IT’S AGREED! Whoever Wins the Feb 10 Election Is Kicking Gazan Ass.

Israel’s Livni, Netanyahu vow to topple Hamas

rule

By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM, Dec 21 (Reuters) – The two leading candidates to become Israel’s next prime minister vowed on Sunday to topple Hamas’s government in the Gaza Strip, ratcheting up tensions after a six-month-old ceasefire ended in violence.

The threats by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and right-wing Likud party chief Benjamin Netanyahu followed a cabinet meeting in which outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cautioned against rushing into a large-scale operation in the Hamas-ruled enclave in response to escalating rocket fire by militants.

Such an operation could result in heavy casualties on both sides, fuel a major humanitarian crisis in the aid-dependent Gaza Strip and spark an international outcry against Israel.

If elected premier in a Feb 10 election, Livni, who heads the centrist Kadima party, said her government’s “strategic objective” would be to “topple the Hamas regime” using military, economic and diplomatic means. She did not set a timetable.

Netanyahu, Livni’s main rival for the premiership, called for a more “active policy of attack”, accusing the current government of being too “passive”.

“In the long-term, we will have to topple the Hamas regime. In the short-term, … there are a wide range of possibilities, from doing nothing to doing everything, meaning to conquer Gaza,” Netanyahu said during a visit to a house in the southern Israeli town of Sderot that was hit by a rocket.

Palestinian militants have fired nearly 60 of the makeshift rockets and mortar shells at Israel since the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Hamas ended on Friday, the Israeli army said. Over the weekend, an Israeli air strike killed one militant and at least one person in Israel was injured by a shell shrapnel.

HANIYEH UNFAZED

Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’s government in Gaza, brushed aside Israeli threat: “Nothing can finish off our people.”

Hamas official Ayman Taha said the Islamist group, which took over the Gaza Strip in June 2007 after routing rival Fatah forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, predicted Hamas’s rule would outlive Livni’s.

Olmert had cautioned his cabinet against making “bold statements” about an operation in the Gaza Strip and suggested that he favoured a wait-and-see approach.

“A government doesn’t rush to battle, but doesn’t avoid it either,” Olmert said. “Israel will know how to give the proper response at the right time in the right way, responsibly.”

Underscoring the military challenge facing Israel in the densely-populated Gaza Strip, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said even an incursion involving two-to-three divisions, or more than 20,000 troops, may not be enough to stop rocket fire.

Government ministers promising to topple Hamas “do not know what they are talking about”, Barak said.

But pressure on the government to act is mounting.

Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency, told ministers on Sunday that Hamas has longer-range rockets that could strike the city of Beersheva, a major population centre some 40 km (25 miles) from the Gaza Strip.

“It needs to be clear. A strike in Gaza will come, and it will be hard and painful,” cabinet minister Isaac Herzog said.

Polls show a tightening race between Livni and Netanyahu to replace Olmert as prime minister, and both candidates have stepped up anti-Hamas sabre-rattling in recent days.

Since the ceasefire ended on Friday, the Islamic Jihad group has claimed responsibility for most of the rocket fire at Israel, which launched air strikes against rocket launchers and kept border crossings closed, preventing the passage of humanitarian supplies.

The ceasefire had been eroding since early November when a deadly Israeli raid prompted militants to step up rocket attacks, most of which cause no injuries and little damage. (Additional reporting by Ari Rabinovitch in Jerusalem and Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza; Editing by Sami Aboudi)

Bush’s Terrorist Pals Getting the Boot From Iraqi Government

MUJAHEDEED E-KHALQ (MEK)

Iraq says Iranian opposition exiles must leave

By Michael Christie

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The Shi’ite-led Iraqi government told nearly 3,500 opposition Iranians living in exile in Iraq on Sunday that it planned to close their camp and they had to leave the country.

A delegation headed by National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie told the Iranians, who have lived for two decades at Camp Ashraf north of Baghdad, that the government was taking over responsibility for their security from U.S. troops.

They told the Iranians the government “…is keen to execute its plans to close the camp and send its inhabitants to their countries or other countries in a non-forcible manner, and that staying in Iraq is not an option for them,” the government said in a statement.

The Iranians, who include members of the exiled opposition People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), have lived in the sprawling township 70 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad for around 20 years.

The Iraqi government, which is friendly toward Shi’ite Iran, regards the Iranians as terrorists. The PMOI is also listed as a terrorist group in the United States and in Europe.

U.S. forces have protected the exiles since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 after persuading the Iranian group, also known as the Mujahideen e-Khalq, to disarm.

The U.S. military seized and destroyed more than 2,000 tanks, armored personnel carriers and other weaponry at the time. The group had been protected by Saddam Hussein, who welcomed them as fellow enemies of the Iranian ayatollahs.

The PMOI began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late shah of Iran but fell out with Shi’ite clerics who took power after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Its leaders fear many of them will be executed if they are forced to go back to Iran. Tehran has long demanded they be expelled from Iraq.

