into insurgency hands.
Other than that, the army must stop using heavy handed tactics against them, with equipment such as jet fighters, artillery, and helicopter gunships, as these are war making expensive equipment that should be preserved for real external threats in the eventually of an actual conventional war. There is also the psychological dimension in using such equipment, by a government which seems out of control and at war with its own people, or that the insurgents are important and serious enough a threat for the state to use such equipment to that extent. The insurgency plays it up, and the government should be playing it down.
Imagine if the UK used Tornado FGA planes and challenger tanks against a Catholic hamlet in Northern Ireland, because suspected IRA members were holed up there according to local intelligence. Just not possible is it? So why do we have such hardware being used against Pakistanis?
The writer fully understands where all this is coming from, and the history and heritage of the Pakistani armed forces rooted in British colonialism, trained up to put down rebellion in the Subcontinent. Bilaat saab has gone, at least physically, and such tactics cannot be used against Muslim Pakistanis, least of all Pashtuns, who are duty bound under ‘Paktunwali law’ to take vengeance. We are not talking about unarmed soft spot Bengali villagers here. We are not talking about East Pakistanis, who made up about 5% of the army in 1971; we are talking about Pashtuns who are an important element of the army, intelligence, police and paramilitary forces. Such careless witless knee jerk action can have dire consequences. You get one East Pakistan rifle battalion mutinying under major Zia ul Rahman, and the rest follow the call. Learn your history gentlemen, learn your history. Didn’t the Bengalis win at the end with a little help from India, and several million dead later? You loose the frontier you loose Pakistan.
Pakistan has $15 billion in FCR, and is doing well financially under the tutelage of the present PM. What needs to be done is to get that windfall and invest it into real tangible projects that improve the daily lives of the people in FATA---Schools, hospitals, houses with electricity, water and gas, shops, roads, irrigation canals, and of course factories and so forth.
It really is that simple. The North West Frontier is among the most backward states in Pakistan, along with Baluchistan, and surprise surprise, lo they are also the most rebellious.
I am looking at investments of about $5-10 billion within the next few years effectively into FATA, and the $750 million promised by the USA is too little and too late. It almost looks like bribery. Greater transparency making sure all the funds are properly utilized, and not misappropriated by corrupt state officials---we are in a make or break situation.
Investing in FATA is investing in Pakistan. The Pashtun’s are a hardy good quality people that are an asset for Pakistan, beyond and above any other ethnic group in Pakistan. Sadly, and indeed it is very sad that such quality people have had to resort to migrating to the Punjab, Karachi and other places in order to seek a subsistent existence.
The CIA has closed its OBL search party, a few years back. This could be because he is actually dead, and the Pakistanis are in a better position to know this fact than I as he moved around Pakistan as a celebrity within the top ranks of their security apparatus. For that reason one of the major factors for the aggressive ops in FATA has disappeared, though of course his deputy is still there, along with some of his supporters.
“Bhutto was asked directly about the so-called Miranshah agreement which Musharraf worked out so that he could withdraw Pakistani troops from North Waziristan where his army was sustaining heavy losses. Musharraf had only won minor concessions from the tribal leaders who were supposed to limit their support for the Taliban. The treaty was a complete hoax designed to extricate Musharraf from an "unwinnable" war that was universally unpopular with Pakistanis (extremely strongly advised by especially senior Pashtun officers from the NWFP, men with direct experience and understanding of the vicinity---Lt. Gen. (r) Ali Jan Muhammad Orakzai) Unfortunately, the treaty turned out to be Musharraf’s death sentence. When it became clear to Bush and his neocon colleagues that Musharraf would not carry out their war agenda; they began to sharpen their daggers and plan for his removal. That is why Bhutto was exhumed from her Dubai mausoleum long enough to play a part in this latest Bush comic operetta. This has nothing to do with "democracy promotion". It’s just another grim chapter in the "color-coded revolution" digest. The whole performance is being staged courtesy of the US intelligence agencies and the compliant establishment media. Bush doesn’t care about democracy any more than Bhutto. What he’s looking for is someone who’ll take on the Taliban in Waziristan. That's it. And that's why Musarraf's day's are numbered.”
Bhutto, addressing the CFR crowd:
"I rejected that ceasefire of September 2006 -- the peace treaty -- and we rejected the ceasefires before that. In fact, we were appalled that the tribal region of our country was handed over to foreigners, because Afghan Taliban, Afghans and al Qaeda are added to the Chechens and the Uzbeks. And this is Pakistani territory, and Pakistan has to protect its own territory. So we've been absolutely appalled by that. And we think the first thing the government of Pakistan has to do is to take the territory back. We've ceded authority of our own territory, and it's not enough to satisfy the agenda of the Afghan Taliban or the Arab al Qaeda or the Central Asian Uzbek-Chechen. They're now knocking on the doors of our frontier province. "
One thinks of the Lal Masjid incident which reflects the prevalent state tactics pertaining to all matters security. A good state should have a mixed bag of tactics, not just one. There were women and children in the Mosque, and greater mercy and care should have been shown as good Muslims and as fellow Pakistanis, other wise it looks like the elite are taking insensitive orders from Washington saab. Ordinary people read into such traumatic things the wrong way.
The standard procedure is you cut the water, electricity and gas supply to a building occupied by such types. You keep talking to the insurgents, and you try and get the insurgents into one particular part of the building. You supply them food which makes them sleepy, and then with tear gas, tazers and rubber bullets you storm the place.
Obviously the fundies were staging an epoch making rallying campaign for their supporters, with arms that may have been supplied by state agencies, with sophisticated communication systems, and the government fell into that trap of giving them free air time, day after day, after day. Now every ‘Fundie pagal bacha’ Israeli/UK/American/ISI trained in Pakistan will try it out for Shaheed. Instead the government should have ordered a media blackout, incrementally dealt with the ‘Pagal bacha’, whilst using the incident to find out which personnel in state agencies were compromising state policies. But still it is easy to be wiser after the event, and especially if one is not burdened with the pressure and responsibility of actually dealing with it in the ‘heat of the moment’ hey?
My overall view point is let the insurgents be in FATA, and not try and pursue them at this juncture. Priority should be given to controlling and managing the medium and big sized towns and these should not fall into insurgency hands.
Other than that, the army must stop using heavy handed tactics against them, with equipment such as jet fighters, artillery, and helicopter gunships, as these are war making expensive equipment that should be preserved for real external threats in the eventually of an actual conventional war. There is also the psychological dimension in using such equipment, by a government which seems out of control and at war with its own people, or that the insurgents are important and serious enough a threat for the state to use such equipment to that extent. The insurgency plays it up, and the government should be playing it down.
Imagine if the UK used Tornado FGA planes and challenger tanks against a Catholic hamlet in Northern Ireland, because suspected IRA members were holed up there according to local intelligence. Just not possible is it? So why do we have such hardware being used against Pakistanis?
The writer fully understands where all this is coming from, and the history and heritage of the Pakistani armed forces rooted in British colonialism, trained up to put down rebellion in the Subcontinent. Bilaat saab has gone, at least physically, and such tactics cannot be used against Muslim Pakistanis, least of all Pashtuns, who are duty bound under ‘Paktunwali law’ to take vengeance. We are not talking about unarmed soft spot Bengali villagers here. We are not talking about East Pakistanis, who made up about 5% of the army in 1971; we are talking about Pashtuns who are an important element of the army, intelligence, police and paramilitary forces. Such careless witless knee jerk action can have dire consequences. You get one East Pakistan rifle battalion mutinying under major Zia ul Rahman, and the rest follow the call. Learn your history gentlemen, learn your history. Didn’t the Bengalis win at the end with a little help from India, and several million dead later? You loose the frontier you loose Pakistan.
Pakistan has $15 billion in FCR, and is doing well financially under the tutelage of the present PM. What needs to be done is to get that windfall and invest it into real tangible projects that improve the daily lives of the people in FATA---Schools, hospitals, houses with electricity, water and gas, shops, roads, irrigation canals, and of course factories and so forth.
It really is that simple. The North West Frontier is among the most backward states in Pakistan, along with Baluchistan, and surprise surprise, lo they are also the most rebellious.
I am looking at investments of about $5-10 billion within the next few years effectively into FATA, and the $750 million promised by the USA is too little and too late. It almost looks like bribery. Greater transparency making sure all the funds are properly utilized, and not misappropriated by corrupt state officials---we are in a make or break situation.
Investing in FATA is investing in Pakistan. The Pashtun’s are a hardy good quality people that are an asset for Pakistan, beyond and above any other ethnic group in Pakistan. Sadly, and indeed it is very sad that such quality people have had to resort to migrating to the Punjab, Karachi and other places in order to seek a subsistent existence.
The CIA has closed its OBL search party, a few years back. This could be because he is actually dead, and the Pakistanis are in a better position to know this fact than I as he moved around Pakistan as a celebrity within the top ranks of their security apparatus. For that reason one of the major factors for the aggressive ops in FATA has disappeared, though of course his deputy is still there, along with some of his supporters.
“Bhutto was asked directly about the so-called Miranshah agreement which Musharraf worked out so that he could withdraw Pakistani troops from North Waziristan where his army was sustaining heavy losses. Musharraf had only won minor concessions from the tribal leaders who were supposed to limit their support for the Taliban. The treaty was a complete hoax designed to extricate Musharraf from an "unwinnable" war that was universally unpopular with Pakistanis (extremely strongly advised by especially senior Pashtun officers from the NWFP, men with direct experience and understanding of the vicinity---Lt. Gen. (r) Ali Jan Muhammad Orakzai) Unfortunately, the treaty turned out to be Musharraf’s death sentence. When it became clear to Bush and his neocon colleagues that Musharraf would not carry out their war agenda; they began to sharpen their daggers and plan for his removal. That is why Bhutto was exhumed from her Dubai mausoleum long enough to play a part in this latest Bush comic operetta. This has nothing to do with "democracy promotion". It’s just another grim chapter in the "color-coded revolution" digest. The whole performance is being staged courtesy of the US intelligence agencies and the compliant establishment media. Bush doesn’t care about democracy any more than Bhutto. What he’s looking for is someone who’ll take on the Taliban in Waziristan. That's it. And that's why Musarraf's day's are numbered.”
Bhutto, addressing the CFR crowd:
"I rejected that ceasefire of September 2006 -- the peace treaty -- and we rejected the ceasefires before that. In fact, we were appalled that the tribal region of our country was handed over to foreigners, because Afghan Taliban, Afghans and al Qaeda are added to the Chechens and the Uzbeks. And this is Pakistani territory, and Pakistan has to protect its own territory. So we've been absolutely appalled by that. And we think the first thing the government of Pakistan has to do is to take the territory back. We've ceded authority of our own territory, and it's not enough to satisfy the agenda of the Afghan Taliban or the Arab al Qaeda or the Central Asian Uzbek-Chechen. They're now knocking on the doors of our frontier province. "
Acha Saab, Jee saab; You know better about my country than I do. Can I polish your boots saab? Can I send my children to Amerikka to be educated saab? Can I open a secret bank account saab?
Yes Benazir bhen but who started the ball rolling? It was the Ulloo ISI guided by Bilaat saab, and it was YOU in 1994 guided by Clinton saab, or have you forgotten.
Perspectives of Afghan women.
OK, with a name like Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, they were never going to be kind to the current occupiers of Afghanistan. Most telling they forget to mention the Soviet atrocities committed during the eighties, killing 1.5 million Afghans. Having said that just because they have a particular political point of view does not invalidate ALL their arguments, especially if you happen to be living in that country, and you get first hand experience of the foreign occupiers.
What Afghans have to to do is ORGANISE AND MOBILIZE without relying on the foreign puppets such as the current regime in Kabul, the Northern Alliance beholden to Iran to an extent, and the Taliban, beholden to the ISI/Pakistan. Afghans in Afghanistan, with Afghans in Iran and Pakistan. They must all ORGANISE, and get their representation and voice across for a really independent Afghanistan. We all hope they succeed one day---but sooner the better, and without the Taliban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RAWA 12/12/07 "ICH"
The US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of Afghanistan under the banner of “bringing freedom and democracy for Afghan people”. But as we have experienced in the past three decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan.
In the past few years, for a thousand times the lies of US claims in the so-called “War on terror” were uncovered. By relying on the criminal bands of the Northern Alliance, the US made a game of values like democracy, human rights, women’s rights etc. thus disgracing our mournful nation. The US created a government from those people responsible for massacres in Pul-e-Charkhi, Dasht-e-Chamtala, Kapisa, Karala, Dasht-e-Lieli, 65,000 Kabulis and tens of mass graves across the country. Now the US tries to include infamous killers like Mullah Omer and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar into the government, which will be another big hypocrisy in the “war against terror”.
The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity into desperation and proved that for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism so that our people can be happy, have no significance at all. The US administration plays a funny anti-Taliban game and pretends that a super power is unable to defeat a small, marginalized and medieval-minded gang which is actually her own product. But our people found by experience in the past few years that the US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of its economical, political and strategic interests in the region.
After about seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the destitution and suffering of our people has doubled everyday. Our people, and even our unfortunate children, fall victim to the Jehadis’ infighting (Baghlan incident), the Taliban’s untargeted blasts and the US/NATO’s non-stop bombardments. The Northern Alliance blood-suckers, who are part of Karzai’s team and have key government posts, continue to be the main and the most serious obstacle towards the establishment of peace and democracy in Afghanistan. The existence of tens of illegal private security companies run by these mafia bands are enough to realize their sinister intentions and the danger they pose.
Human rights violations, crime, and corruption have reached their peak, so much so that Mr. Karzai is forced to make friendly pleas to the ministers and members of the parliament, asking them to “keep some limits”! Accusations about women being raped in prisons were so numerous that even a pro-warlord woman in the parliament had no choice but to acknowledge them.
Rabbani, Khalili, Massoud, Sayyaf, Fahim, Ismael and other criminals for the sake of being “ISI” and “VEVAK” agents could become “leaders” in the early 90’s, invited their god-father General Hamid Gul of ISI to become their army chief. But today they raise anti-Pakistan slogans to hide their corruption and wrong-doings. In this act they even go further and abuse Pakistani people. But they never talk about the dirty act of Pakistan in creating fundamentalist bands and imposing them on our people. More importantly, they keep silent about the wider, more devastating and more active meddling of the brutal Iranian regime in Afghanistan through its cultural and media agents. Pro-Iranian regime politicians and intellectuals are as much traitorous to democracy and human rights as the intellectuals and politicians who, from an ethnocentric and reactionary point of view, call the barbarism and terror of Taliban a “national armed resistance,” and shamelessly defend them.
The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) has announced a number of times that when the legislative, administrative and judicial bodies are ruled by drug-lords and warlords or their Talibi, Gulbudini, Parchami and Khalqi accomplices, they will never do anything positive for our deprived people. Rather these bodies will act as a mechanism to continue the ongoing crime, drug-trade and looting by these mafia bands to become richer.
If the US government replaces Karzai with a new puppet, even if he is not from among the Jehadi criminals, it will be just a deception of our people and an attempt to put the responsibilities of today’s tragedies on the shoulders of a single person. Such a move will have no positive outcome for our nation. Only a president who rely on people and come to power through a fair election, free from any kind of dependence or dealings with the fundamentalists, would be ideal for Afghan people.
Instead of defeating Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Gulbuddini terrorists and disarming the Northern Alliance, the foreign troops are creating confusion among the people of the world. We believe that if these troops leave Afghanistan, our people will not feel any kind of vacuum but rather will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts. In such a situation, they will face the Taliban and Northern Alliance without their “national” mask, and rise to fight with these terrorist enemies. Neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan’s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation.
By publishing the book “Some Documents of the Bloody and Traitorous Jehadi Years”, RAWA has taken another small step in unmasking and prosecuting the war criminals of the past three decades. But we will not stop here. In the face of continuous threats by the terrorists sitting in the parliament and the government, we will not be intimidated and despite the passivity and compromises of intellectuals in this regard, we are determined that with the help of justice-loving people and organizations of Afghanistan and around the world, will work to push the war criminals into a court of justice and reclaim billions of dollars worth of national assets from them. Only then the eyes of our grief-stricken people may no longer burn endlessly for justice and democracy.
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) www.rawa.org
What Afghans have to to do is ORGANISE AND MOBILIZE without relying on the foreign puppets such as the current regime in Kabul, the Northern Alliance beholden to Iran to an extent, and the Taliban, beholden to the ISI/Pakistan. Afghans in Afghanistan, with Afghans in Iran and Pakistan. They must all ORGANISE, and get their representation and voice across for a really independent Afghanistan. We all hope they succeed one day---but sooner the better, and without the Taliban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RAWA 12/12/07 "ICH"
The US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of Afghanistan under the banner of “bringing freedom and democracy for Afghan people”. But as we have experienced in the past three decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan.