The United Nations has had trouble finding other countries to accept the Iranian exiles as refugees because of their militant background but has urged Iraq to respect their rights.

In the statement released on Sunday, the Iraqi government said people in the camp had been told that carrying out activities whether legal or illegal “against any neighboring country, is a dangerous issue.”

Iraq will treat those in the camp “in accordance with Iraqi law, Islamic values and international order,” the statement said.

Amnesty International has urged Iraq and the United States to regard members of the rebel group as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The 1949 pact bans the extradition or forced repatriation of people who could face torture or persecution.

OPEC announces unprecedented output cut

OPEC announces unprecedented output cut
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

ORAN, Algeria: Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ministers on Wednesday approved a record output cut of 2.2 million barrels a day and looked to non-member producers Russia and Azerbaijan to make reductions of their own. Combined with the cuts Russia and Azerbaijan said they were prepared to implement, the OPEC move could take about 2.8 million barrels per day (bpd) off the market at a time of dwindling prices.

OPEC President Chakib Khelil, asked about the cut following a ministerial meeting here, said: “It’s 2.2 [million].”

Officials had earlier said the reduction would be on the order of 2 million barrels a day from the current output target of 27.3 million. “We did better than what you were expecting,” Khelil told journalists. “I hope we have surprised you.”

The OPEC action, designed to prop up prices, had the opposite effect on the market.

The price of New York crude oil sank to the lowest point in four and half years, nearing $40 per barrel. In late afternoon trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange, light sweet crude for delivery in January tumbled to $40.20 a barrel.

On London’s InterContinental Exchange, Brent North Sea crude for February slid $0.83 to $45.82 a barrel. The January contract had expired Tuesday at $44.56. OPEC ministers called the meeting here to block a steady slide in oil prices, which are now 70 percent off their high points of $147 in July, as demand dries up in recession-hit industrialized consuming nations.

Just before talks opened, Russia, which attended the session, and Azerbaijan said they were ready to cut their own oil production by about 300,000 barrels a day each.

OPEC officials had earlier appealed to nonmember producers to help them stabilize the market. OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem al-Badri said on Tuesday he wanted to see a cut of 500,000-600,000 barrels a day by nonmembers.

The appeal was renewed in the official statement.

“The Saudis are traditionally the moderates or ‘doves’ within the cartel and this call for so severe a cut is bad news for global consumers – unless any higher prices ultimately lead to fresh exploration and drilling,” said Cameron Hanover analyst Peter Beutel.

“The big problem with a production cut of 2 million barrels per day or more is that it will mean that OPEC will have cut nearly 4 million bpd this year, an amount unparalleled in history,” added Beutel.

Global economic momentum since July, when oil rates were at their highest, has all but collapsed as financial sector turmoil, brought on the by US subprime mortgage crisis, spread to the broader economy.

With some of the world’s leading industrialized oil consumers – notably the United States, Germany and Japan – already in recession and others such as China experiencing sharp growth slowdowns, demand for crude has plunged, taking prices with it.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency has said it expects global oil demand to fall this year for the first time since 1983 and OPEC officials themselves have voiced deep concern about the world’s dwindling appetite for their crude.

The price fall is already placing significant financial strain on several OPEC producers – Nigeria, Ecuador and Venezuela for example – that are heavily dependent on oil exports.

But OPEC’s ability to influence prices depends on whether the market believes the group will actually limit production. Its effectiveness is contingent on members’ obeying quotas and when prices and revenues are falling there is a particular need for discipline. Some producers cheat at the expense of others by failing to implement cuts, thereby increasing their revenues.

The main problem facing OPEC is that whatever steps it takes to reduce supply to shore up prices risks dampening demand further. – AFP

Mumbai Carnage: The Police Story stands shattered

Mumbai Carnage: The Police Story stands shattered

By Amaresh Misra

By ghulammuhammed

Mumbai Carnage: The Police Story stands shattered

By Amaresh Misra

Today, 18th December 2008, is a historic day. It marks the beginning of a process wherein my `theory’ about the Mumbai attack might just turn out to be true. But there is no joy. There is just an emptiness, a sadness at Karkare’s death and the killing of hundreds of innocents by the Hindutva-Mossad-CIA combine using factions in the ISI and International/Israeli mercenaries.
The Minorities Affairs Minister AR Antulay was once a firebrand leader. But he has been quiet for long–too long; today he spoke and questioned directly Karkare’s killing in the Parliament. Antulay is a cabinet Minister; he is not known to speak out of line. Despite Abhishek Singhvi’s remark distancing the Congress from what Antulay said, the latter, it seems, definitely has the sanction of the Congress High Command at some level. Anyone supposing something else is deluding himself/herself.
Here is the text of the Times of India report:

Maintaining that “there is more than what meets the eyes”, Antulay said Karkare was investigating some cases in which “there are non-Muslims also”, an apparent reference to the Malegaon blasts case in which sadhvi Pragya Thakur and a Lt-Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit were among the 11 persons to be arrested.
“Unfortunately his end came. It may be a separate inquiry how his (Karkare’s) end came,” he told reporters outside Parliament.
Antulay said “Karkare found that there are non-Muslims involved in the acts of terrorism during his investigations in some cases. Any person going to the roots of terror has always been the target, he said.
“Superficially speaking they (terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something. I do not know,” he added.
When he came under attack in Lok Sabha on the issue, Antulay sought to wriggle out saying he had not talked about who killed Karkare but about “who sent him in the direction” of Cama hospital, outside which he was killed.
“Who had sent them to Cama hospital (a lane opposite which he and two other officers were killed by Pakistani terrorists on Nov 26). What were they told that made them leave for the same spot in the same vehicle.
“I repeat what I had said. I had not said who had killed them but only questioned who had sent them there (Cama Hospital) in that direction,” he said in Lok Sabha where BJP and Shiv Sena members attacked him for his remarks.
Anant Geete of Shiv Sena accused him of “misleading” the house and sought Chidambaram’s clarification.
Earlier in the day, describing Hemant Karkare as a very bold officer having great acumen and vision, Antulay asked “How come instead of going to Hotel Taj or Oberai or even the Nariman House, he went to such a place where there was nothing compared to what happened in the three places?”
“Why all the three (Hemant Karakre, Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte) went together. It is beyond my comprehension,” the minister said.
The minister’s remarks came under immediate attack from BJP which asked the prime minister to clarify whether his remarks are an “individual misdemeanour or the collective wisdom of the Cabinet”.
“The remarks are obnoxious and deserves a clarification from the prime minister,” BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy told reporters.
Reacting to Antulay’s remarks, Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi they should be treated his “personal views” and Congress party does not agree with them and does not support such a formulation.
To a question, he said there was no question of embarrassment to the party.
Samajwadi Party MP Amar Singh, who himself was in the centre of a controversy when he had raised doubts over the killing of a Delhi police official in an encounter recently, said a senior leader like Antulay should before issuing any statement uphold the cherished tradition of collective wisdom of the cabinet.
Not completely disapproving the remarks, Union minister Ram Vilas Paswan said Antulay must be having “more information” since he hails from Maharashtra.
The issue came up when the house was discussing two bills brought in by the government to tackle terror against the backdrop of Mumbai terror attacks.
Geete said the prime minister and several senior union ministers have gone on record to say that Karkare was killed by terrorists.
Not satisfied with Antulay’s reply, Geete charged the union minister with “misleading” the house, which he “did not “expect”.

The basic evil/criminal intent of BJP-Shiv Sena politics along with their pathetic `soft’ and `hard’ supporters, stands exposed; the questions here are vital: a cabinet minister, not an Independent analyst, has questioned the Police theory about Karkare’s death. Note what Antulay is saying: WHO sent them there (Cama Hospital); how come they were traveling together?
This is exactly what we have been asking—Antulay’s statement means that that he is hinting at the role of some top functionary WHO SEND THEM THERE–(TO THEIR DEATHS)! Now put this in context with proceedings that have begun against AN Roy, the Mumbai DGP, Hasan Ghaffoor, the Mumbai Police Commissioner and the Maharashtra Home Secretary.
What do you get? That the entire Police story put forward by the likes of Rakesh Maria is suddenly under suspicion–so much for those savvy journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt. Rajdeep in fact quoted Maria as his source and a reliable, honest officer–if he had to sell himself I am sure he could have found a better buyer. He should have learnt from Javed and Teesta.
This means that the entire police version might be wrong! Which means that there is a question mark over Kasab and Ismail killing Karkare, Salaskar and Kaamte. Which means that Kasab and Ismail might not have killed the three; which then raises the question: who killed them? Was it the Mumbai Police top brass? Or the Gujarat ATS under Narendra Modi? Or a combination of the two–again–WHO SENT THEM THERE?
This means that there is sufficient doubt over Kasab’s version! Which means that Kasab’s entire story of how he killed the three officers, plus the entire thing that he is a Jehadi etc, is a plant, something which our Police excels in! Which means that the so-called CCTV grabs etc showing the footage of Kasab and Ismail were all fake! Aziz Burney of the Rashtriya Sahara Urdu and the Marathi Press has said this in so many words!
The Mumbai and the Indian Police has been known for keeping informers, ex-militants and Pakistani spies in illegal confinement or on their payroll. And then planting them in situations where either Police or the corporate-politician-bureaucrat nexus or foreign powers or Hindutva forces have carried out attacks and bomb blasts. This happened on numerous occasions say, in 2006 when the RSS Headquarters in Nagpur were attacked allegedly by `terrorists’, who then died in an encounter with the Nagpur Police. It later turned out, and this was proved by Jusice Kondse Patil’s report on this issue and by Suresh Khairnar, a veteran socialist and human rights activist, that these `terrorists’ were in fact people who had been killed by a non-Maharashtrian Special Crime Branch Police in a fake encounter and then brought and placed before the RSS Headquarters. The Nagpur chief of Police in fact went on record to say that his Police actually did not engage in any encounter!
Now comes a report that Kasab was actually kidnapped by RAW officials in Nepal in 2006. In fact a PIL has been filed in a Pakistani court and the Times of India carried a report on this in its 17th December Mumbai edition.
In my last piece I had mentioned the Red Fort case. Indians, including some leaders of so-called secular parties are so ill informed that they do not even remember there was a Red Fort attack! They only know of the Parliamentary attack, which was again a fake drama staged by the Delhi Police–the best part is that our wily parliamentarians know this! That is why they did not turn up to commemorate the `martyrdom’ of Police personal who died defending the Parliament!

Kasab is a fake; the real terrorists who came to Mumbai wreaked their mayhem and went back safely–some of them, as testified by eye-witness near Nariman House were definitely Israeli. The main aim of the entire operaiton was to eliminate Karkare and to create something so big that the Malegaon blast investigation pales in comparison.
But Karkare killers and Hindutva forces had the backing it seems of Manmohan Singh. Why else would Advani meet Singh before 26th November on the issue of `torture’ of Praggya Singh? Has anyone heard of a leader of the opposition meeting the Prime Minister on such an issue?
Apparently a deal was struck between them; and remember Advani could not have met Singh like this, without American mediation.
Was Sonia in the knowhow? Probably not–the Sonia angle is very important–there are reports that probably she was unaware of what happened on 26th November and that depite throwing in her lot with the Manmohan Singh lobby on other issues, she saw that their plan included upstaging her!
Karkare’s killing is the result of the larger fight between Hindutva-pro-Israeli, pro-American lobby which is now deeply entrenched in India and whatever is left of Congress’ old legacy in the establishment. Both these factions often unite, as they did against the Left on the nuclear deal issue. But the `old legacy’ faction does not realize that pro-US, pro-Israel lobby is planning to overthrow it–and maybe sink Sonia and Rahul as well!

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF THE CURRENT ESTABLISHMENT? NOT THAT THERE WERE SECURITY LAPSES AND INTELLIGENCE FAILURE–THE BIGGEST FAILURE IS THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COOK UP A FALSE STORY ABOUT A TERRORIST ATTACK–THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH A CONVINCING COVER-UP! EVERYONE WHO HAS SUPPORTED THE POLICE THEORY HAS TO ANSWER. THE VENGEANCE OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE WILL BE UPON YOU.

AND NOW COMES THE STARTLING FACT–KARKARE WAS KILLED BY A 9 MM BULLET–WHICH COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM AK-47 OR 56! WHERE IS HIS POST-MORTEM REPORT?

Traditional Abuse Patterns of Native Americans Still Prevails- lie to them, cheat them, then drive them back

Last resort: Natives stand up

Canadian government plays divide and conquer with Algonquin indigenous people over logging:

The indigenous Algonquin community of Barriere Lake has been fighting with the provincial government of Quebec and the federal government of Canada for nearly twenty years over their land. Blockades they have set up in the late 1980s stopped illegal logging on their land and led them to sign a Trilateral Agreement with the two governments. Today, the community claims the agreement and all others that followed have not been honored, while logging companies plan to resume operations. In an effort to exert pressure on the government and the logging industry, the community has set up several blockades in protest. In response, the community’s spokespeople and leaders have been arrested. Benjamin Nottoway, Barriere Lake’s customary chief has been arrested at the last blockade and sentenced to two months in jail.

Russia May Build Long-Planned Nicaragua Canal to compete with Panama Canal

Russia May Build Long-Planned Nicaragua Canal to compete with Panama Canal

By News Bulletin

Dec 20, 2008, 23:51

Email this article Printer friendly page

Several routes have been proposed for a canal in Nicaragua that would compete with the Panama Canal. File photo

A Nicaragua Canal which would compete with the Panama Canal by cutting off time and several hundred miles from the trip from China to Europe or North America. It would also carry larger ships.(BBC map)

Novinite (Bulgaria) - As relations between Moscow and Nicaragua are getting warmer, Russian media report that President Dmitry Medvedev is interested in the long-planed project for a Nicaraguan canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

The canal, plans for which exist since the early colonial era due to the favourable geography of the area, would compete with the Panama Canal and is supposed to carry bigger ships than the existing route.

Several possible routes have been proposed for a canal in Nicaragua, all making use of Lake Nicaragua, the second largest lake in Latin America.

If built, the Inter-Oceanic Nicaragua Canal would cut time and several hundred miles off the route from China to Europe or North America.

The idea for Russian participation in the project was reportedly discussed on Thursday as Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega began an official visit to Moscow, his first for 23 years, to discuss trade and economic issues as well as regional projects in Latin America with President Dmitry Medvedev.