In the past few years, for a thousand times the lies of US claims in the so-called “War on terror” were uncovered. By relying on the criminal bands of the Northern Alliance, the US made a game of values like democracy, human rights, women’s rights etc. thus disgracing our mournful nation. The US created a government from those people responsible for massacres in Pul-e-Charkhi, Dasht-e-Chamtala, Kapisa, Karala, Dasht-e-Lieli, 65,000 Kabulis and tens of mass graves across the country. Now the US tries to include infamous killers like Mullah Omer and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar into the government, which will be another big hypocrisy in the “war against terror”.
The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity into desperation and proved that for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism so that our people can be happy, have no significance at all. The US administration plays a funny anti-Taliban game and pretends that a super power is unable to defeat a small, marginalized and medieval-minded gang which is actually her own product. But our people found by experience in the past few years that the US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of its economical, political and strategic interests in the region.
After about seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the destitution and suffering of our people has doubled everyday. Our people, and even our unfortunate children, fall victim to the Jehadis’ infighting (Baghlan incident), the Taliban’s untargeted blasts and the US/NATO’s non-stop bombardments. The Northern Alliance blood-suckers, who are part of Karzai’s team and have key government posts, continue to be the main and the most serious obstacle towards the establishment of peace and democracy in Afghanistan. The existence of tens of illegal private security companies run by these mafia bands are enough to realize their sinister intentions and the danger they pose.
Human rights violations, crime, and corruption have reached their peak, so much so that Mr. Karzai is forced to make friendly pleas to the ministers and members of the parliament, asking them to “keep some limits”! Accusations about women being raped in prisons were so numerous that even a pro-warlord woman in the parliament had no choice but to acknowledge them.
Rabbani, Khalili, Massoud, Sayyaf, Fahim, Ismael and other criminals for the sake of being “ISI” and “VEVAK” agents could become “leaders” in the early 90’s, invited their god-father General Hamid Gul of ISI to become their army chief. But today they raise anti-Pakistan slogans to hide their corruption and wrong-doings. In this act they even go further and abuse Pakistani people. But they never talk about the dirty act of Pakistan in creating fundamentalist bands and imposing them on our people. More importantly, they keep silent about the wider, more devastating and more active meddling of the brutal Iranian regime in Afghanistan through its cultural and media agents. Pro-Iranian regime politicians and intellectuals are as much traitorous to democracy and human rights as the intellectuals and politicians who, from an ethnocentric and reactionary point of view, call the barbarism and terror of Taliban a “national armed resistance,” and shamelessly defend them.
The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) has announced a number of times that when the legislative, administrative and judicial bodies are ruled by drug-lords and warlords or their Talibi, Gulbudini, Parchami and Khalqi accomplices, they will never do anything positive for our deprived people. Rather these bodies will act as a mechanism to continue the ongoing crime, drug-trade and looting by these mafia bands to become richer.
If the US government replaces Karzai with a new puppet, even if he is not from among the Jehadi criminals, it will be just a deception of our people and an attempt to put the responsibilities of today’s tragedies on the shoulders of a single person. Such a move will have no positive outcome for our nation. Only a president who rely on people and come to power through a fair election, free from any kind of dependence or dealings with the fundamentalists, would be ideal for Afghan people.
Instead of defeating Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Gulbuddini terrorists and disarming the Northern Alliance, the foreign troops are creating confusion among the people of the world. We believe that if these troops leave Afghanistan, our people will not feel any kind of vacuum but rather will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts. In such a situation, they will face the Taliban and Northern Alliance without their “national” mask, and rise to fight with these terrorist enemies. Neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan’s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation.
By publishing the book “Some Documents of the Bloody and Traitorous Jehadi Years”, RAWA has taken another small step in unmasking and prosecuting the war criminals of the past three decades. But we will not stop here. In the face of continuous threats by the terrorists sitting in the parliament and the government, we will not be intimidated and despite the passivity and compromises of intellectuals in this regard, we are determined that with the help of justice-loving people and organizations of Afghanistan and around the world, will work to push the war criminals into a court of justice and reclaim billions of dollars worth of national assets from them. Only then the eyes of our grief-stricken people may no longer burn endlessly for justice and democracy.
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) www.rawa.org
Liberation for Arianna
The Taliban constitutes a long term threat to Pakistan. Let us assume that there are no foreign troops in Afghanistan, and the Taliban take over (extremely unlikely as Iran, Russia and India will oppose such an outcome). What does an extremely fundamentalist organization like the Taliban do, after it achieves complete control of Afghanistan? Does it rest on its laurels? It must logically look to convert neighboring countries to its way of thinking. There are those in Pakistan who will argue that the Taliban is in Pakistan’s pocket, and thus manageable. I beg to differ, as history has shown that once you create an organization of such a nature, there are always dire unintended consequences. Ask the Israelis in relation to Hamas (50,000 armed Hamas fighters waiting for the Israelis to attack Gaza—copying and developing Hezbollah tactics). The Taliban is a failed option that was cooked up by Washington saab in the Clinton administration, and Taliban have a soft spot for al-Qaeda, a poor choice of friends.
The Taliban should be dismantled and starved of resources. However Afghanistan and Pakistan should be working far closer with each other, and that some form of federated relationship between the two is not an impossible dream. It is a delicate task that should have been realized in the 1950’s, but for the lack of stability and long term planning from the Pakistani elite. That such a reasonable but delicate state objective was never intended to succeed in 1994 was all too apparent given that it was given the blessing of Washington saab, and even more ominous the fact that ‘pagal bacha’ fundamentalists of the worst sort were hired to carry out such a delicate task.
Afghanistan has an abundance of moderate rational leaders who are friendly with Pakistan, but instead a one eyed teacher was chosen with very questionable judgments/personality.
Choosing colorful characters for special ops in foreign countries is what Western intelligence organizations do, because they have a poor racist view of the Third World country within which they intend to use that colorful character. They feel that Third World countries deserve nothing better, in addition to being a male ego issue. Finally by electing a fringe character they feel they can control far more the outcomes than through a well balanced mainstream character (Gaddaffi—UK/USA 1969—homosexual psychopath with a very excellent sense of humor and theatrics—he amuses them…….endless list in many countries).
That certainly is not a view that should be followed or accepted by the Pakistani security elite about Afghanistan, a fellow Muslim country which is a blood relative in addition---Afghanistan should not be a play thing for Pakistan, it is a neighbor with many linkages to Pakistan. Yet we had Hekmatyar being sponsored by the ISI in the 1980’s, even though it was wholly apparent after a few years that he would be unacceptable to most Afghans after the Soviets were ejected, but the ISI plodded on with their star until they were hit by reality, and with the expenditure of several billion $ later. Inter Services ‘Intelligence’ hey? Than they went for Hekmatyar mark II---The Taliban? Inter Services Idiots is perhaps more appropriate.
For many of South Asian decent Afghanistan is a special country and we hold it dear to our hearts----it is our spiritual homeland that has provided South Asia with Kings, soldiers, administrators and cultural icons. Afghanistan is especially for South Asian Muslims indispensable, at many levels. So it is sad that foreign troops through the manipulation of events in the USA in 2001 with ISI/Israeli help, and in Afghanistan via Pakistan should now be occupied by foreign troops. They numbered 8,500 in 2001 and they now number 50,000, with calls for more to come into the country.
They have been there for six years, which for Afghanistan is a very long time. The foreign forces perversely state that they want to build up the country and bring normalcy back, but with each day more innocent women and Afghan children die by their thoughtless actions. I am happy for Afghanistan to return to its pre 1973 medieval slumber when they weren’t bothering anybody. We must find creative ways to persuade the foreign troops to leave Afghanistan asap, without the assistance of the Taliban or for that matter any other fundamentalist organization. Does Pakistan have moderate balanced (type of people you invite to your home without feeling uneasy) Afghans in their pockets, loyal to both countries? There has to be some.
Most alarming for South Asians who are historically aware is the fact that the British/Rothschild imperialists are back in the vicinity in force.
We are not talking about a few UN observers from the UK, but upwards of 7,000 troops fighting and killing Afghans of all back ground in the South of the country. It is a shocking and unacceptable scenario and I would have expected that SAARC and India with Bangladesh in particular in light of history (30 million starved to death during British imperial rule, with mass plunder and misrule) would have been a little bit more vigorous about this issue. But wait a minute Dr. Singh saab is Oxbridge educated and tears flow in his eyes when he talks about the Queen, and Bangladesh sends its best officer cadets to Sandhurst to be ‘finished’. So there it is.
The Taliban should be dismantled and starved of resources. However Afghanistan and Pakistan should be working far closer with each other, and that some form of federated relationship between the two is not an impossible dream. It is a delicate task that should have been realized in the 1950’s, but for the lack of stability and long term planning from the Pakistani elite. That such a reasonable but delicate state objective was never intended to succeed in 1994 was all too apparent given that it was given the blessing of Washington saab, and even more ominous the fact that ‘pagal bacha’ fundamentalists of the worst sort were hired to carry out such a delicate task.
Afghanistan has an abundance of moderate rational leaders who are friendly with Pakistan, but instead a one eyed teacher was chosen with very questionable judgments/personality.
Choosing colorful characters for special ops in foreign countries is what Western intelligence organizations do, because they have a poor racist view of the Third World country within which they intend to use that colorful character. They feel that Third World countries deserve nothing better, in addition to being a male ego issue. Finally by electing a fringe character they feel they can control far more the outcomes than through a well balanced mainstream character (Gaddaffi—UK/USA 1969—homosexual psychopath with a very excellent sense of humor and theatrics—he amuses them…….endless list in many countries).
That certainly is not a view that should be followed or accepted by the Pakistani security elite about Afghanistan, a fellow Muslim country which is a blood relative in addition---Afghanistan should not be a play thing for Pakistan, it is a neighbor with many linkages to Pakistan. Yet we had Hekmatyar being sponsored by the ISI in the 1980’s, even though it was wholly apparent after a few years that he would be unacceptable to most Afghans after the Soviets were ejected, but the ISI plodded on with their star until they were hit by reality, and with the expenditure of several billion $ later. Inter Services ‘Intelligence’ hey? Than they went for Hekmatyar mark II---The Taliban? Inter Services Idiots is perhaps more appropriate.
For many of South Asian decent Afghanistan is a special country and we hold it dear to our hearts----it is our spiritual homeland that has provided South Asia with Kings, soldiers, administrators and cultural icons. Afghanistan is especially for South Asian Muslims indispensable, at many levels. So it is sad that foreign troops through the manipulation of events in the USA in 2001 with ISI/Israeli help, and in Afghanistan via Pakistan should now be occupied by foreign troops. They numbered 8,500 in 2001 and they now number 50,000, with calls for more to come into the country.
They have been there for six years, which for Afghanistan is a very long time. The foreign forces perversely state that they want to build up the country and bring normalcy back, but with each day more innocent women and Afghan children die by their thoughtless actions. I am happy for Afghanistan to return to its pre 1973 medieval slumber when they weren’t bothering anybody. We must find creative ways to persuade the foreign troops to leave Afghanistan asap, without the assistance of the Taliban or for that matter any other fundamentalist organization. Does Pakistan have moderate balanced (type of people you invite to your home without feeling uneasy) Afghans in their pockets, loyal to both countries? There has to be some.
Most alarming for South Asians who are historically aware is the fact that the British/Rothschild imperialists are back in the vicinity in force.
We are not talking about a few UN observers from the UK, but upwards of 7,000 troops fighting and killing Afghans of all back ground in the South of the country. It is a shocking and unacceptable scenario and I would have expected that SAARC and India with Bangladesh in particular in light of history (30 million starved to death during British imperial rule, with mass plunder and misrule) would have been a little bit more vigorous about this issue. But wait a minute Dr. Singh saab is Oxbridge educated and tears flow in his eyes when he talks about the Queen, and Bangladesh sends its best officer cadets to Sandhurst to be ‘finished’. So there it is.
Six weeks of martial law ? For what?
I do hope marshal law continues for a while longer, as the situation in Pakistan has not quite stabilised, from a security perspective. There are on going operations in the NWFP, and terrorist incidents all over Pakistan. Nothing has changed.
Has there been a six week imposition of marshal law in history? I am not aware of such an instance. Presumably there were damned good reasons for imposing it in the first place, and that the reasons by magic have not disappeared in a matter of weeks since.
In fact with the parachuting in of Bhutto by the Americans, and Nawaz (Jamaat-i-Islami) Sharif by the British/Saudi axis, things should get a little more unstable in Pakistan, with elections pending. In such a juncture common sense would tell us that we should tighten the screws, and not relax. The elections of 8th January 2008 will most likely be unacceptable to at least one of the two main opposition parties, and New York has helpfully provided a unsubstantiated poll which allegedly states that 67% of Pakistanis want Musharaf out of power. Has NY done polls of what the Palestinians think, or the Iraqi people.
However:
You allow Benazir back, thinking you can manage her, with clear American interference in the matter.
You allow Sharif back, because Bilaat saab with Saudi cooperation want it, after he was turned away a short while back.
You release all political prisoners.
You step down as head of the army.
You lift martial law, because America saab want it.
It begins to look like you are taking orders from Washington saab, and if that is the common perception in Pakistan then President Musharaf is good as finished, as is a lame duck president. Where is his commando soldier spirit? In such a critical juncture we require strong assertive leadership which is clear headed. not flip flop Presidency. You choose a policy; make sure there is widespread consensus, from the security/bureaucracy elite, and then you stick to it.
By the way, as if it needed to be said, Pakistanis after 60 years are quite American/Bilaat averse, so by publicly standing up to Washington saab isn't exactly going to be unpopular with the country, as long as you provide clear explanations as to why martial law is required. Of course most Pakistanis don't like martial law naturally, but it is the presidents job to explain why it is required at such a critical juncture in URDU, and colloquial Punabi, and a little bit of Pushto if he can manage it. Stop speaking English; the vast majority of Pakistanis don't understand it.
My advice again is study the destabilisation of the Ayub Khan regime (1964-69), which led to the break up of the country eventually. In addition study the fall of the Shah (1977-79). By the way who is interfering in Pakistan again with far reaching negative consequences? Simple question of the sort you might get at a cadet school in the first year, you don't need a high IQ to answer it, and it is not a trick question-----Bilaat saab, providing propaganda platform/air time for those two criminals, and the USA, sending high level people over, telling them how and which criminals should be elected de facto soon to run Pakistan into more disaster.
From India no interference.
Let that point sink in gentlemen
Nawaz Sharif
Nawaz Sharif served two terms, and as with Benazir his performance became progressively worse. He has had his two innings, and in both he was out for a duck, and it is well advised that he remain quietly in the bench for the rest of the match. I am aware that elements from Britain, via Saudi prodded him to re-enter Pakistan against the better advice, and the wisdom of past experience, but the administration in Pakistan must find more effective ways to advise him to ‘shut up’. Considering that he committed many illegalities during his two terms, and many more billions of state money disappeared into black holes, or is it bank holes he should consider himself lucky living in palatial surroundings, in the lap of luxury all paid for by illegally appropriate state funds.
The man is unsuitable for President, his demeanor says it. He has a high sex drive, so dangle a blond bimbo in front of him and he will sell his country or his own mother, which ever is easier. His other weakness is his love of money. Some would say that he worships this more than he worships GOD.
Sharif constantly argues that during his two terms the military constantly interfered with his administration. My point would be that even if he were given a third opportunity, how would that improve the performance of his administration? Presumably the military would still be acting as before. Pakistan is at a very critical juncture, and there is instability, of which a small percentage is being contributed by Sharif.
Unfortunately as I read and watch the news, this highly corrupt individual has been allowed back, through pressure from the USA/UK, and with Saudi prodding. He has been given a ‘wish list’ by his masters in the West, and he will be hammering it on the airwaves from now until he achieves power, in unison with Benazir. One questions the judgment of the military men who allowed him back into the country at this critical juncture, and precisely who the military men take their orders from?
The country is doomed with these two 'politicians'. Why can't the military fix it so that 'normal' people can run these two parties, and end some of the problems the military and the country faces. Are we saying a nation like Pakistan does not have a few better people than these two corrupt clowns. Military have to realise that they can't run the country by themselves, so they need good civilian administrators and politicians. So why can't the military talent spot them, from within Pakistan?
The man is unsuitable for President, his demeanor says it. He has a high sex drive, so dangle a blond bimbo in front of him and he will sell his country or his own mother, which ever is easier. His other weakness is his love of money. Some would say that he worships this more than he worships GOD.
Sharif constantly argues that during his two terms the military constantly interfered with his administration. My point would be that even if he were given a third opportunity, how would that improve the performance of his administration? Presumably the military would still be acting as before. Pakistan is at a very critical juncture, and there is instability, of which a small percentage is being contributed by Sharif.
Unfortunately as I read and watch the news, this highly corrupt individual has been allowed back, through pressure from the USA/UK, and with Saudi prodding. He has been given a ‘wish list’ by his masters in the West, and he will be hammering it on the airwaves from now until he achieves power, in unison with Benazir. One questions the judgment of the military men who allowed him back into the country at this critical juncture, and precisely who the military men take their orders from?
The country is doomed with these two 'politicians'. Why can't the military fix it so that 'normal' people can run these two parties, and end some of the problems the military and the country faces. Are we saying a nation like Pakistan does not have a few better people than these two corrupt clowns. Military have to realise that they can't run the country by themselves, so they need good civilian administrators and politicians. So why can't the military talent spot them, from within Pakistan?
Benazir Bhutto Bhen
If she becomes PM, it does not guarantee that the political problem's that Pakistan faces currently will go away, but rather they may increase, as those who incite the instability see a 'victory' and they press on for more changes------. Allowing Benazir into power sharing may be read as an act of weakness and desperation by the ruling elite. This is basic psychological warfare which the well seasoned hardened men in the military should be quite familiar with. Get your opponent into a headless chicken panic mode and get them to do silly things, like sharing power with Benazir. Does anyone seriously think that once she is in power she is going to quietly cooperate? That is their purpose isn't it?
There are many reasons for the current level of instability in Pakistan. Some say it is the culmination of 28 years of the wrong policies started by Zia ul Haq in 1979 (Islamic fundamentalism), which is only now bearing fruit decisively, with suicide bombings, kidnappings and other acts of sabotage carried out by men with once close links to the security establishment of Pakistan. Whilst others say it is due to military insensitivity viz FATA and the Chief Justice issue. The best policy is to hold stead fast, stand your ground and not retreat, unite and ride the storm. This cannot be treated like Kargil, where a few made decisions, whilst most of the services remained ignorant. We require the utmost coordination/cooperation between all the services at this juncture, and open discourse
The thing about Benazir Bhutto is that she is totally incapable of running Pakistan. The majority of the Pakistani people are conservative/traditional and she is not----She is of Shia background with a very cosmopolitan up bringing. She lives on her father’s name, her family back ground, and the sympathy gained from the death of her two brothers. She is a tragic comic figure. She lost her father tragically, her two brothers, and was estranged from her mother for a good while, and finally there is that husband of hers, Mr. Zardari, Mr. 10%. The husband of the future PM served 8 years in prison? How will that feel when she receives foreign dignitaries? Sorry I forgot that only in Pakistan people come out of prison and get recruited to the police force.
She has spent her 8 years in exile productively, improving her marketing skills, but sadly the skills that she really requires as Prime Minister, which is sound administrative/political skills to help her desperately poor country one fears is still lacking in her. She in the last 8 years has extensively marketed herself in Washington mainly, in addition to the extensive friends she already had in the UK elite circuit, and this would explain the current Washington enthusiasm for her. For the military to respond by sending one team of males for a week, will no way match her endeavours.
"It's hard to imagine someone better placed to speak about the current situation in Pakistan than Benazir Bhutto. She was born into one of Pakistan's leading political families. She was educated at both Harvard and Oxford. And -- full confession -- let me say that she and I met some -- at the risk of being less than gallant -- 30 years ago or so at Oxford. We would have met even earlier than that, at Harvard, except she got accepted and I did not. (Laughter.) And of such things history is made. (Laughter.) I'm almost over it, by the way. (Laughter.)" Richard Haas CFC President, introducing Benazir Bhutto, August 15th 2007.
She is attractive, of good family stock, and no doubt at a personal level she may be very impressionable/persuasive to red blooded Americans------but, as with Nawaz Sharif she has had her two innings, and each inning after the other were progressively worse. She now needs to quietly sit at the bench, and passively watch the match, and tend to her children and family. She has suffered enough tragedy, and would be indeed sad if she launched yet another political career, at the behest of poor advice from friends in the UK, and more recently the USA:
Bhutto progressively during two terms proved that she wholly lacked the necessary skills to govern the country effectively. Why should Pakistan at this critical juncture give her a third chance, which will only inflame the fundies, and further divide the country. Because Washington and London saab say so? Not a good enough sound reason for Pakistan. “US historian, Arthur Herman, in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal, described Bhutto as "One of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia;" adding that she and other Pakistani elites hated Musarraf because he is "muhajir", born of Indian Muslims. Herman claims, "Although it was muhajirs who agitated for the creation of Pakistan in the first place, many native Pakistanis view them with contempt and treat them as third-class citizens."
Under Bhutto’s watch the nuclear program went out of control. That is a damn good reason not to have her back in power again.
Under Bhutto the Taliban/al-Qaeda enterprise was launched, with heavy persuasion from the Clinton administration. She states contradictorily on the one hand that she will fight the fundamentalists, and yet under her watch the primary fundamentalist threat in the region and world was hatched from 1994, during her tenure in office--recorded. Who is she fooling with her compliant, ‘let me please you saab, sound bites’ “The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[11] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan”
Bhutto seeks permission from Washington saab and London saab to be PM. Which other policies of Pakistan will she defer to Washington and London in order to be PM. Just maybe she will move the PM office to London if she is elected.
Bhutto is the last person on earth suitable enough to be the PM of Pakistan at this critical juncture. Rather than being the ‘soothing balm’ of a women healing the nation, she given her past and her psychological make up will be lighting fires all over the country, creating death and mayhem where ever she goes.
Bhutto’s selfish desire and lust for power blinkers her common decency which states that for the sake of the country she put aside her personal goals, rather than rock the boat and incite her simple minded followers and all sundry.
She is a foreign backed agent provocateur, parachuted in to destabilize and damage the country.
She is corrupt looting billions of $ from the state coffers.
“The assets held by Bhutto and her husband have been scrutinized. The prosecutors have alleged that their Swiss bank accounts contain £740 million.[17] Zardari also bought a neo-Tudor mansion and estate worth over £4 million in Surrey, England, UK.[18][19] The Pakistani investigations have tied other overseas properties to Zardari's family. These include a $2.5 million manor in Normandy owned by Zardari's parents, who had modest assets at the time of his marriage”
She is an Oxbridge educated Zamindari from the British era.
She may be suffering from ego based personality disorder. She has over three decades suffered a lot of extreme personal trauma, and of course some people handle it better than others. Personally I think she went of the rails in the early 1990’s. Has she been examined by a psychiatrist? It would be an interesting report. The words unhinged delusional come to mind.
“"I find that whenever I am in power, or my father was in power, somehow good things happen (!!!!????). The economy picks up, we have good rains, water comes, people have crops. I think the reason this happens is that we want to give love and we receive love."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,774840,00.html
There are many reasons for the current level of instability in Pakistan. Some say it is the culmination of 28 years of the wrong policies started by Zia ul Haq in 1979 (Islamic fundamentalism), which is only now bearing fruit decisively, with suicide bombings, kidnappings and other acts of sabotage carried out by men with once close links to the security establishment of Pakistan. Whilst others say it is due to military insensitivity viz FATA and the Chief Justice issue. The best policy is to hold stead fast, stand your ground and not retreat, unite and ride the storm. This cannot be treated like Kargil, where a few made decisions, whilst most of the services remained ignorant. We require the utmost coordination/cooperation between all the services at this juncture, and open discourse
The thing about Benazir Bhutto is that she is totally incapable of running Pakistan. The majority of the Pakistani people are conservative/traditional and she is not----She is of Shia background with a very cosmopolitan up bringing. She lives on her father’s name, her family back ground, and the sympathy gained from the death of her two brothers. She is a tragic comic figure. She lost her father tragically, her two brothers, and was estranged from her mother for a good while, and finally there is that husband of hers, Mr. Zardari, Mr. 10%. The husband of the future PM served 8 years in prison? How will that feel when she receives foreign dignitaries? Sorry I forgot that only in Pakistan people come out of prison and get recruited to the police force.
She has spent her 8 years in exile productively, improving her marketing skills, but sadly the skills that she really requires as Prime Minister, which is sound administrative/political skills to help her desperately poor country one fears is still lacking in her. She in the last 8 years has extensively marketed herself in Washington mainly, in addition to the extensive friends she already had in the UK elite circuit, and this would explain the current Washington enthusiasm for her. For the military to respond by sending one team of males for a week, will no way match her endeavours.
"It's hard to imagine someone better placed to speak about the current situation in Pakistan than Benazir Bhutto. She was born into one of Pakistan's leading political families. She was educated at both Harvard and Oxford. And -- full confession -- let me say that she and I met some -- at the risk of being less than gallant -- 30 years ago or so at Oxford. We would have met even earlier than that, at Harvard, except she got accepted and I did not. (Laughter.) And of such things history is made. (Laughter.) I'm almost over it, by the way. (Laughter.)" Richard Haas CFC President, introducing Benazir Bhutto, August 15th 2007.
She is attractive, of good family stock, and no doubt at a personal level she may be very impressionable/persuasive to red blooded Americans------but, as with Nawaz Sharif she has had her two innings, and each inning after the other were progressively worse. She now needs to quietly sit at the bench, and passively watch the match, and tend to her children and family. She has suffered enough tragedy, and would be indeed sad if she launched yet another political career, at the behest of poor advice from friends in the UK, and more recently the USA:
Bhutto progressively during two terms proved that she wholly lacked the necessary skills to govern the country effectively. Why should Pakistan at this critical juncture give her a third chance, which will only inflame the fundies, and further divide the country. Because Washington and London saab say so? Not a good enough sound reason for Pakistan. “US historian, Arthur Herman, in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal, described Bhutto as "One of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia;" adding that she and other Pakistani elites hated Musarraf because he is "muhajir", born of Indian Muslims. Herman claims, "Although it was muhajirs who agitated for the creation of Pakistan in the first place, many native Pakistanis view them with contempt and treat them as third-class citizens."
Under Bhutto’s watch the nuclear program went out of control. That is a damn good reason not to have her back in power again.
Under Bhutto the Taliban/al-Qaeda enterprise was launched, with heavy persuasion from the Clinton administration. She states contradictorily on the one hand that she will fight the fundamentalists, and yet under her watch the primary fundamentalist threat in the region and world was hatched from 1994, during her tenure in office--recorded. Who is she fooling with her compliant, ‘let me please you saab, sound bites’ “The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[11] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan”
Bhutto seeks permission from Washington saab and London saab to be PM. Which other policies of Pakistan will she defer to Washington and London in order to be PM. Just maybe she will move the PM office to London if she is elected.
Bhutto is the last person on earth suitable enough to be the PM of Pakistan at this critical juncture. Rather than being the ‘soothing balm’ of a women healing the nation, she given her past and her psychological make up will be lighting fires all over the country, creating death and mayhem where ever she goes.
Bhutto’s selfish desire and lust for power blinkers her common decency which states that for the sake of the country she put aside her personal goals, rather than rock the boat and incite her simple minded followers and all sundry.
She is a foreign backed agent provocateur, parachuted in to destabilize and damage the country.
She is corrupt looting billions of $ from the state coffers.
“The assets held by Bhutto and her husband have been scrutinized. The prosecutors have alleged that their Swiss bank accounts contain £740 million.[17] Zardari also bought a neo-Tudor mansion and estate worth over £4 million in Surrey, England, UK.[18][19] The Pakistani investigations have tied other overseas properties to Zardari's family. These include a $2.5 million manor in Normandy owned by Zardari's parents, who had modest assets at the time of his marriage”
She is an Oxbridge educated Zamindari from the British era.
She may be suffering from ego based personality disorder. She has over three decades suffered a lot of extreme personal trauma, and of course some people handle it better than others. Personally I think she went of the rails in the early 1990’s. Has she been examined by a psychiatrist? It would be an interesting report. The words unhinged delusional come to mind.
“"I find that whenever I am in power, or my father was in power, somehow good things happen (!!!!????). The economy picks up, we have good rains, water comes, people have crops. I think the reason this happens is that we want to give love and we receive love."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,774840,00.html
Has anyone been following her English speeches in Pakistan.
60 years of experience with Amerikka/Bilaat saab; no more foreign bases, or foreign security personnel to help attack Muslim neighbors.
Foreign military bases and foreign military /security advisers pose a threat to the security of a country. The presence of foreign bases on Pakistani soil constitutes a threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the near future they can be used to launch attacks against Iran, and this from a strategic point of view, given that Pakistan is next on the list after Iran, is untenable and self defeating. The presence of foreign commando’s practicing near Karachi, as a dummy run against Tehran is self defeating, as Pakistan is next on the list after Iran, and they are being allowed to familiarize themselves with the largest Pakistani city, which is in addition is home to 60% of Pakistan’s manufacturing capacity.
Pakistan by such action is shooting itself on the foot. Allowing Jundallah, and other insurgency groups to operate out of Pakistan against Iran is self defeating, as Pakistan is next on list after Iran. It contradicts the spirit of friendship and diplomacy between Iran and Pakistan, reinforced by the pipeline deal signed very recently, and the common interests that both countries share. It betrays the strategic help the Shah gave to Pakistan between 1965-72. It betrays the historical/cultural/racial/religious linkages between the two neighbors for the sake of a few $ of convenience.
The presence of the FBI on Pakistani soil, moving about in all directions around the country presents a security threat to Pakistan. It is the FBI with Israeli assistance which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in Jewish dominated New York. It is the FBI, with the assistance of one German intelligence officer (agent provocateur, befriended McVeigh and the militias, trained with them and guided McVeigh, Andreas Strassmeir (Jewish) German intelligence) which carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, to spike the WASP militia groups whom the Jews feared, and reinforce Jewish power in the USA through security legislation, and bolster the FBI as a tentative step towards the Patriot Act.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2815
It is the FBI (Biggest office in New York---with a staff of 1,100 in 2001, biggest security actor in the scene), with Netanyahu’s Israelis, and the ISI which carried out 9/11 in Jewish New York. German cooperation providing safe houses prior to the act, in Hamburg. Close cooperation between Israeli and German intelligence began after Munich 1972 Olympics event.
The FBI is the primary Jewish tool of coercion/control in the USA. Which is why with each successive security ‘failures’ ‘ooops’ ‘coups’ in the USA, it is doted over, promoted, and empowered against the normal rules of nature. Which is why Jewish Hollywood whores over it especially during the nineties, with stars such as Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones portraying them as all American heroes fighting evil allegedly. Which is why a mediocre domestic intelligence service, with a patchy record has been promoted to work abroad extensively.
No Third World country, especially Muslim countries should be cooperating with it. It is the eyes, ears and primary mischief maker for the Jew in America. It has many Jewish officers with dual loyalty, or sole loyalty to Netanyahu’s Israel. It constitutes a major security liability for Pakistan especially at this very critical juncture, as it can do what the Israelis require of it covertly. They should be asked to leave asap, and full tabs kept on them in the mean time.
Pakistan by such action is shooting itself on the foot. Allowing Jundallah, and other insurgency groups to operate out of Pakistan against Iran is self defeating, as Pakistan is next on list after Iran. It contradicts the spirit of friendship and diplomacy between Iran and Pakistan, reinforced by the pipeline deal signed very recently, and the common interests that both countries share. It betrays the strategic help the Shah gave to Pakistan between 1965-72. It betrays the historical/cultural/racial/religious linkages between the two neighbors for the sake of a few $ of convenience.
The presence of the FBI on Pakistani soil, moving about in all directions around the country presents a security threat to Pakistan. It is the FBI with Israeli assistance which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in Jewish dominated New York. It is the FBI, with the assistance of one German intelligence officer (agent provocateur, befriended McVeigh and the militias, trained with them and guided McVeigh, Andreas Strassmeir (Jewish) German intelligence) which carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, to spike the WASP militia groups whom the Jews feared, and reinforce Jewish power in the USA through security legislation, and bolster the FBI as a tentative step towards the Patriot Act.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2815
It is the FBI (Biggest office in New York---with a staff of 1,100 in 2001, biggest security actor in the scene), with Netanyahu’s Israelis, and the ISI which carried out 9/11 in Jewish New York. German cooperation providing safe houses prior to the act, in Hamburg. Close cooperation between Israeli and German intelligence began after Munich 1972 Olympics event.
The FBI is the primary Jewish tool of coercion/control in the USA. Which is why with each successive security ‘failures’ ‘ooops’ ‘coups’ in the USA, it is doted over, promoted, and empowered against the normal rules of nature. Which is why Jewish Hollywood whores over it especially during the nineties, with stars such as Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones portraying them as all American heroes fighting evil allegedly. Which is why a mediocre domestic intelligence service, with a patchy record has been promoted to work abroad extensively.
No Third World country, especially Muslim countries should be cooperating with it. It is the eyes, ears and primary mischief maker for the Jew in America. It has many Jewish officers with dual loyalty, or sole loyalty to Netanyahu’s Israel. It constitutes a major security liability for Pakistan especially at this very critical juncture, as it can do what the Israelis require of it covertly. They should be asked to leave asap, and full tabs kept on them in the mean time.