Nicaragua was the second country, after Russia, to recognise last August the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two pro-Russian breakaway provinces of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

In September, Ortega received Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin in Managua to discuss a Nicaragua-Russia economic cooperation programme, which was an end to the long-term virtual freeze in relations between the countries.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=99941

window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad(); window.google_render_ad();

Christmas is a time, we are told, of goodwill to all mankind.

Christmas is a time, we are told,

of goodwill to all mankind.

Yuletide was a pagan feast, celebrated by Druids in ancient England. It was a time for collecting together and feasting: a time of the Winter Solstice when the world stood still in slumber, gathering its breath for a renewal and another Springtime awakening.

The New Year heralds days lengthening in Northern climes: the dark days of Winter are almost done.

At New Year it is traditional to make resolutions.

At this special family time, let us pause and remember all our brothers and sisters in struggle: those oppressed by tyrannical forces of evil: those who are cruelly incarcerated: those tortured for their beliefs: those persecuted simply because they hold different political desires, focus and objectives.

Let us at this special time remember the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq on the pretext of a moral cause: those being killed right now in Afghanistan simply because they desire freedom in their own land and stand in the way of venal Western oil barons.

Let us at this special time remember those in Palestine, whose country has been taken from them by force.

Those starving and dying in Zimbabwe, once the most verdant and self-supporting nation state in Africa: and all because British politicians were too stupid, lazy and egotistical to manage a fair transition.

The Amazonian Rain Forest Indians, a rapidly shrinking group, persecuted, despised, destroyed, neglected in the subtle siren’s call of progress.

Those families in both America and Britain, destroyed and perhaps homeless, by corrupt and greedy bankers and the laissez faire politicians who failed in their sovereign duties of regulation.

Those in the nation state which vainly boasts of being the wealthiest nation in this World who are starving; deprived; excluded and unwanted.

As we enter the New Year, let us make a special resolution for 2009: let us redouble our efforts to regain control of our countries from the hands of venal and self-serving politicians, in order that the dream of activists, moral reformers and social philosophers, human equity, might come to pass.

December, 2008

Fifty Years Of Drug Trafficking by CIA and Other Government People

Fifty Years Of Drug Trafficking by
CIA and Other Government People

This site, the books referred to, the related documents, can provide the you with evidence constituting case studies revealing the following:

  • Understanding the mentality and culture within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government entities that have inflicted catastrophic harm throughout the world, with tragic consequences upon the men, women, and families of the United States. Two of the most prominent areas in which the CIA’s conduct has had catastrophic consequences for Americans have been in its 50-year history of drug smuggling into the United States, and its role in generating hatred for the United States throughout the world.

  • As it relates to the role of terrorism against the United States, the books, Drugging America and Defrauding America, contains sections showing how the CIA aided the acts of terrorists. Several sections in Defrauding America relate to the role of a CIA-DEA drug smuggling operation to terrorism.

  • Most of the current media and public attention is focused on the matter of terrorism. However, the harm to national security, the harm to the people of the United States from then arrogant and corrupt war on drugs by America’s “leaders” constitutes a greater threat, and the source of far greater harm to the people, than the threat of terrorism. The terrorism threat has been a fortuitous event for the people in key government positions that were close to being exposed for their direct or cover-up involvement in drug smuggling by people acting under cover of government positions. Those people for whom all hope is lost, sentenced to life in prison or long prison terms, can get relief if enough good people would become aware of the evidence detailed in this and related Internet sites, in lawsuits, and in the print books, Drugging America, Defrauding America, and strange as it may seem, Unfriendly Skies. In addition, if the subsequent editions in E-book format (for downloading) are read, the ties between the corrupt war on drugs and the events of September 11, 2001, will become easier to understand.

SHARON ASTYK’S PREDICTIONS FOR 2009

SHARON ASTYK’S PREDICTIONS FOR 2009

PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 15 December 2008
ORIGINAL BLOGPOSTI’m writing this a little early this year – _Independence Days_ is due in a couple of weeks, and I anticipate a great deal of distraction as the end-of-the-year predictions really start pouring out, so I thought I’d jump the gun and make mine now.

But first, how did I do last year? (And note, just ’cause I got some right last year doesn’t mean that you should take my word as gospel – I don’t think that everything that comes out of my ass is the high truth, and neither should you ;-))

I called this year “Here be Dragons” arguing that this was when the maps we use to make sense of the world begin to fail us.  I think that was pretty accurate – I think most people still don’t really understand how badly our maps have failed us, how the operation of our economy, our ecosystem, our culture is simply different than what we’ve been taught.  I think we can all see that most experts are pretty lost too - not because they are simply stupid, but because they aren’t prepared to work off the map.  The stories we tell ourselves shape what we can see in the world – and the conventional narratives have undermined our understanding of the realities.

Here are my predictions for 2008 and my comments on how they came out:

1. This year, the words “peak oil” will go mainstream, but this mainstreaming will not be matched by a subtle or nuanced understanding of what the words mean. That is, peak oil will be used for political purposes, and not necessarily ones anyone will approve of.