Old Henry still going strong after all these years.
So Henry Kissinger reveals himself as a self confessed Neocon Israelite, as he attempts to salvage the Likudnik position on Iran. The little demon on Bush's shoulder.
Of course one could argue that I too am on the one hand seeming to support America, but at the same time going against her state policies----DUAL LOYALTY. First, I have no obligation not to criticise America if I see fit to do so. Second I am not an American citizen, and even if I were...............Third, unlike old Henry, my blog is a matter between me and the blog. It never was going to impact the same way Henry can with Bush, viz Iraq, Iran and many other issues. He is an important 'public figure' who 'served' the state.
Finally Henry's 'exclusive club' is asking America to sacrifice a couple of trillion $ and thousands of young American lives, and the end of America as we know it for ISRAEL'S EMPIRE into imminent bankruptcy. I am not asking America to sacrifice anything, I have no 'grands' schemes up my sleeve---no iffy, costly, dangerous outcomes at all. I am not against America per se, but against dangerous Neocon policies that harm a lot of people, as it is all too apparent to see with any sense of reality.
International war criminal Henry the K, who is Jewish, has always managed to deflect accusations of being a covert ‘dual loyalist’ Zionist, despite the fact that his advice always seemed to follow the dictates of the Israeli right-wingers, all on the basis of his reputation as the ultimate foreign policy ‘realist’. Since he was such a bastard of an America-firster, it was always assumed that evidence which pointed to his favoring certain Israeli interests was just a coincidence reflecting the Chomskean idea – now known to be largely false, and manufactured to cover secret support for Zionism – that American support for Israel was entirely based on the fact that such support mirrored the interests of the American Establishment.
Not only was Kissinger responsible for the ‘special relationship’ which led directly to billions of dollars of military aid to Israel over the years, but he actually delayed telling Nixon about the Yom Kippur war so he could secretly put the U. S. on a full war footing to be prepared to fight for Israel (he no doubt feared that the ‘anti-Semite’ Nixon would nix the idea). Philip Giraldi summarizes what amounts to a treason case against Kissinger:
Of course one could argue that I too am on the one hand seeming to support America, but at the same time going against her state policies----DUAL LOYALTY. First, I have no obligation not to criticise America if I see fit to do so. Second I am not an American citizen, and even if I were...............Third, unlike old Henry, my blog is a matter between me and the blog. It never was going to impact the same way Henry can with Bush, viz Iraq, Iran and many other issues. He is an important 'public figure' who 'served' the state.
Finally Henry's 'exclusive club' is asking America to sacrifice a couple of trillion $ and thousands of young American lives, and the end of America as we know it for ISRAEL'S EMPIRE into imminent bankruptcy. I am not asking America to sacrifice anything, I have no 'grands' schemes up my sleeve---no iffy, costly, dangerous outcomes at all. I am not against America per se, but against dangerous Neocon policies that harm a lot of people, as it is all too apparent to see with any sense of reality.
For those of you who don't know Noam Chomsky he is a leading American writer on geo-political issues, and a Professor of linguistics. He is referred in the blogesphere as a 'Left wing gate keeper', and an agent of Israel. The 'Gate keeper' tag basically means he through his influence decides what issues and agenda's are important for him, and for his Israel, with the implication that issues, or valid arguments that point to criticism's of Israel are diverted by his wizardry of words----Kind of Piped Piper of New York if you like, with a substantial section of the 'left', fawning over him---Hugo Chavez, in the UN no less held his book up as if to say it was the real bible.
His presence and perspectives thus crowds out more valid arguments which could be explaining a lot of the problems of the world. Chomsky refers repeatedly to an illusive enemy made up of the 'American elite' which is creating a lot of problems for America and the world, but is never definitively clear who they exactly are, and most definitely not providing any practical solutions. A great boy scout camp fire story teller who has achieved for Israel a great status. He can bash American as much as he likes, and earn millions of $ of royalties from his book sales and public appearances around the world, but get two well respected professors from America to very mildly criticise the Jewish lobby, then all hell breaks loose----do you see the hypocracy?
For simpletons like me who have no high profile it is harder. We are more direct and use basic language to get our points across. Finally we are not working for anybody as my situation attests, and more significantly 'the official reaction' attests. What you get here is what I sincerely believe, and not elaborate yarns to mystify and confuse the masses for another country.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Henry the K's Noamian moment
By Zymphora.
International war criminal Henry the K, who is Jewish, has always managed to deflect accusations of being a covert ‘dual loyalist’ Zionist, despite the fact that his advice always seemed to follow the dictates of the Israeli right-wingers, all on the basis of his reputation as the ultimate foreign policy ‘realist’. Since he was such a bastard of an America-firster, it was always assumed that evidence which pointed to his favoring certain Israeli interests was just a coincidence reflecting the Chomskean idea – now known to be largely false, and manufactured to cover secret support for Zionism – that American support for Israel was entirely based on the fact that such support mirrored the interests of the American Establishment.
Not only was Kissinger responsible for the ‘special relationship’ which led directly to billions of dollars of military aid to Israel over the years, but he actually delayed telling Nixon about the Yom Kippur war so he could secretly put the U. S. on a full war footing to be prepared to fight for Israel (he no doubt feared that the ‘anti-Semite’ Nixon would nix the idea). Philip Giraldi summarizes what amounts to a treason case against Kissinger:
“In 1972, Kissinger and Nixon ceded to Israel a veto over any peace proposals that Washington might be considering in dealing with the Arab states, basically accepting the principle that Tel Aviv would call all the shots in the region without regard to American interests. In October 1973, the same duo airlifted military supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War to the tune of $2.2 billion in impromptu aid, leading to the Arab oil embargo and its catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy, which amounted to nearly $50 billion in 1974 alone (equivalent to $140 billion in 2000 dollars).
In late October 1973 Kissinger was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to pursue a comprehensive peace process for the Middle East, but he ignored Nixon's instructions and pressed instead for a cease-fire that left Israel dominant and destroyed any chance for a multilateral peace effort. According to Mearsheimer and Walt, ‘The American-compiled minutes of the three meetings that Kissinger attended with Brezhnev unequivocally show that he accurately and repeatedly represented Israeli interests to Moscow, almost totally contrary to Nixon's preferences.’ When the UN Security Council subsequently passed a cease-fire resolution, Kissinger allowed the Israelis to ignore it for 12 hours so they could consolidate their gains.
In 1975, while secretary of state, Kissinger signed a memorandum of understanding that pledged the U.S. to provide for Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis and to finance and stock a strategic reserve. He also agreed that Washington would not ‘recognize or negotiate with’ the PLO as long as the group refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. This made it impossible to talk to the only group that represented the aspirations of most Palestinians, a dialogue that the Israelis wished to derail but which would have served America's interests. Kissinger's last year as secretary of state also saw Israel's aid from the U.S. skyrocket from $1.9 billion in 1975 to $6.29 billion for 1976.”
You can thus blame Kissinger for:
- the American oil guarantee to Israel.
- The continuing failure of negotiations with the Palestinians.
- The Arab oil embargo.
- The massive American monetary support to the Zionist Empire.
- The beginnings of the United States fighting the Wars for the Jews.
Now, with his ridiculous
dismissal of the NIE on Iran, he finally admits his true colors. Just as Noam’s political philosophy now appears to be a carefully constructed ruse to hide underlying advocacy for Zionism, Henry the K’s Realpolitik has suddenly been shown to be a cover for his real interests, the promotion of a Zionist Empire in the Middle East (and note that his connecting an attack on Iran to oil – not to mention Greenspan’s connection of the attack on Iraq to oil – is intentionally misleading in the usual Zionist way of hiding Zionist interests behind American interests). It is curious that Chomsky was forced to reveal himself by denying the importance of the Lobby, and Henry the K had to come out as a Zionist because of the inconvenience of the NIE for ultra-right-wing Zionist interests. In both cases, the siren lure of a Zionist Empire was so strong that it led directly to the destruction of a lifetime’s reputation. All the books on Henry the K now need to be rewritten to reflect who he is really working for.http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11586
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/13/opinion/edkissinger.php
Dec 11, 2007
The mullah puppets of Zion.
Given the delicate situation in the Gulf, I welcome with some reservations the NIE 2007. This is what wise counsels in sensitive security organisations should be doing, not just in the USA, pouring cold water, with a measured response to all the baiting and wild rhetoric coming out of the rectums of politicos. There has been considerable dumbing down led by the Zions of the global security issue; the less questions asked, the more blurrying of issues, the easier to sell their PNAC Master Plan. The NIE 2007 has taken the wind out of their sales spiel for full spectrum domination for a while. They will go into plan B no doubt.
Ahmedinejad and the mullahs, simple and good reader are all part of this Jewish vaudeville, which is called GWOT. Ahmedinejad, as the article below suggests is an essential part of all this. Remember it is THEY who funded and ran the Communist Revolution in 1918, documented by no less than themselves. Remember it is THEY who funded Hitler initially and did business with him covertly, as it is documented clearly. So Good reader, why is it such a stretch to believe it is THEY, via their UK which manage the mullahs of Iran. Or did you think semi literate mullahs, without a prior strong political organisation, and without any prior political experience just happened to capture power in Iran in 1979 and overturn and defeat one of the most effective security organisations in the world, SAVAK, without loosing or sacrificing any of their lives, and defeat all other competing political organisations along the way BY THEMSELVES----Oi, Oi, Oi Samuel, if miracles could happen every day!
In the summer of 2007 Bush made a speech saying that if America left Iraq, Al-Qaeda could effectively take over the country as a failed state, something vaguely to that effect, and the implication being that these people would then follow the American boys back to the USA. It's a popular meaningless line others repeat in the USA. Ahmedinejad very helpfully, from a PR perspective a few seconds after Bush's speech said that Iran would fill the Iraq vacuum left by America. No more said.
He's been going around the world baiting and cocking a snook at America, whilst wiser counsels would have advised that he keep his head down, and mouth shut. His economic policies and social policies are proving a disaster in Iran, and one is tempted to say that he is no better than a simple rabble rouser/agent of Israel.
Now read on:
September 26, 2007
Iran’s Impending Destruction: Is Ahmadinejad Clueless?
By Kurt Nimmo
Ervand Abrahamian, Iran expert at CUNY, made a few interesting comments to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in regard to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. Abrahamian was baffled by Ahmadinejad's lack of response to the increasing "tempo" of the neocon plan to shock and awe Iran, kill countless grandmothers and toddlers, and usher in "democracy" by way of cruise missile and bunker buster.
"I was surprised because he didn't really use the opportunity to try to lower the tempo, the serious problem we have now, which is we're at the abyss of war, basically. And there are people pushing for war in the next few months. And this would have been a very good opportunity to try to smooth things over, try to calm the tempo down," Abrahamian told Goodman.
Of course, there will be no smoothing things over, as the neocons, firmly in control of the horizontal and vertical of U.S. foreign policy, are determined to engage in mass murder. In fact, Ahmadinejad's speech was custom-made for the neocons, as it dealt with superficialities. As Abrahamian notes, "most of the questions from the audience missed the opportunity. They dealt basically with important identity questions, but they didn't really deal with the issue that we are really on the abyss of war. And this is a far more serious issue than, you know, either ethnic or gender issues." Obviously, "ethnic or gender issues" will be meaningless if Iran is destroyed, its social fabric rended, if the very institutions presumably tasked with addressing such issues are reduced to smoldering ruins.
No telling exactly why Ahmadinejad did not speak about the impending destruction of his country, although a few seem to believe he is part of the neocon-neolib conspiracy against Iran—a conspiracy with key players inside Iran itself. More than likely, Mr. Ahmadinejad is blinded by pride, as the people of Iran have a long history of nationalism—and nationalism often blinds one to current realities. In addition, Ahmadinejad seems to believe attacking Iran is so crazy the neocons will not engage in such behavior, never mind their vicious and bloody track record, horrifically on display in neighboring Iraq.
Abrahamian continues: Ahmadinejad didn't say it … but his policy is that there is no likelihood of war, because no one in their right senses would think of invading or attacking Iran. And that's the premise he works on, which is, I think, a completely wrong premise, because he doesn't seem to understand American politics, the same people who gave us the war on Iraq, the same people who are running foreign policy now. But he begins from the premise that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran.
Indeed, the neocons have advertised long and hard, telling us repeatedly they intend to destroy Israel's enemies—and enemies of the neoliberal doctrine or rather business plan, i.e., countries will not be allowed to opt out of IMF loan sharking operations and banker-investment fire sale schemes—and Mr. Ahmadinejad comes off as seriously clueless, thus lending credence to speculation he is part and parcel of the neocon-neolib conspiracy.
As Peter Goodgame details in his The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order , we are fed the Brothers Grimm story "that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people but supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah the government of the Shah was loved by the vast majority of the population."
It is worth quoting Goodgame at length:
The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence. Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent and author of a number of books and monographs detailing the Establishment's plan for a socialist world government, states in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence, T.E. Lawrence, E.G. Browne, Arnold Toynbee. St. John Philby and Bertrand Russell," and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted…"
Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories: 1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet, 2. The CIA's network of agents, 3. The feudal landowners, 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).
In his report Dr. Coleman writes that in Iran, "At one time there was even a joke about the mullahs being stamped 'made in Britain.'"
[…]
After the Shah stepped down in 1979 and fled the country his "firm ally," the United States, even refused to allow him asylum forcing him to move with his family to Egypt. During the subsequent takeover of the American embassy when supporters of the Ayatollah kept Americans hostage for 444 days it became crystal clear to the entire world that the anti-democratic, anti-Israel Islamic movement was also very anti-West. Nonetheless the Anglo-American Establishment continued to support and promote radical Islam.
In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan, who we will cover shortly, was removed; in 1979 the Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East was on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by the early '80s the Middle East was in flames. Egypt was reeling and Mubarak was consolidating a shaky hold on power. Iran and Iraq, both armed by the West, were beginning their long war. Israel and Syria were invading Lebanon that was fighting a civil war, and Russia was invading Afghanistan whose rebels were being supported by Pakistan.
The de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British and adopted by the Americans was off to a great start.
Indeed, we are witnessing the neocon phase of the "de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British," a scheme that feeds conveniently into Israel's interests as well. "Israel has for a very long time been a critical factor in America's formulation of a policy vis-Ã -vis Iran," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American organization in the U.S., told Democracy Now.
"During the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian Revolution, in spite of Ayatollah Khomeini's many, many harsh remarks about Israel, far, far worse than what anything Ahmadinejad has said so far, Israel at the time was the country that was lobbying the United States to open up talks with Iran to try to rebuild the US-Iran relations, because of strategic imperatives that Israel had. Israel needed Iran, because it was fearing the Arab world and a potential war with the Arabs."
Israel did not need Iran—it was simply playing it off against more immediate enemies, viz., Iraq under faux nationalist Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Syria. Now that Israel's errand boy—under the direction of neocons ensconced in the Pentagon—have flattened Iraq and isolated Syria, Iran has predictably morphed into Israel's numero uno "security threat," complete with fantastic Brothers Grimm stories of mad "Islamofascist" mullahs with nukes. In the wake of these developments, Parsi admits, "the Israelis and the pro-Israel interest in the United States have lobbied to make sure that there is no dialogue or there's no rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And the Iranians have done similar things. They have undermined every US foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that they feared would be beneficial to Israel. So the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations come after the Cold War, not with the revolution in 1979," a revolution, if we are to believe the research of Peter Goodgame, was fomented at the behest of British intelligence and the "Establishment," that is to say the same old neoliberal suspects.
Either way—if Ahmadinejad is sincerely clueless or an agent working for British-U.S.-Israeli intelligence—it is truly astounding the president of Iran glossed over what should be considered, with a heaping dose of trepidation, the brutal and criminal shock and awe reduction of his country to a "failed" Neolithic condition, a fate front and center and gobbling up more newspaper column inches and bytes on the web than ever before.
Ahmedinejad and the mullahs, simple and good reader are all part of this Jewish vaudeville, which is called GWOT. Ahmedinejad, as the article below suggests is an essential part of all this. Remember it is THEY who funded and ran the Communist Revolution in 1918, documented by no less than themselves. Remember it is THEY who funded Hitler initially and did business with him covertly, as it is documented clearly. So Good reader, why is it such a stretch to believe it is THEY, via their UK which manage the mullahs of Iran. Or did you think semi literate mullahs, without a prior strong political organisation, and without any prior political experience just happened to capture power in Iran in 1979 and overturn and defeat one of the most effective security organisations in the world, SAVAK, without loosing or sacrificing any of their lives, and defeat all other competing political organisations along the way BY THEMSELVES----Oi, Oi, Oi Samuel, if miracles could happen every day!
In the summer of 2007 Bush made a speech saying that if America left Iraq, Al-Qaeda could effectively take over the country as a failed state, something vaguely to that effect, and the implication being that these people would then follow the American boys back to the USA. It's a popular meaningless line others repeat in the USA. Ahmedinejad very helpfully, from a PR perspective a few seconds after Bush's speech said that Iran would fill the Iraq vacuum left by America. No more said.
He's been going around the world baiting and cocking a snook at America, whilst wiser counsels would have advised that he keep his head down, and mouth shut. His economic policies and social policies are proving a disaster in Iran, and one is tempted to say that he is no better than a simple rabble rouser/agent of Israel.
Now read on:
September 26, 2007
Iran’s Impending Destruction: Is Ahmadinejad Clueless?
By Kurt Nimmo
Ervand Abrahamian, Iran expert at CUNY, made a few interesting comments to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in regard to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. Abrahamian was baffled by Ahmadinejad's lack of response to the increasing "tempo" of the neocon plan to shock and awe Iran, kill countless grandmothers and toddlers, and usher in "democracy" by way of cruise missile and bunker buster.
"I was surprised because he didn't really use the opportunity to try to lower the tempo, the serious problem we have now, which is we're at the abyss of war, basically. And there are people pushing for war in the next few months. And this would have been a very good opportunity to try to smooth things over, try to calm the tempo down," Abrahamian told Goodman.
Of course, there will be no smoothing things over, as the neocons, firmly in control of the horizontal and vertical of U.S. foreign policy, are determined to engage in mass murder. In fact, Ahmadinejad's speech was custom-made for the neocons, as it dealt with superficialities. As Abrahamian notes, "most of the questions from the audience missed the opportunity. They dealt basically with important identity questions, but they didn't really deal with the issue that we are really on the abyss of war. And this is a far more serious issue than, you know, either ethnic or gender issues." Obviously, "ethnic or gender issues" will be meaningless if Iran is destroyed, its social fabric rended, if the very institutions presumably tasked with addressing such issues are reduced to smoldering ruins.
No telling exactly why Ahmadinejad did not speak about the impending destruction of his country, although a few seem to believe he is part of the neocon-neolib conspiracy against Iran—a conspiracy with key players inside Iran itself. More than likely, Mr. Ahmadinejad is blinded by pride, as the people of Iran have a long history of nationalism—and nationalism often blinds one to current realities. In addition, Ahmadinejad seems to believe attacking Iran is so crazy the neocons will not engage in such behavior, never mind their vicious and bloody track record, horrifically on display in neighboring Iraq.
Abrahamian continues: Ahmadinejad didn't say it … but his policy is that there is no likelihood of war, because no one in their right senses would think of invading or attacking Iran. And that's the premise he works on, which is, I think, a completely wrong premise, because he doesn't seem to understand American politics, the same people who gave us the war on Iraq, the same people who are running foreign policy now. But he begins from the premise that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran.
Indeed, the neocons have advertised long and hard, telling us repeatedly they intend to destroy Israel's enemies—and enemies of the neoliberal doctrine or rather business plan, i.e., countries will not be allowed to opt out of IMF loan sharking operations and banker-investment fire sale schemes—and Mr. Ahmadinejad comes off as seriously clueless, thus lending credence to speculation he is part and parcel of the neocon-neolib conspiracy.
As Peter Goodgame details in his The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order , we are fed the Brothers Grimm story "that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people but supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah the government of the Shah was loved by the vast majority of the population."
It is worth quoting Goodgame at length:
The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence. Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent and author of a number of books and monographs detailing the Establishment's plan for a socialist world government, states in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence, T.E. Lawrence, E.G. Browne, Arnold Toynbee. St. John Philby and Bertrand Russell," and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted…"
Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories: 1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet, 2. The CIA's network of agents, 3. The feudal landowners, 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).
In his report Dr. Coleman writes that in Iran, "At one time there was even a joke about the mullahs being stamped 'made in Britain.'"
[…]
After the Shah stepped down in 1979 and fled the country his "firm ally," the United States, even refused to allow him asylum forcing him to move with his family to Egypt. During the subsequent takeover of the American embassy when supporters of the Ayatollah kept Americans hostage for 444 days it became crystal clear to the entire world that the anti-democratic, anti-Israel Islamic movement was also very anti-West. Nonetheless the Anglo-American Establishment continued to support and promote radical Islam.
In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan, who we will cover shortly, was removed; in 1979 the Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East was on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by the early '80s the Middle East was in flames. Egypt was reeling and Mubarak was consolidating a shaky hold on power. Iran and Iraq, both armed by the West, were beginning their long war. Israel and Syria were invading Lebanon that was fighting a civil war, and Russia was invading Afghanistan whose rebels were being supported by Pakistan.
The de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British and adopted by the Americans was off to a great start.
Indeed, we are witnessing the neocon phase of the "de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British," a scheme that feeds conveniently into Israel's interests as well. "Israel has for a very long time been a critical factor in America's formulation of a policy vis-Ã -vis Iran," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American organization in the U.S., told Democracy Now.
"During the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian Revolution, in spite of Ayatollah Khomeini's many, many harsh remarks about Israel, far, far worse than what anything Ahmadinejad has said so far, Israel at the time was the country that was lobbying the United States to open up talks with Iran to try to rebuild the US-Iran relations, because of strategic imperatives that Israel had. Israel needed Iran, because it was fearing the Arab world and a potential war with the Arabs."
Israel did not need Iran—it was simply playing it off against more immediate enemies, viz., Iraq under faux nationalist Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Syria. Now that Israel's errand boy—under the direction of neocons ensconced in the Pentagon—have flattened Iraq and isolated Syria, Iran has predictably morphed into Israel's numero uno "security threat," complete with fantastic Brothers Grimm stories of mad "Islamofascist" mullahs with nukes. In the wake of these developments, Parsi admits, "the Israelis and the pro-Israel interest in the United States have lobbied to make sure that there is no dialogue or there's no rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And the Iranians have done similar things. They have undermined every US foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that they feared would be beneficial to Israel. So the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations come after the Cold War, not with the revolution in 1979," a revolution, if we are to believe the research of Peter Goodgame, was fomented at the behest of British intelligence and the "Establishment," that is to say the same old neoliberal suspects.
Either way—if Ahmadinejad is sincerely clueless or an agent working for British-U.S.-Israeli intelligence—it is truly astounding the president of Iran glossed over what should be considered, with a heaping dose of trepidation, the brutal and criminal shock and awe reduction of his country to a "failed" Neolithic condition, a fate front and center and gobbling up more newspaper column inches and bytes on the web than ever before.
Go away! Don't bother me! Make yourself useful else where!
According to the article below the reason why AIPAC became over zealous over Iran's none existent nuclear weapons program from the early 1990's was because Yitzak Rabin newly elected in 1993 (Eventually killed by the ultra zealots, because of his genuine efforts at peace, 'A time for war, a time for peace') wanted AIPAC out of his hair, not interfering with the Israel/Palestinian issue which he fatally took charge of, so he told AIPAC (with geniune conviction?) to busy themselves with Iran over the nuclear issue.
Iran had a been a covert ally of Israel, with many joint ops between the two up to 1991. Their close relationship, established during the Shah did not end in 1979, with the 'Islamic Revolution' (UK/USA/Brezinski/Bernard Lewis) but continued well into the eighties and early nineties. Iran/Contra being one of the more celebrated cases.
Israel, by the way still has good covert relations with Iran. Think of it as the relationship of the Mafia groups; they covertly greet each other and even cooperate with each other, whilst at the same be capable of fighting each other. They don't have direct contacts any more, and so other countries such as Italy are used. So what we see about the nuclear issue is a very elaborate pantomine, with dangerous consequences.
With the defeat of Saddam, and the end of the Cold War by 1991, Iran ceased to be an indispensible ally for Israel; hence the turn of events against Iran by Israel from then on. We are talking of 1993/4 onwards. (Dr. Trita Parsi)
Since then the Jews have worked themselves into a frenzy about a non threat from a Western puppet installed state, the fact about which they very well know.
Of course the Israelis at least since the early 1990's have been saying that Iran was 6 months away from the bomb, which many Israeli commentators have sarcastically noted in articles in Ha' ratz and other moderate papers. It will be interesting to see what the latest Israeli propaganda spiel reveals against Iran's none existent nuclear weapons program, as they have worked themselves up into a mad paranoiac self induced frenzy. Which caused the attack on Syria this September, and the Americans to build up a wholly unnecessary force around Iran. One hopes one of the immediate effects of the NIE 2007 report will be a de escalation of American forces in the Gulf.
(sooner or later you start seeing covert nuclear weapons programs in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi with Pak assistance, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, Turkey.............pssst, I hear many Arab and other Muslim countries have suddenly, last year, showed an interest in nuclear power----------scan the info-----Mullah Iran is the least of their worries)
http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/jewrylobby/an_end_to_‘apocalyptic_unity’/
Iran had a been a covert ally of Israel, with many joint ops between the two up to 1991. Their close relationship, established during the Shah did not end in 1979, with the 'Islamic Revolution' (UK/USA/Brezinski/Bernard Lewis) but continued well into the eighties and early nineties. Iran/Contra being one of the more celebrated cases.
Israel, by the way still has good covert relations with Iran. Think of it as the relationship of the Mafia groups; they covertly greet each other and even cooperate with each other, whilst at the same be capable of fighting each other. They don't have direct contacts any more, and so other countries such as Italy are used. So what we see about the nuclear issue is a very elaborate pantomine, with dangerous consequences.
With the defeat of Saddam, and the end of the Cold War by 1991, Iran ceased to be an indispensible ally for Israel; hence the turn of events against Iran by Israel from then on. We are talking of 1993/4 onwards. (Dr. Trita Parsi)
Since then the Jews have worked themselves into a frenzy about a non threat from a Western puppet installed state, the fact about which they very well know.
Of course the Israelis at least since the early 1990's have been saying that Iran was 6 months away from the bomb, which many Israeli commentators have sarcastically noted in articles in Ha' ratz and other moderate papers. It will be interesting to see what the latest Israeli propaganda spiel reveals against Iran's none existent nuclear weapons program, as they have worked themselves up into a mad paranoiac self induced frenzy. Which caused the attack on Syria this September, and the Americans to build up a wholly unnecessary force around Iran. One hopes one of the immediate effects of the NIE 2007 report will be a de escalation of American forces in the Gulf.
(sooner or later you start seeing covert nuclear weapons programs in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi with Pak assistance, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, Turkey.............pssst, I hear many Arab and other Muslim countries have suddenly, last year, showed an interest in nuclear power----------scan the info-----Mullah Iran is the least of their worries)
http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/jewrylobby/an_end_to_‘apocalyptic_unity’/
Dec 9, 2007
Reza Pahlavi the middle aged pretender to the throne.
At a personal level I don't hold any grudges against him; we've never met and spoke personally for that to happen. But at a general level there are some objections towards him replacing the mullahs who will no doubt fall from power sooner or later (sooner one hopes---but really one has to overcome Vevak, and the British).
- He has a non-Aryan over indulged KFC face and he doesn't look the slightest bit perturbed by the Israeli Netanyahu Likud brigade desire to nuke his country, expressed through America and their puppets. Has he visited Israel? He shouldn't. He doesn't seem the slightest bit perturbed by what the mullahs have done to that beautiful and poetical country, with the guidance of the UK. If I had any self respect I wouldn't be comfortably residing in a country that threatens MY COUNTRY DAY AFTER DAY, and thus legitimating their actions by my presence there. No I'd be a little bit more agitated, and lobbying against the mullahs and the Israelis around the world, and writing to Iran to let them know I was with the people. The mullahs can censure it, but it is the action and thought that counts. I would feel the pain of the people. Perhaps he does feel pain, but he simply isn't showing it.
- Colonel Reza Khan from the Persian Cossack brigade was installed into power by the British in 1921, to help consolidate the country for the British, after the Imperial Russians had departed. So his grandfather, far far better than the mullahs was ultimately a British puppet. So his grandfather was a simple colonel, with no blue blood unlike some of the traditional royals of Europe like Denmark or the UK, whose lineage goes back many centuries.
- Monarchy as a form of government is no longer fashionable. It is out dated, and whilst you might still get away with it in a small country, as a form of government for a country like Iran it is unacceptable and unworkable. We appreciate that classical Persian culture emphasises 'great good kings' Cyrus, Abbas etc mythologised via the Shahnameh, but the realty is that in a complex country like Iran you need something more representative to effectively rule the country, rather than rely on the whims of one man, and hope that he is benevolent.
- No more foreign backed puppets for Iran. Iran has had a its fill of them. Fakravar and other would be Chalabi's. Reza Pahlavi is part of that group, and has been groomed for that purpose, which means that should he come to power he will be making the same mistakes as his father, and as a USA puppet. No the next post mullah leader has to come out of Iran, who has been living in Iran and not in exile, and has to be some one who has a proven track record of fighting the mullahs.
More on the NIE 2007.
The report states that the mullahs of Iran may be have been susceptible to outside pressure viz their alleged covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, but if there was never any covert nuclear weapons programs in the first place, which the IAEA should confirm soon, then what are we talking about here.
As others have pointed out, the report also states that because of pressure from the USA the Iranians halted their alleged program in 2003. What American diplomatic pressures are we talking about here running up to 2003? Well the fact that Iran was included in the 'Axis of evil' list in January 2002. I am not sure a regime like the mullahs who aren't that PR savvy or 'sensitive' would take much notice about being publicly named as a rogue state; they've been in that state for quite a while, and being called a rogue state by the 'Great Satan' would be a badge of honor for them. Name calling, a not too inconsiderable amount which the mullahs do themselves wasn't going to shake them to their core to effect a fundamental policy shift on such an alleged sensitive program, if it existed in the first place.
A better argument would be that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq had a psychological impact, i.e that Iran could, and would be next, but here again, the Iranians cooperated with the USA militarily in Afghanistan via the Northern Alliance in 2001.
They were happy to see the SUNNI Taliban defeated by the USA using their Northern Alliance. The Taliban with al-Qaeda had killed several Iranian diplomats in a Mazar-i-Sharif consulate in 1998, resulting in the mobilisation of 250,000 Iranian troops on the Afghan/Iranian border. So from an Iranian perspective the removal of the Taliban, and the imposition of a puppet pro-Western regime in Kabul, with the Northern Alliance playing an important role, backed by 17,000 foreign troops wouldn't be considered a threat but a satisfactory outcome for Iran.
So much so, thinking that they had just cooperated with the USA viz Afghanistan they were looking to expand the relationship far more comprehensively with the full blessings of the Supreme Leader, until they were thwarted by Dick Cheney and his Neo-cons. (7 countries in 5 years agenda October 2001---'The New Crusade', Wesley Clarke, and the private January 2003 conversation between Blair and Bush, leaked memo, that after Iraq, it would be Iran, Pakistan and the Saudis turn)
In relation to Iraq again from an Iranian perspective things couldn't be better. The Americans defeated the regime and occupied the country which Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini had vowed would be removed, hence Iran turning down Iraqi overtures of peace in 1982. A regime which had expelled Khomeini from Iraq after an agreement between the Shah and Saddam in 1978. Saddam was captured and executed by the USA. The Shi' tes are in a dominant position in Iraq for the first time in Iraq's 1,400 year Islamic history-----that from an Iranian perspective is a HUGE achievement, thanks to American arms, and their puppets the Dawa Party and SICRI are prominent in the administration of Iraq. The Americans since are bogged down fighting SUNNIS, so from an Iranian perspective everything is perfect! They wouldn't want to rock the boat at this juncture.
Between January 2001 and mid 2003 when the alleged nuclear weapons program in Iran ceased there wasn't a concerted effort by the Bush administration to isolate and focus on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Can anybody find a list of speeches by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al pointing to this fact? I can't.
You would think that a nation fearing an American attack or any such similar consequences, and thus closing its alleged covert nuclear program in response, would take other measures than the sole response of shutting down their nuclear weapons program, wouldn't you? You would expect in a sweaty palm way, the mullahs would expand conventional defence spending from 2003-2007 in response to a perceived threat, and yet a close scrutiny of credible sources state that Iran's real defence spending during this time has stayed more or less steady. Their ground forces have remained the same size, 550,000 in 2003, and the same in 2007. That's not a nation shitting in the pants, anticipating an immanent attack, and closing down none existent covert nuclear weapons programs.