- I called this one.  As oil prices rose, CNN and the rest of the MSM couldn’t get enough of PO poster boys Simmons and Kunstler.  But, of course it wasn’t really possible to create, in that media, a complex enough understanding for people to realize that peak oil hasn’t gone away just because prices have collapsed, that, in fact, for the long term, the collapse of prices probably ensures that we’re past peak oil.

2. By the end of the year, there will begin to be runs on preparedness equipment and food storage, a la Y2K.

- It wasn’t quite as dramatic in the equipment department as Y2K, although woodstoves and electric bikes were backordered like crazy.  But the big story was people fighting over bags of rice at Costco and other stores back in the spring. And unfortunately, for other reasons, I think we may see this one again.  Called it.

3. The NeoCons will not go gently into that good night – there will be at least one serious surprise for us. G-d willing, it won’t involve the word “nukuler” or any of its cognates.

- I’d give myself 50% on this one – I think the build up with Russia was indeed a final Neo-con attempt to make themselves seem like the best answer to a scary world (and Alaska as our DMZ), but it wasn’t as dire as I feared.

4. Hillary will not win the 2008 election. Neither, despite all the people who keep sending me emails saying he will, will Ron Paul.

- Got it.
5. The economy will tank. Yup, I’m really going out on a limb here.

- Got it.

6. Many of us will find we are being taken more seriously than we ever expected. We will still be taken less seriously than any celebrity divorce, however.

- This was certainly true for me – I don’t really know how John Michael Greer, Kunstler and Orlov, for example, felt about it, but I was surprised at how seriously my predictions were taken, and how few people thought I was over-reacting, even when doing, say ABC affiliate radio interviews.  But, of course, there are limits to seriousness - fairly few people really critiqued the worldview, but comparatively few people paid attention, either.

7. We’ll see food riots in more nations and hunger will increase. The idea of Victory Gardens won’t seem so crazy anymore.

- Yup.  31 nations and counting had some form of food riot this year.  And Michael Pollan wrote “Farmer in Chief” and the “White House Farm” idea hit the blogosphere.

8. The biofuels craze will begin to be thought the better of – not in time to prevent the above.

- Called it.  The collapse of oil prices of course is doing its own work, but even before that, we were finally seeing serious questioning of the premise of biofuels hit national discourse, at least in Europe.

9. We will see at least one more image of desperate people, walking out of their city becuase there’s no other alternative. And a lot of images of foreclosures.

Part one of this is the only one I got wrong, and that only partly.  People were walking out of Houston, and a whole lot of people were walking around looking for Gas in Memphis and Atlanta, but it didn’t quite have the resonance of Katrina or 9/11 – the media wasn’t paying attention, so it wasn’t the kind of iconic image that I was expecting.  The second part I called.

10. TEOTWAKI, if it ever happens, will be delayed long enough for my book to be released this fall and to make back at least the advance, so my publisher won’t have any reason to try and sue me ;-).

- I’m not sure, but I think I might have actually made back my advance by now (all 4K of it), and my publisher is still in business.  Who knows, I might actually make a pittance!

Ok, what about the coming year?  While I think 2008 was when most people first realized something was wrong, I’m going to go out on a limb here (ok, not a huge limb, but a limb) and say that 2009 will be the year we say that things “collapsed.”  I don’t think we’re going to make it through the year without radical structural changes in the nature of life in most of the world.   I’m calling it, a la Yeats’s “Second Coming” the “The Year ‘Its Hour Come Round at Last’”

What do I mean by collapse?  We throw that word around, but it is easy to misunderstand.  I mean that the US is likely to undergo a financial collapse a la the Great Depression - widespread unemployment, lots of people facing hunger, cold and the inability to get health care, a disruption of what we tend to assume are birthright services, and a sense that the system doesn’t work anymore.  I don’t claim that we are headed by Thursday to cannibalism, however – what I think will be true is that we will often do surprisingly well in the state of collapse, as hard as it is.

In previous years, I was fairly lighthearted about my predictions – this year, I don’t find it possible to be.  I really hope I’m wrong about this.  And I  hope you will make decisions based on your own judgement, not mine.  These are predictions, the results of my analysis and my intuitions, and sometimes I’m good at that.  But I do not claim that every word that comes out of my mouth or off my keyboard is the truth, and you should not take it as such.  You are getting this free on the internet – consider what you paid for it, and value it accordingly.

1. Some measure of normalcy will hold out until late spring or early summer, mostly based on hopes for the Obama Presidency.  But by late summer 2009, the aggregate loss of jobs, credit and wealth will cause an economic crisis that makes our current situation look pretty mild.  With predictions of up to a million jobs lost each month, there will simply come a point at which the economy as we understand it now cannot function – we will see the modern equivalents of breadlines and stockbrokers selling apples on the streets.