The Iranians are human, not particularly special; its a Third World country. But nor is it Mexico or Guatemala. The Persian fought 8 years against Iraq, and the whole world, poorly equipped, starved of resources; hampered by 5 separate commands doing their own thing with no coordination; over seen by interfering mullahs who wanted to keep the armed forces busy whilst they consolidated power back in Tehran------yes they are that cynical; with commanders being executed or going into exile left right and center, and sacrificing 1,000,000 men in the battle field------------few nations on earth can do this. We do not need to conduct foreign policy using the stick only, verifying falsely that it is very effective, as it encourages chicken hawks/Israel for some more. A great nation like the USA has got to be more sophisticated than that. We understand that sometimes you have to pander to the idiots misguided ego, but that such things can be dangerous.
Also the mullahs are the UK imposed and managed puppets and the UK would never allow their mullah clients to develop nuclear weapons, and it is quite telling that unlike the American 'mainstream' media the British media, which no less is also managed by the elite of that country is decidedly less excited by the allegations of covert Iranian nuclear programs. By contrast the British media went 'full throttle' about Pakistan's 'Islamic bomb' in the late seventies and eighties. The British brought the mullahs into power for a variety of reasons in 1979, but one of the key reasons was to de-modernise and de-industrialise Iran, i.e to prevent it from developing technically and in many other respects (The mullahs froze the Shah's nuclear program on coming to power, and closed all universities, destroyed the middle class, and .........................), and is the main reason why the UK has been in the forefront of not allowing nuclear technology transfer to Iran, and British intelligence has also been quite successful and active in denying Iran any WMB technology.
But of course the UK being puppet masters of the mullahs have to perform a delicate act of on the one hand seeming to support Washington in its policy objectives over Iran, and at the same time keeping their mullah puppets safe from harm, and not over antagonizing them. We see the speed with which relations between the UK and mullah Iran are patched up after a 'misunderstanding', and perhaps America can learn from this and see there true interests finally. We note that the British dominated Gulf countries are trying to make up with Iran, inviting Ahmedinejad to their security meetings for the first time. The perception is that the British for their part want to make Iran into a status quo mullah power, and as a permanent part of the Gulf texture.
We note that intelligence from the UK states that Iran had indeed halted its alleged covert nuclear program in 2003--------more Niger Yellow cake? 'Good' news about a none existent fact.
All in all the NIE 2007 report in the short term is good for America, Iran and the world. In the long term however it leaves a big stick with which to beat Iran, i.e that they had a secret covert nuclear arms program which they were hiding from the IAEA and the rest of the world, and only stopped it because of our threats. That is not a good state of affairs as it leaves the door open for Bilderberger Hilary, the favorite democratic princess of Israel to reopen the issue, and start doing what Bush has been doing because a future NIE could just as easily say, 'We are reasonably certain the Iranians have once again started their covert nuclear weapons program'.
As others have pointed out, the report also states that because of pressure from the USA the Iranians halted their alleged program in 2003. What American diplomatic pressures are we talking about here running up to 2003? Well the fact that Iran was included in the 'Axis of evil' list in January 2002. I am not sure a regime like the mullahs who aren't that PR savvy or 'sensitive' would take much notice about being publicly named as a rogue state; they've been in that state for quite a while, and being called a rogue state by the 'Great Satan' would be a badge of honor for them. Name calling, a not too inconsiderable amount which the mullahs do themselves wasn't going to shake them to their core to effect a fundamental policy shift on such an alleged sensitive program, if it existed in the first place.
A better argument would be that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq had a psychological impact, i.e that Iran could, and would be next, but here again, the Iranians cooperated with the USA militarily in Afghanistan via the Northern Alliance in 2001.
They were happy to see the SUNNI Taliban defeated by the USA using their Northern Alliance. The Taliban with al-Qaeda had killed several Iranian diplomats in a Mazar-i-Sharif consulate in 1998, resulting in the mobilisation of 250,000 Iranian troops on the Afghan/Iranian border. So from an Iranian perspective the removal of the Taliban, and the imposition of a puppet pro-Western regime in Kabul, with the Northern Alliance playing an important role, backed by 17,000 foreign troops wouldn't be considered a threat but a satisfactory outcome for Iran.
So much so, thinking that they had just cooperated with the USA viz Afghanistan they were looking to expand the relationship far more comprehensively with the full blessings of the Supreme Leader, until they were thwarted by Dick Cheney and his Neo-cons. (7 countries in 5 years agenda October 2001---'The New Crusade', Wesley Clarke, and the private January 2003 conversation between Blair and Bush, leaked memo, that after Iraq, it would be Iran, Pakistan and the Saudis turn)
In relation to Iraq again from an Iranian perspective things couldn't be better. The Americans defeated the regime and occupied the country which Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini had vowed would be removed, hence Iran turning down Iraqi overtures of peace in 1982. A regime which had expelled Khomeini from Iraq after an agreement between the Shah and Saddam in 1978. Saddam was captured and executed by the USA. The Shi' tes are in a dominant position in Iraq for the first time in Iraq's 1,400 year Islamic history-----that from an Iranian perspective is a HUGE achievement, thanks to American arms, and their puppets the Dawa Party and SICRI are prominent in the administration of Iraq. The Americans since are bogged down fighting SUNNIS, so from an Iranian perspective everything is perfect! They wouldn't want to rock the boat at this juncture.
Between January 2001 and mid 2003 when the alleged nuclear weapons program in Iran ceased there wasn't a concerted effort by the Bush administration to isolate and focus on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Can anybody find a list of speeches by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al pointing to this fact? I can't.
You would think that a nation fearing an American attack or any such similar consequences, and thus closing its alleged covert nuclear program in response, would take other measures than the sole response of shutting down their nuclear weapons program, wouldn't you? You would expect in a sweaty palm way, the mullahs would expand conventional defence spending from 2003-2007 in response to a perceived threat, and yet a close scrutiny of credible sources state that Iran's real defence spending during this time has stayed more or less steady. Their ground forces have remained the same size, 550,000 in 2003, and the same in 2007. That's not a nation shitting in the pants, anticipating an immanent attack, and closing down none existent covert nuclear weapons programs.
The Iranians are human, not particularly special; its a Third World country. But nor is it Mexico or Guatemala. The Persian fought 8 years against Iraq, and the whole world, poorly equipped, starved of resources; hampered by 5 separate commands doing their own thing with no coordination; over seen by interfering mullahs who wanted to keep the armed forces busy whilst they consolidated power back in Tehran------yes they are that cynical; with commanders being executed or going into exile left right and center, and sacrificing 1,000,000 men in the battle field------------few nations on earth can do this. We do not need to conduct foreign policy using the stick only, verifying falsely that it is very effective, as it encourages chicken hawks/Israel for some more. A great nation like the USA has got to be more sophisticated than that. We understand that sometimes you have to pander to the idiots misguided ego, but that such things can be dangerous.
Also the mullahs are the UK imposed and managed puppets and the UK would never allow their mullah clients to develop nuclear weapons, and it is quite telling that unlike the American 'mainstream' media the British media, which no less is also managed by the elite of that country is decidedly less excited by the allegations of covert Iranian nuclear programs. By contrast the British media went 'full throttle' about Pakistan's 'Islamic bomb' in the late seventies and eighties. The British brought the mullahs into power for a variety of reasons in 1979, but one of the key reasons was to de-modernise and de-industrialise Iran, i.e to prevent it from developing technically and in many other respects (The mullahs froze the Shah's nuclear program on coming to power, and closed all universities, destroyed the middle class, and .........................), and is the main reason why the UK has been in the forefront of not allowing nuclear technology transfer to Iran, and British intelligence has also been quite successful and active in denying Iran any WMB technology.
But of course the UK being puppet masters of the mullahs have to perform a delicate act of on the one hand seeming to support Washington in its policy objectives over Iran, and at the same time keeping their mullah puppets safe from harm, and not over antagonizing them. We see the speed with which relations between the UK and mullah Iran are patched up after a 'misunderstanding', and perhaps America can learn from this and see there true interests finally. We note that the British dominated Gulf countries are trying to make up with Iran, inviting Ahmedinejad to their security meetings for the first time. The perception is that the British for their part want to make Iran into a status quo mullah power, and as a permanent part of the Gulf texture.
We note that intelligence from the UK states that Iran had indeed halted its alleged covert nuclear program in 2003--------more Niger Yellow cake? 'Good' news about a none existent fact.
All in all the NIE 2007 report in the short term is good for America, Iran and the world. In the long term however it leaves a big stick with which to beat Iran, i.e that they had a secret covert nuclear arms program which they were hiding from the IAEA and the rest of the world, and only stopped it because of our threats. That is not a good state of affairs as it leaves the door open for Bilderberger Hilary, the favorite democratic princess of Israel to reopen the issue, and start doing what Bush has been doing because a future NIE could just as easily say, 'We are reasonably certain the Iranians have once again started their covert nuclear weapons program'.
Dec 8, 2007
Iran didn't stop its nuclear weapons program in 2003; it never had one in the first place.
Iran, if it really wanted to could have gone for the bomb a lot earlier than Iraq. It had, and still has the necessary scientific community (6,000) to go for it, BUT IT DIDN'T AND DOESN'T INTEND TO.
WHY?
Because of the mullahs; they think its un-Islamic. The mullahs shut down the Shah's nuclear program, and only really became interested in peaceful civilian nuclear power use in the late eighties and nineties.
The present Supreme Leader has issued a FATWA against the development and use of nuclear weapons (1996)-----so the idea that they were developing nuclear weapons up to 2003 MAY BE INCORRECT.
It is clear. That more than anything else, this fact should be a guide as to why Iran under the mullahs will never go for nuclear weapons. But of course from a secular Western logical point of view such a policy explanation may be difficult to accept or understand. We sometimes make the mistake of judging others by our own standards and values.
In addition again from from a secular perspective it would seem logical given the neighborhood, that Iran should develop nuclear weapons, albeit a small number. But logic, religion and the mullahs don't go well together.
Is this a justification for the mullahs to stay in power? No of course not. They never should have been bought into power by the USA/UK covertly in the first place IN 1979. Think of all the harm that such a 'clever' policy has created for America.
The mullahs are managed in power by the manipulation and direction of the UK, which still exercises great influence in the country via the intelligence agencies of Iran, and direct contact with the leaders.
The mullahs have been in power for 28 years, and they have the support of about 20-30% of the population, mainly the villagers and urban poor. The mullahs reciprocate this support with free food and subsidised fuels.
The USA can topple the mullahs if it so desires, but thus far it seems the Bush administration has been more interested in military action based on false allegations of nuclear weapons programs, or that Tehran backs SUNNI groups in Iraq which kill American troops and other such nonsense. Such a policy is incorrect and can only harm America. Attacking Iran militarily is a high risk policy by the Americans which ever way you look at it, though of course it is the Israelis and their American assets which are most vigorously pushing for this option.
The NIE by stating that Iran POSSIBLY had an active nuclear bomb program up to 2003 leave the option of an attack open in the distant future, though the level of urgency has been taken out of the atmosphere.
WHY?
Because of the mullahs; they think its un-Islamic. The mullahs shut down the Shah's nuclear program, and only really became interested in peaceful civilian nuclear power use in the late eighties and nineties.
The present Supreme Leader has issued a FATWA against the development and use of nuclear weapons (1996)-----so the idea that they were developing nuclear weapons up to 2003 MAY BE INCORRECT.
It is clear. That more than anything else, this fact should be a guide as to why Iran under the mullahs will never go for nuclear weapons. But of course from a secular Western logical point of view such a policy explanation may be difficult to accept or understand. We sometimes make the mistake of judging others by our own standards and values.
In addition again from from a secular perspective it would seem logical given the neighborhood, that Iran should develop nuclear weapons, albeit a small number. But logic, religion and the mullahs don't go well together.
Is this a justification for the mullahs to stay in power? No of course not. They never should have been bought into power by the USA/UK covertly in the first place IN 1979. Think of all the harm that such a 'clever' policy has created for America.
The mullahs are managed in power by the manipulation and direction of the UK, which still exercises great influence in the country via the intelligence agencies of Iran, and direct contact with the leaders.
The mullahs have been in power for 28 years, and they have the support of about 20-30% of the population, mainly the villagers and urban poor. The mullahs reciprocate this support with free food and subsidised fuels.
The USA can topple the mullahs if it so desires, but thus far it seems the Bush administration has been more interested in military action based on false allegations of nuclear weapons programs, or that Tehran backs SUNNI groups in Iraq which kill American troops and other such nonsense. Such a policy is incorrect and can only harm America. Attacking Iran militarily is a high risk policy by the Americans which ever way you look at it, though of course it is the Israelis and their American assets which are most vigorously pushing for this option.
The NIE by stating that Iran POSSIBLY had an active nuclear bomb program up to 2003 leave the option of an attack open in the distant future, though the level of urgency has been taken out of the atmosphere.
Dec 2, 2007
America's obsession with Democracy in Pakistan.
Declaration of Martial law was the correct decision, in light of current events in the country. Just because the Americans, the British, the Commonwealth with the EU are calling for the lifting of Martial law by itself does not validate the claim that martial law should be lifted. All it shows is that there is a concerted effort by the ‘West’ to introduce democracy into Pakistan at this juncture and there is something going on here which is not to Pakistan advantage. The elections on 8th January (8/1 thank you!) I personally feel is doomed to fail, because of the leading players involved or otherwise in this drama.
Even if they manage to get Communist dictatorship China, or Singapore to join the queue in calling for democracy in Pakistan it still doesn’t validate the argument. Nobody is telling Bangladesh to democratize asap, so why this urgency by the Americans at this juncture in relation to Pakistan? What are they up to?
You have got to know yourself better than others, and 60 years after independence if you still rely on Washington saab's to guide you on key state issues than you are doomed to fail.
Even if they manage to get Communist dictatorship China, or Singapore to join the queue in calling for democracy in Pakistan it still doesn’t validate the argument. Nobody is telling Bangladesh to democratize asap, so why this urgency by the Americans at this juncture in relation to Pakistan? What are they up to?
You have got to know yourself better than others, and 60 years after independence if you still rely on Washington saab's to guide you on key state issues than you are doomed to fail.
Being special and its true affects.
We all consider ourselves special, especially when we are children to get attention from our peers and parents; there is nothing sinister or bad about that. The Japanese consider themselves special and beautiful, as do the Arab, the Nigerian or for that matter the Brazilian. No there is nothing dangerous about believing in and celebrating ones specialness and beauty, as there is no definitive law as to what constitutes true beauty, or greatness; after all great nations come and go.
There is nothing wrong in celebrating 'Aryan beauty' in the Asian sense, as long as it doesn't harm anybody. Tell me the name of a society that does not have, and indeed celebrate a little bit of chauvinism. It's human. The danger is when one small conniving group exploit this natural universal self sense of ones specialness, and try and sell it to another as a source of insecurity to the other. Who then is to blame in such a situation? Well who then is to blame for this negative insecurity which may affect state policies? The conniver is surely to blame through their clever use of psychology. But shouldn't we who are a little educated be well aware of the connivers long history of scheming, and playing one group against another to further their real agenda's? Is it not our fault that because of the connivers clever use of psychology, that some people feel a little insecure?
This brings me to the subject of Jewishness 'The chosen ones' according to their God, and their overriding need to feel special, over and above everybody else. Unlike their feelings of being special, celebrating 'Aryan beauty' does not involve following a doctrine, mindset or religion which subjugates and harms others. Authors Professor Kevin MacDonald and Douglas Reed do a far better job of explaining 'The Self Chosen' than I, and I would recommend all interested parties to read their books to better understand the overall problems of the twentieth century and the twenty first century.
1. MacDonald, K. B. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Praeger 1998) ISBN 0-275-96113-3 (Preface online)
2. 'Controversy of Zion' By Douglas Reed. Concordia Pub House (June 1986). ISBN-10: 0949667277.
The above would explain the extreme negativity shown against Iran, 'The land of the Aryans'. They would like nothing better than to bomb the country until it is no more. Against Afghanistan, 'Arianna'; against Russia, Ukraine formerly occupied by Iranian Scythians; against Pakistan, and India. Jewish managed American Presidents visit South Asia after they have visited every other continent.
But we are Aryan, we are special and we are alert and aware of these agenda's.
There is nothing wrong in celebrating 'Aryan beauty' in the Asian sense, as long as it doesn't harm anybody. Tell me the name of a society that does not have, and indeed celebrate a little bit of chauvinism. It's human. The danger is when one small conniving group exploit this natural universal self sense of ones specialness, and try and sell it to another as a source of insecurity to the other. Who then is to blame in such a situation? Well who then is to blame for this negative insecurity which may affect state policies? The conniver is surely to blame through their clever use of psychology. But shouldn't we who are a little educated be well aware of the connivers long history of scheming, and playing one group against another to further their real agenda's? Is it not our fault that because of the connivers clever use of psychology, that some people feel a little insecure?