2. Many plans for infrastructure investments currently being proposed will never be completed, and many may never be started, because the US may be unable to borrow the money to fund them.  The price of globalization will be high in terms of reduced availability of funds and resources – despite all the people who think that we’ll keep building things during a collapse, we won’t.  We will have some variation on a Green New Deal in the US and some nations will continue to work on renewable infrastructure, but a lot of us are going to be getting along with the fraying infrastructure, designed for a people able to afford a lot of cheap energy, that we have now.  The most successful projects will be small, localized programs that distribute resources as widely as possible.

I pray that we will have the brains to ignore most other things and set up some kind of health care system, one that softens the blows here.  If not, we’re really fucked – the one thing most of us can’t afford is medical care as it works now in a non-functioning economy.  Unfortunately, my bet is that we don’t do something about this, but I hope to God I’m wrong.

3. 2009 will be the year that most of the most passionate climate activists (and I don’t exclude myself) have to admit that there is simply not a snowball’s chance in hell (and hell is getting toastier quickly) that we are going to prevent a 2C+ warming of the planet.  We are simply too little, too late.  That does not mean we will give up on everything – the difference between unchecked emissions and checked ones is still the difference between life and death for millions –  but hideously, regretfully and painfully, the combination of our growing understanding of where the climate is and the economic situation will force us to begin working from the reality that the world we leave our children is simply going to be more damaged, and our legacy smaller and less worthy of us than we’d ever hoped.

4. 2008 will probably be the world’s global oil peak, but we won’t know this for a while.  When we do realize it, it will be anticlimactic, because we’ll be mired in the consequences of our economic, energy and climate crisis.  Lack of investment in the coming years will mean that in the end, more oil stays in the ground, which is good for the climate, but tough for our ambitions for a renewable energy economy.  Over the long term, however, peak oil is very much going to come back and bite us all in the collective ass.

5. Decreased access to goods, services and food will be a reality this year.  Some of this will be due to stores going out of business – we may all have to travel further to meet needs.  Some will be due to suppliers going under, following the wave of merchant bankruptcies.  Some may be due to disruptions in shipping and transport of supplies.  Some will be due to increased demand for some items that have, up until now, been niche items, produced in small numbers for the small number of sustainability freaks, but that now seem to have widespread application.  And some may be due to deflation - farmers may not be able to harvest crops because they can’t get enough for them to pay for the harvest, and the connections between those who have goods and those who need goods may be thoroughly disrupted.  Meanwhile, millions more Americans will be choosing between new shoes and seeing the doctor.

6. Most Americans will see radical cut backs in local services and safety nets.  Funding will simply dry up for many state and local programs. Unemployment will be overwhelmed, and the federal government will have to withdraw some of its commitments simply to keep people from starving in the streets.  Meanwhile, expect to see the plows stop plowing, the garbage cease to be collected, and classrooms to have 40+ kindergarteners to a class – and potentially a three or four day school week.

7. Nations will overwhelmingly fail to pony up promised commitments to the world’s poor, and worldwide, the people who did the least harm to the environment will die increasingly rapidly of starvation.  This will not be inevitable, but people in the rich world will claim it is.

8. We will finally attempt to deal with foreclosures, but the falling value of housing will make it a losing proposition.  Every time we bring the housing values down to meet the reality, the reality will shift under our feet. Many of those who are helped will end up foreclosed upon anyway (as is already the case) and others will simply see no point in paying their mortgage when, by defaulting, they could qualify for lowered payments (as is already the case).  Ultimately, the issue will probably self resolve in either some kind of redistribution plan that puts people in foreclosed houses with minimal mortgaging, with foreclosures dragging down enough banks that people find it feasible to simply stop paying mortgages that are now unenforceable, or with civil unrest that leads people simply to take back housing for the populace.  I don’t have a bet on which one, and I don’t think it will be resolved in 2009.

9. By the end of the year, whether or not we will collapse or have collapsed will continue to be hotly debated by everyone who can still afford their internet service.  No one will agree on what the definition of collapse actually is, plenty of people will simply be living their old lives, only with a bit less, while others will be having truly apocalyptic and deeply tragic losses.  Some will see the victims as lazy, stupid, alien and worthless, no matter how many there are.  Others will look around them and ask “how did I not see that this was inevitable?”  Many people will be forced to see that the poor are not a monolith of laziness and selfishness when they become poor.  We will know that we are in our situation only in retrospect, only in hindsight – our children will have a better name for the experience than we will, caught up in our varied personal senses of what is happening  Meanwhile, each time things get harder most of us will believe they are at the bottom, that things are now “normal” and adapt, until it becomes hard to remember what our old expectations were.

10. Despite how awful this is, the reality is that not everything will fall apart.  In the US, we will find life hard and stressful, but we will also go forward.  People will suck a lot up and retrench.  It will turn out that ordinary people were always better than commentators at figuring out what to do – that’s why they stopped shopping even while people were begging them to keep buying.  So they’ll move in with their siblings and grow gardens and walk away from their overpriced houses, or fight to keep them.  Some of them will suffer badly for it, but a surprising number of people will simply be ok in situations that until now, they would have imagined were impossible to survive.  We will endure, sometimes even find ways of loving our new lives.  There will be acts of remarkable courage and heroism, and acts of the most profound evil and selfishness.  There will be enormous losses – but we will also discover that most of us are more than we think we are – can tolerate more and have more courage and compassion than we believe of ourselves.