This brings me to the subject of Jewishness 'The chosen ones' according to their God, and their overriding need to feel special, over and above everybody else. Unlike their feelings of being special, celebrating 'Aryan beauty' does not involve following a doctrine, mindset or religion which subjugates and harms others. Authors Professor Kevin MacDonald and Douglas Reed do a far better job of explaining 'The Self Chosen' than I, and I would recommend all interested parties to read their books to better understand the overall problems of the twentieth century and the twenty first century.
1. MacDonald, K. B. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Praeger 1998) ISBN 0-275-96113-3 (Preface online)
2. 'Controversy of Zion' By Douglas Reed. Concordia Pub House (June 1986). ISBN-10: 0949667277.
The above would explain the extreme negativity shown against Iran, 'The land of the Aryans'. They would like nothing better than to bomb the country until it is no more. Against Afghanistan, 'Arianna'; against Russia, Ukraine formerly occupied by Iranian Scythians; against Pakistan, and India. Jewish managed American Presidents visit South Asia after they have visited every other continent.
But we are Aryan, we are special and we are alert and aware of these agenda's.
Nov 25, 2007
London the number one safe house for global Islamic terrorism.
This memorandum appeared in the January 21, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Put Britain on the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism
The following memorandum, dated Jan. 11, 2000, was prepared for delivery to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It is a request to launch an investigation, pursuant to placing Great Britain on the list of states sponsoring terrorism.
To: Hon. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of StateFrom: The Editors, Executive Intelligence ReviewC.C.:Hon. William Cohen, Secretary of DefenseHon. Janet Reno, Attorney GeneralHon. George Tenet, Director of Central IntelligenceHon. Louis Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationHon. Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations CommitteeHon. Joseph Biden, Ranking Democrat, Senate Foreign Relations CommitteeHon. Benjamin Gilman, Chairman, House International Relations CommitteeHon. Sam Gejdenson, Ranking Democrat, House International Relations Committee
This is a formal request for you to initiate a review of the role of the government of Great Britain in supporting international terrorism, to determine whether Britain should be added to the list of nations sanctioned by the United States government for lending support to international terrorist organizations.
This issue has been recently highlighted, as the result of the December 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking, and the response of the British government to the request of one of the freed Kashmiri terrorists, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, to be given safe passage to England. Mr. Sheikh, a British national, was tried and convicted in India, for his role in the kidnapping of four British nationals and an American in 1995. He was sentenced to five years in prison in November 1998. Initially, the British government announced that it would provide Mr. Sheikh with safe passage to Britain, and would not prosecute him or make any effort to extradite him back to India.
However, long before the Sheikh case, Executive Intelligence Review has documented a pattern of British involvement in harboring international terrorists, dating back to 1995. As of this writing, no fewer than a dozen governments—many of them leading allies of the United States—have filed formal diplomatic protests with the British Foreign Office, over specific instances of British official support for terrorist groups, targetting those nations.
Criteria for evaluating whetherBritain should be sanctioned
U.S. Government policy on sanctions against states sponsoring terrorism has been set by a series of Congressional acts, including, but not limited to: the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAAA), the Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 (ATAEAA), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996.
It is our understanding that, while the Congress has given the Secretary of State broad discretion in designating a country as a state sponsor of terrorism, the legislative history of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has specified seven criteria which should guide the Secretary's action.
These criteria are:
Does the state provide terrorists sanctuary from extradition or prosecution?
Does the state provide terrorists with weapons and other means of conducting violence?
Does the state provide logistical support to terrorists?
Does the state permit terrorists to maintain safehouses and headquarters on its territory?
Does the state provide training and other material assistance to terrorists?
Does the state provide financial backing to terrorist organizations?
Does the state provide diplomatic services, including travel documents, that could aid in the commission of terrorist acts?
As of this writing, the State Department currently designates seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. In the case of Syria, which is presently engaged in peace negotiations with Israel, the primary reason the regime remains on the list is that several designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are headquartered in Damascus.
In the State Department Authorization Act of October 1991, specific procedures were spelled out for the President to remove a country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has a 45-day period to pass a joint resolution overriding such a Presidential decision to remove a state from the list, which carries with it a number of significant sanctions.
The case against Great Britain
Put Britain on the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism
The following memorandum, dated Jan. 11, 2000, was prepared for delivery to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It is a request to launch an investigation, pursuant to placing Great Britain on the list of states sponsoring terrorism.
To: Hon. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of StateFrom: The Editors, Executive Intelligence ReviewC.C.:Hon. William Cohen, Secretary of DefenseHon. Janet Reno, Attorney GeneralHon. George Tenet, Director of Central IntelligenceHon. Louis Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationHon. Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations CommitteeHon. Joseph Biden, Ranking Democrat, Senate Foreign Relations CommitteeHon. Benjamin Gilman, Chairman, House International Relations CommitteeHon. Sam Gejdenson, Ranking Democrat, House International Relations Committee
This is a formal request for you to initiate a review of the role of the government of Great Britain in supporting international terrorism, to determine whether Britain should be added to the list of nations sanctioned by the United States government for lending support to international terrorist organizations.
This issue has been recently highlighted, as the result of the December 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking, and the response of the British government to the request of one of the freed Kashmiri terrorists, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, to be given safe passage to England. Mr. Sheikh, a British national, was tried and convicted in India, for his role in the kidnapping of four British nationals and an American in 1995. He was sentenced to five years in prison in November 1998. Initially, the British government announced that it would provide Mr. Sheikh with safe passage to Britain, and would not prosecute him or make any effort to extradite him back to India.
However, long before the Sheikh case, Executive Intelligence Review has documented a pattern of British involvement in harboring international terrorists, dating back to 1995. As of this writing, no fewer than a dozen governments—many of them leading allies of the United States—have filed formal diplomatic protests with the British Foreign Office, over specific instances of British official support for terrorist groups, targetting those nations.
Criteria for evaluating whetherBritain should be sanctioned
U.S. Government policy on sanctions against states sponsoring terrorism has been set by a series of Congressional acts, including, but not limited to: the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAAA), the Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 (ATAEAA), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996.
It is our understanding that, while the Congress has given the Secretary of State broad discretion in designating a country as a state sponsor of terrorism, the legislative history of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has specified seven criteria which should guide the Secretary's action.
These criteria are:
Does the state provide terrorists sanctuary from extradition or prosecution?
Does the state provide terrorists with weapons and other means of conducting violence?
Does the state provide logistical support to terrorists?
Does the state permit terrorists to maintain safehouses and headquarters on its territory?
Does the state provide training and other material assistance to terrorists?
Does the state provide financial backing to terrorist organizations?
Does the state provide diplomatic services, including travel documents, that could aid in the commission of terrorist acts?
As of this writing, the State Department currently designates seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. In the case of Syria, which is presently engaged in peace negotiations with Israel, the primary reason the regime remains on the list is that several designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are headquartered in Damascus.
In the State Department Authorization Act of October 1991, specific procedures were spelled out for the President to remove a country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has a 45-day period to pass a joint resolution overriding such a Presidential decision to remove a state from the list, which carries with it a number of significant sanctions.
The case against Great Britain
- The following documentary time line is intended to provide an outline of the evidence that we wish the appropriate officials at the U.S. State Department to review, to make a determination whether Great Britain should be added to the list of states sponsoring terrorism, according to the criteria outlined above.
- In July 1998, a former British MI5 officer, David Shayler, revealed that, in February 1996, British security services financed and supported a London-based Islamic terrorist group, in an attempted assassination against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. The action, Shayler charged, in an interview with the British Daily Mail, was sanctioned by then-Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind. The incident described by Shayler did, in fact, occur. Although Qaddafi escaped without injury, the bomb, planted along a road where the Libyan leader was travelling, killed several innocent bystanders. In an Aug. 5, 1998 interview with BBC, Shayler charged, "We paid £100,000 to carry out the murder of a foreign head of state. That is apart from the fact that the money was used to kill innocent people, because the bomb exploded at the wrong time. In fact, this is hideous funding of international terrorism." According to Shayler's BBC interview, MI6 provided the funds to an Arab agent inside Libya, with instructions to carry out the attack.In fact, in 1996, a previously unknown Libyan "Islamist" group appeared in London to claim responsibility for the attempted assassination of Qaddafi.
- On June 25, 1996, a bomb blew up the U.S. military barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers. The next day, Saudi expatriate Mohammed al-Massari, the head of the London-based Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, was interviewed on BBC. He warned the United States to expect more terror attacks, which he described as "intellectually justified." The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia "is obviously not welcomed by a substantial fraction of the population there," he warned, "and they are ready to go to the execution stand for it." He concluded, "There are so many underground parties—so many splinter groups, many of them made up of people who fought in Afghanistan. . . . I expect more of the same."Despite the fact that al-Massari has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the House of Saud and the creation of an Islamic revolutionary state, he has been given "exceptional leave" to remain in Britain. In April 1996, the British Home Office granted al-Massari a four-year refugee permit to remain on British soil. Al-Massari is allied with the well-known Saudi expatriate Osama bin Laden, who, to this day, maintains a residence in the wealthy London suburb of Wembly. And London is the headquarters of bin Laden's Advise and Reform Commission, run by the London-based Khalid al-Fawwaz. Bin Laden has been given regular access to BBC and a variety of major British newspapers, to spread his calls for jihad against the United States. Thus, in July 1996, bin Laden told the London Independent, "What happened in Khobar [the U.S. Army barracks that was bombed on June 25] is a clear proof of the enormous rage of the Saudi population against them. Resistance against America will spread in many places through Muslim lands."
- On Jan. 25, 1997, Tory Member of Parliament Nigel Waterson introduced legislation to ban foreign terrorists from operating on British soil. His "Conspiracy and Incitement Bill," according to his press release, would have for the first time banned British residents from plotting and conducting terrorist operations overseas. Waterson proposed the bill in the aftermath of a scandal over Britain providing safe haven for Saudi terrorist Mohammed al-Massari, who claimed credit for the bombing of U.S. military sites in Saudi Arabia in June 1996.On Feb. 14, 1997, Labour MP George Galloway succeeded in blocking Waterson's bill from getting out of committee. Galloway, in a speech before the committee that was printed in the House of Commons official proceedings, stated, "The Bill will change political asylum in this country in a profound and dangerous way. It will change a state of affairs that has existed since Napoleon's time. . . . We are all in favor of controlling terrorism in Britain. Surely not a single honorable Member has any truck with terrorism here, but we are talking about terrorism in other countries. . . . The legislation is rushed in response to a specific, and, for the government, highly embarrassing refugee case—that of Professor al-Massari, who was a thorn in the side of the government of Saudi Arabia. . . . By definition, a tyranny can be removed only by extraordinary measures. Inevitably, in conditions of extreme repression, the leadership of such movements will gravitate to countries such as ours where freedom and liberty prevail. The bill will criminalize such people, even though they have not broken any law in Britain or caused any harm to the Queen's peace in her realm. They will fall open to prosecution in this country under the Bill because they are inciting, supporting, or organizing events in distant tyrannies, which are clearly offenses under the laws of such tyrants."
- On Nov. 17, 1997, the Gamaa al-Islamiya (Islamic Group) carried out a massacre of tourists in Luxor, Egypt, in which 62 people were killed. Since 1992, terrorist attacks by the Islamic Group have claimed at least 92 lives. Yet, the leaders of the organization have been provided with political asylum in Britain, and repeated efforts by the Egyptian government to have them extradited back to Egypt have met with stern rebuffs by Tory and Labour governments alike.On Dec. 14, 1997, British Ambassador to Egypt David Baltherwick was summoned by Egypt's Foreign Minister Amr Moussa and handed an official note, demanding that Britain "stop providing a safe haven to terrorists, and cooperate with Egypt to counter terrorism." In an interview with the London Times the same day, the Foreign Minister "called on Britain to stop the flow of money from Islamic radicals in London to terrorist groups in Egypt, and to ban preachers in British mosques calling for the assassination of foreign leaders." The Times added that Moussa "was outraged by reports that £2.5 million had come from exiles in Britain to the outlawed Gamaa al-Islamiya," and noted that the Egyptian government "has blamed the Luxor massacre on terrorists funded and encouraged from abroad, and identified Britain as the main center for radicals plotting assassinations."To substantiate the charges against Britain, the Egyptian State Information Service posted a "Call to Combat Terrorism" on its official web site. The document read, in part, "Hereunder, is a list of some of the wanted masterminds of terrorism, who are currently enjoying secure and convenient asylum in some world capitals." The "wanted list" consisted of photographs and biographical data on 14 men, linked to the Luxor massacre and other earlier incidents of terrorism. The first seven individuals listed were all, at the time, residing in London. They are:
Yasser al Sirri: "Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on the life of former Prime Minister Dr. Atef Sidqi; founded the Media Observatory in London as mouthpiece for the New Vanguards of Conquest."
Adel Abdel Bari: "At present, heads Egyptian Human Rights Defense Office, affiliated to Media Observatory in London, the mouthpiece for the outlawed Jihad Organization."
Mustafa Hamzah: "Commander of the military branch of the outlawed `Islamic Group.' "
Tharwat Shehata: "Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on Dr. Atef Sidqi, former Prime Minister; associated with, and in charge of financing extremist elements abroad; involved in reactivating the outlawed `Jihad Organization' abroad."
Osama Khalifa: "Accused no. 1 in the case involving domestic and foreign activities of the outlawed Islamic Group."
Refa Mousa.
Mohamed el Islambouli: "One of the principal leaders of the Islamic Group; sentenced to death in the case of the outlawed organization of `Returnees from Afghanistan.' "
Groups banned by United Statesare headquartered in London
Shortly before the Luxor massacre, on Oct. 8, 1997, the U.S. State Department, in compliance with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, released a list of 30 Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), banned from operating on U.S. soil.
Of the 30 groups named, six maintain headquarters in Britain. They are: the Islamic Group (Egypt), Al-Jihad (Egypt), Hamas (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria, France), Kurdish Workers Party (Turkey), and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka).
The Islamic Group, and its subsidiary arm, Islamic Jihad, are headquartered in London. In February 1997, the British government formally granted permission to Abel Abdel Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri to establish Islamic Group fundraising and media offices in London, under the names International Bureau for the Defense of the Egyptian People and the Islamic Observatory. Abdel Majid was implicated in the October 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and he subsequently masterminded the escape of two prisoners jailed for the assassination. In 1991, he fled to Britain and immediately was granted political asylum. He has coordinated the Islamic Group's overseas operations ever since. In fact, he was sentenced to death in absentia for the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November 1995, in which 15 diplomats were killed.
Abdel Tawfiq al Sirri, the co-director of the movement, has also been granted political asylum in Britain, despite the fact that he was also sentenced to death in absentia for his part in the 1993 attempted assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Atif Sidqi.
In September 1997, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is in jail in the United States for his role in the Feb. 28, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, issued an order, as the spiritual leader of the Islamic Group, calling for an immediate cease-fire. The six members of the ruling council of Islamic Group residing in Egypt endorsed the Sheikh's order, but the remaining six council member, living in London, rejected the order. Two months later, the massacre at Luxor took place.
Similarly, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which was responsible for the assassination of Algerian President Mohamed Boudiaf on June 29, 1992, has its international headquarters in London. Sheikh Abu Qatabda and Abu Musab communicate military orders to GIA terrorists operating in Algeria and France via the London-based party organ, Al Ansar. Sheikh Abu Qatabda was granted political asylum in Britain in 1992, after spending years working in Peshawar, Pakistan with various Afghani mujahideen groups. A third London-based GIA leader, Abou Farres, oversees operations targetted against France. He was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport, which killed nine people and wounded 125. Farres was believed responsible, from his base in London, for the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, including bombings of three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), known as the "Tamil Tigers," have carried out a decade-long terror campaign against the government of Sri Lanka, in which they have killed an estimated 130,000 people. In addition, LTTE was responsible for the suicide-bomber murder of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, and the similar assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa on May 1, 1993.
Since 1984, the LTTE International Secretariat has been located in London. The official spokesman for the Secretariat is Anton Balsingham, an Oxford University graduate and former British Foreign Office employee. The group's suicide-bomber division, the Black Tigers, which killed Rajiv Gandhi, is run by Pampan Ajith, out of LTTE London headquarters; another elite suicide-bomber cell, the Sky Tigers, which employs light aircraft, is coordinated by Dr. Maheswaran, also based in London.
Most of the marching orders for terrorist operations in the Indian subcontinent are delivered from London, via a string of LTTE publications, including Tamil Nation and Hot Spring, published in London, and Network and Kalathil, published in Surrey. The organization's chief fundraiser and banker, Lawrence Tilagar, is also based in London.
Similarly, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, maintains its publishing operations in London, including its monthly organ, Filisteen al-Muslima. In 1996, this publication issued a fatwa (religious ruling), calling for terrorist attacks against Israel. On Feb. 25 and March 3, shortly after the fatwa was published, Hamas suicide bombers blew up two Jerusalem buses and a Tel Aviv market, killing 55 people. Funding of these terrorists, who are part of the military wing, Izeddin al Kassam, comes from London, where Interpal is the chief money arm of the group.
In the case of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), the British government played an even more direct role in supporting the 17-year war against the Turkish government by the Kurdish separatists. An estimated 19,000 people have been killed in Southeast Turkey since the PKK launched its terror war in 1983. In May 1995, after the PKK was expelled from Germany, for seizing control of Turkish diplomatic buildings in 18 European cities, the British government licensed MED-TV in London, through which the PKK broadcasts four hours a day into its enclaves inside Turkey, and all over Europe. In a March 1996 broadcast, PKK leader Apo Ocalan called for the execution of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel. And when the PKK held its founding "parliament in exile" in Belgium in 1995, three members of the British House of Lords either attended or sent personal telegrams of endorsement. The three were Lord Hylton, Lord Avebury, and Baroness Gould.
The same Lord Avebury has been an active backer of the Peru Support Group in London, which has served as a major international fundraising front for the Peruvian narco-terrorist group Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso). When Adolfo Héctor Olaechea was dispatched by Shining Path to London in July 1992, to establish the "foreign affairs bureau," he received a letter of recognition from Buckingham Palace, which he circulated widely. The letter read in part, "The private secretary is commanded by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to acknowledge receipt of the letter from Mr. Olaechea, and to say that it has been passed on to the Home Office."
In addition to the six FTOs who have their headquarters in Britain, an additional 16 groups on the State Department's 1997 list either receive funding from groups based in Britain, or receive military training and logistical support from groups operating freely from British soil. Those groups are: the Abu Nidal Organization (Palestinian Authority), Harkat ul-Ansar (India), Mujahideen e Khalq (Iran), Kach (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Kahane Chai (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Abu Sayyaf (Philippines), Hezbollah (Israel, Lebanon), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), ELN (Colombia), FARC (Colombia), Shining Path (Peru), MRTA (Peru), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Israel, Palestinian Authority), PFLP-General Command (Israel, Palestinian Authority).
The `fatwa' against American targets
On Feb. 10, 1998, a group of well-known London-based "Islamists" and Islamic organizations issued a fatwa, calling for terrorist attacks against American targets. It was signed by Saudi terrorist supporter Mohammed Al-Massari and Omar Bakri, head of the Al-Muhajiroon, and was endorsed by 60 organizations that are based in the United Kingdom. It instructed Muslims living in the United States: "You have first to renounce the residency or acquire citizenship, then start military activities if physically capable. You are then at liberty to fight them everywhere in the world or re-enter the realm clandestinely and wreak havoc, obviously facing charges as spy, terrorist, etc."
On Feb. 23, 1998, a second fatwa was issued, entitled "World Islamic Front's Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." It called for killing Americans because of their "occupation of the holy Arab Peninsula and Jerusalem" and their "oppressing the Muslim nations," and concluded, "in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy Mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of the lands of Islam, defeated, and unable to threaten any Muslims. We—with God's help—call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans."
The fatwa, which was widely reported in the London-based Arabic daily Al Quds al Arabi, was signed by Sheikh Osama bin Laden, who, despite his current residence in Afghanistan, continues to maintain a lavish mansion in London; Ayman al Zawahiri, head of the Islamic Group behind the November 1997 massacre at Luxor, Egypt; Abu Yasser Rifai Ahmad Taha, another leader of the Islamic Group, residing in London; and Sheikh Mir Hamza, secretary of the Jamiat ul Ulema e, of Pakistan.
The two fatwas were the subject of testimony by an official of the Central Intelligence Agency on Feb. 23, 1998, before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, chaired by Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). At Senator Kyl's request, the CIA Counterterrorism Center provided the subcommittee with a declassified memorandum, titled "Fatwas or Religious Rulings by Militant Islamic Groups Against the United States." The memorandum stated that "a coalition of Islamic groups in London, and terrorist financier Osama bin Laden, have issued separate fatwas, or religious rulings, calling for attacks on U.S. persons and interests worldwide, and on those of U.S. allies. . . . Both fatwas call for attacks to continue until U.S. forces retreat from Saudi Arabia and Jerusalem. The fatwa from the groups in london also calls for attacks until sanctions on Iraq are lifted. These fatwas are the first from these groups that explicitly justify attacks on American civilians anywhere in the world. Both groups have hinted in the past that civilians are legitimate targets, but this is the first religious ruling sanctifying such attacks."
Two days before the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, the Islamic Jihad issued a declaration, targetting American interests all over the world. The communiqué accused the CIA of cooperating with Egyptian officials to capture three members of the group in Albania, and extradite them to Egypt where they faced prosecution on capital offenses.
Within hours of the two bombings, a number of London-based groups issued endorsements of the bombings. Supporters of Sharia, headed by Abu Hamza Al-Misri, an Egyptian who was convicted of a capital offense in Egypt, but who enjoys political asylum in London, issued one of the most virulent "endorsements." Omar Bakri, the head of Al-Muhajiroon, as well as the Islamic Observation Center, the Islamic Jihad organization's official propaganda and fundraising organization in London, also endorsed the bombings. The Islamic Observation Center was officially licensed by the British government in 1996 to carry out activities in Britain.
Attacks on Yemen
In the third week of December 1998, a London-based terrorist group was planning to launch operations to destabilize the Republic of Yemen. Members of the Ansar Al-Sharia, directed from London by Mustafa Kamel (a.k.a. Abu Hamza Al-Masri, a British citizen and former Afghansi "mujahid," who trains groups of young people for terrorist activities at his Finsbury Mosque in north London, were arrested on Dec. 23, 1998 in Yemen, as they were planning armed terrorist operations. These terrorists were in contact with the Islamic Army of Abeen-Aden (affiliated with the London-based Egyptian Islamic Jihad), which had kidnapped 16 British and Australian tourists a few days earlier.
A rescue operation on Dec. 29 by the Yemeni security forces resulted in the kidnappers killing three British hostages and one Australian; 12 tourists were freed. British press and, later, government officials, accused the Yemeni security forces of "provoking the murders," because they refused to negotiate with the terrorists.
In response, the Yemeni authorities did not mince words. In one day, Yemen kicked out the British Scotland Yard officers who had been invited to observe the investigations, withdrew its application to join the British Commonwealth, and announced that a group of British citizens had been arrested while attempting a massive terror-bombing campaign in Aden.
On Jan. 25, Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh demanded from British Prime Minister Tony Blair that Abu Hamza Al-Masri be handed over for trial in Yemen on charges of carrying out terrorist acts in Yemen and several other Arab states. This was expressed in an official message Saleh sent to Blair, conveyed by the British Ambassador to Yemen, Victor Henderson. The London-based daily Al-Hayat reported that, according to government sources in Sanaa, Yemen's capital, the message from President Saleh stressed that the Yemeni government has the right to demand that the British government hand over Abu Hamza, and evidence and documents which prove its description of Abu Hamza as a "terrorist" and "extremist."
However, British law does not consider it a crime for individuals and groups based in Britain to plan, incite, or conduct terrorist operations outside Her Majesty's domains.
Abu Hamza's case is even more complicated, because he is not only an asylum seeker, but has British citizenship. The Yemeni request came in the context of investigations conducted by the Yemeni security authorities into the group whose members were arrested on Dec. 23, including five British citizens (one of them the son of Abu Hamza) and one French citizen, who were in possession of weapons and explosives and were said to be involved in carrying out "terrorist and destructive plans which undermine Yemen's security and stability."
The Yemeni investigations found that Abu Hamza has relations with this group, in addition to his "firm links to the Islamic Army of Aden," led by Abu Hassan al-Muhdar, who is in custody. Al-Muhdar's group carried out the kidnapping of the tourists in December 1998. The Yemeni government sources added that the message of the Yemeni President to the British Prime Minister expressed Yemen's great regret over the "terrorist activities carried out by Abu Hamza al-Masri" and others from the British territories, acts which it said undermine Yemen's security and stability, as well as similar terrorist acts in several Arab states.
Eight days earlier, Abu Hamza called for killing Yemeni officials if the Yemeni authorities sentenced the kidnappers to death. Replying to a question from the Qatari al-Jazira satellite TV network on Jan. 14, he said: "If Zein al-Abidin al-Muhdar were to be executed, there will be revenge acts and massacres."
Abu Hamza stated in a televised debate on Jan. 18 that he had been contacted by the leader of the group that carried out the kidnapping before the rescue operation, "and asked me for advice." Abu Hamza accordingly issued a communiqué and threatened the Yemeni authorities.
The target of these operations has been the government of the Republic of Yemen itself. Abu Hamza made this clear in the televised debate, in which he said that the ultimate goal is to overthrow the secular regime in Sanaa, and that there are supporters in Yemen who are ready to fight for establishing an Islamic state. Al-Muhdar, during his trial in Yemen, confirmed that the objective of his group is to overthrow every secular government in the region.
Formal diplomatic protests to London
This British harboring of international terrorist groups has not gone unnoticed by the nations that have been the targets of this brutality. To date, the British Foreign Office has received formal diplomatic protests from at least ten victimized countries. These include:
- Egypt: British asylum for the Islamic Group and Islamic Jihad has been a persistent reason for Egyptian complaints to the British government. In April 1996, Egyptian Interior Minister Hasan al-Alfi told the British Arabic weekly Al-Wasat, "All terrorists come from London. They exist in other European countries, but they start from London." On Aug. 29, the government daily Al-Ahram reported that the British chargé d'affaires in Cairo was summoned by the Deputy Foreign Minister, and given a letter for Foreign Minister Malcolm Rifkind, protesting Britain's "double standard policy" and "support for international terrorism." An official of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry was quoted in the paper, saying, "The asylum law in Britain has provided a safe-haven for terrorists."
Egypt has been particularly incensed that the British have allowed the Islamic Group/Islamic Jihad to use London as their home-base. Continual demands that Britain extradite Islamic Group leaders Adel Abdul Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri back to Cairo, where they have been sentenced to death in absentia for terrorist crimes, have been rejected.
On Feb. 13, 1997, Egyptian officials told Al-Hayat, that the Egyptian government remains "troubled" and "astonished" by Britain's decision to allow Abdul Majid to establish officially recognized centers in London, especially after the Egyptian Supreme Court released admissions from several members of the group, at the beginning of 1997, that they had received money and marching orders from Abdul Majid, to carry out bombings and assassinations throughout 1996.
These same officials told the paper that "this only further supports Egypt's belief that London has become the most prominent center for anti-Egypt Islamic extremist groups," and that there will continue to be talks on the highest levels "to know the reasons that made the British government allow the establishment of that [Islamic Group] office."
Following the Luxor massacre, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak launched a personal international crusade to spotlight the role of the British government in harboring and sponsoring the terrorists who have targetted Egypt. - Israel: On March 3, 1996, after a Hamas bomb exploded in a Jerusalem market, killing a dozen people, and a second bomb exploded in Tel Aviv, Israel's ambassador to London met with Foreign Minister Rifkind to demand that Britain stop protecting the group. In an account of that confrontation, the London Express reported the next day, "Israeli security sources say the fanatics behind the bombings are funded and controlled through secret cells operating here. Only days before the latest terror campaign began, military chiefs in Jerusalem detailed how Islamic groups raised £7 million in donations from British organizations. The ambassador, Moshe Raviv, yesterday shared Israel's latest information about the Hamas operations. A source at the Israeli embassy said last night, `It is not the first time we have pointed out that Islamic terrorists are in Britain.' "
The British Foreign Office officially responded to the Israeli ambassador: "We have seen no proof to support allegations that funds raised by the Hamas in the U.K. are used directly in support of terrorist acts elsewhere."
In early September 1997, Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon travelled to Britain, according to the Sunday Telegraph, after investigations determined that the two Hamas suicide bombers who killed 15 people in a Jerusalem market on July 30, arrived in Israel on British passports: "Israeli officials are said to have become increasingly frustrated by what they see as British foot-dragging in curbing the activities of Palestinian hard-liners. The Israeli government has made repeated calls for action to be taken against militants, said to be operating freely in the British capital." - France: In late 1995, the GIA's London headquarters ordered a terror war against France, leading France to loudly protest to the British government, according to the Nov. 6, 1995 London Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled "Britain Harbours Paris Bomber." On Nov. 3, 1995, the French daily Le Figaro wrote, under the headline "The Providential Fog of London," of the GIA's bombing spree: "The trail of Boualem Bensaid, GIA leader in Paris, leads to Great Britain. The British capital has served as logistical and financial base for the terrorists."
The next day, Le Parisien reported that the author of the GIA terror attack inside France was former Afghan mujahideen leader Abou Farres, who was given a residence visa in London, despite the fact that he was already wanted in connection with the bombing of the Algiers Airport. Farres's London-based organization, according to Le Parisien, recruits Islamic youth from the poor suburbs of Paris, and sends them to Afghanistan, where they are trained as terrorists. - Algeria also filed strong protests to the British Foreign Office over the harboring of the GIA in London.
- Peru: The Peruvian government has made repeated requests to the British government, since 1992, demanding the extradition of Adolfo Héctor Olaechea, the London-based head of overseas operations for Shining Path, as well as the shutdown of its fundraising and support operations there. Both requests have been refused to this day. Moreover, in 1992, during the worst of the Shining Path offensive in Peru, Channel 4, of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, a dependency of the British Home Office, coordinated with Olaechea to send two journalists to Peru, where they contacted Shining Path units, and filmed a highly favorable report. The film was broadcast throughout Britain by Channel 4 on July 10, 1992, despite an official protest from the Peruvian government.
- Turkey: On Aug. 20, 1996, the Turkish government formally protested to the British government for allowing the Kurdish Workers Party to continue its London-based MED TV broadcasts into Turkey, despite documentation that the broadcasts were being used to convey marching orders to PKK terrorists there.
- Germany: The Bonn government issued a diplomatic note to London, too, following a March 1996 MED TV broadcast in which PKK leader Apo Ocalan called for murdering German Chancellor Kohl and Foreign Minister Kinkel. According to the German press, the Interior Ministry stated concerning the London station: "We have requested our colleagues in neighboring countries in Europe to put measures into effect in order to not compromise internal security in our own country."
Libya: On Feb. 7, 1997, the Libyan Foreign Ministry submitted an official protest to the British government, over Britain's permitting of the Militant Islamic Group to operate on British soil. The letter cited the recent assassination attempt against Colonel Qaddafi by members of the London-headquartered group, and read, in part, "The decision by Britain, which is a permanent member state of the [UN] Security Council, to shelter elements of that terrorist group who are wanted to stand trial in Libya and to enable them to openly announce their destructive intentions against a UN member state, namely Libya, . . . contravenes international charges and treaties." - Nigeria: On Feb. 28, 1997, the British government issued a denial that it had refused to extradite three Nigerians suspected of a series of bombings in the major city of Lagos in January 1997. The three men were leaders of the National Democratic Coalition (Nadeco).
- Yemen: In January 1999, the government of Yemen filed formal diplomatic protests with Britain for the harboring of the terrorists who carried out bombings and kidnappings.
- Russia: On Nov. 14, 1999, the Russian Foreign Ministry filed a formal protest to Andrew Wood, Britain's Ambassador in Moscow, after two Russian television journalists were brutally beaten as they attempted to film a London conference, where bin Laden's International Islamic Front, Ansar as-Shariah, Al-Muhajiroon, and other Islamist groups called for a jihad against Russia, in retaliation for the Russian military actions in Chechnya.
One of the victims of the beating, ORT cameraman Alexandr Panov, told Kommersant daily that he was "very surprised at the indifference of the British government. Some of the participants at the `charity' event were people wanted by Interpol, but Scotland Yard, although evidently aware of their residence [in Britain], does not react."
On Nov. 10, 1999, the Russian government had already filed a formal diplomatic démarche via the Russian Embassy in London, protesting the attacks on the Russian journalists, and also the admissions by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the head of the "political wing" of the bin Laden organization, Al Muhajiroon, that the group was recruiting Muslims in England to go to Chechnya to fight the Russian Army. Bakri's organization operates freely from offices in the London suburb of Lee Valley, where they occupy two rooms at a local computer center, and maintain their own Internet company. Bakri has admitted that "retired" British military officers are training new recruits in Lee Valley, before they are sent off to camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or are smuggled directly into Chechnya.
On Nov. 20, 1999, the Daily Telegraph admitted, following the release of the U.S. State Department's updated list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, that "Britain is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a huge scale . . . and the capital is the home to a bewildering variety of radical Islamic fundamentalist movements, many of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals."
India: In December 1999, following the conclusion of the Indian Airlines hijacking, the Indian government protested the fact that British officials publicly stated that they would allow one of the freed Kashmiri terrorists, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, to return to London, because there "were no charges filed against him in Britain." The British government, facing growing international pressure, apparently has backed down from this decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)