An early Happy New Year, everyone.  May you know better than you deserve and see others at their best in these hard times.

Sharon

“E X P O S I N G T H E P O L I T I C S O F T E R R O R”

“E X P O S I N G  T H E  P O L I T I C S  O F  T E R R O R”

PRESS CONFERENCE

MARATHI PATRAKAR SANGH, CST, MUMBAI

20TH DECEMBER / 2 – 3 pm

SPEAKERS: FEROZE MITHIBORWALA (RASHTRIYA SAMAJ PAKSH – NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT),
KISHORE JAGTAP (AWAMI BHARAT – SPOKESPERSON),
DILIP BANSODE (BHARIP BAHUJAN MAHASANGH – PRESIDENT – MUMBAI)
MULNIWASI MALA (PHULE-AMBEDKARI VICHAR MANCH)

WE DEMAND A SPECIAL HIGH LEVEL PROBE INTO THE
DEATHS OF SHRI KARKARE, SHRI KAMTE & SHRI SALASKAR.

It is rather bewildering to see that despite the fact that both the government and certain sections of the corporate media are trying to supress the public outcry over the deaths of the three valiant ATS officers, the government is refusing to institute an inquiry commission to put all doubts to rest. The point is if it is also obvious as we are given to believe then why is the government runnning scared. That itself is raising doubts and creating more room for suspicion.

We also support the demand made by Shri A. R. Antulay and are thankful to him for having brought this issue to the centre stage of the national debate. The genie is out now. The only answer is that a probe be ordered. The remarks by A. R. Antulay have stirred the latent doubts amongst all communities and the popular perception far differs from what the media would have us believe.

As part of the “People’s Investigation” which we will thus have to undertake, some of questions are as follows:
1) The police version still states that Shri Karkare died of Ak-47 bullets. Our investigation shows that he was killed by 9mm bullets fired from a revolver that hit him in the neck. We demand that the Post Mortem report relating to all those killed be made public.
2) We demand that the phone records be made public as that will finally prove as to who was / were the individuals who sent the three officers to the Cama Hospital. It will reveal the names of the policemen and politicians involved and reveal their locations as well at the time of the calls.
3) Shri Karkare was known to be a meticulous officer and it is beyond us as to why he went unprepared to engage the terrorists.
4) At the time of the shooting at the Cama Hospital, why were not the policemen at the Azad Maidan Police station, barely 100 metres away, not called into action and the terrorists surrounded in Cama Hospital itself ?
5) Why the various conflicting reports in the media even regarding the time and place of their killings for the first few days? Why did not the police provide a clear picture of the events as they are trying to do so now.

The reason as to why the people do not trust the official police version as well as that of the establishment within the media is that the these sections had mislead and misinformed the people on the terror attacks at Malegaon, Jalna, Parbhani, Beed, Nanded, Kanpur, Ajmer and Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, Samjhauta Express, to state a few. The investigations by the ATS squad revealed that these terror attacks were being perpetrated by the terror cells of the Abhinav Bharat led by Purohit and Sadhvi Pragnya. The roots of these cells also ran into the Bajrang Dal, ABVP and into the Bhonsla Military school.

Moreover the media had been reporting verbatim the police version without any independent investigation, barring a few journalists and newspapers.

This irresponsible and uncritical reporting has caused untold damage to the fabric of the nation and has contributed to demonising a section of our society. Therefore it is very difficult to trust the government, the police and the media and all of them need to introspect if they will have to win back the faith of the masses. Thus a number of Muslim youth were wrongly arrested, tortured, maimed and labelled for life as terrorists for life the above blasts that were being traced to the Sangh Parivar. Those arrested were let of by the courts and thus the conviction rate is a dismal 1 – 2 % for all the brouhaha around us.

Thus the track record of the above sections that are coalescing together leaves much to be desired.

Who is answerable and accountable for individuals and families that have been destroyed. The judiciary needs to set a policy of checks and balances that will control a marauding police force with a increasing communal outlook that will compensate all those who are victims of false accusations and victimisation.

Also the point is that why are people refusing to believe that the deaths of the ATS officers are above board ??

The conditions prior to the terror attack were ranged against trhe BJP and the Sangh Parivar. This FACT none can challenge or discount. An entire infrastructure of terror was being slowly but surely unearthed much to the chagrin & dismay of the Hindutva Right. Leaders and newspapers of this section were clearly threatening Shri Karkare and this is no secret. Thus one direct impact of the deaths of the ATS officers will be that the investigation will be buried and the Sadhvi Pragnya’s and the Purohit’s be let of. And the terror network will remain intact to spread more terror.

Thus as the biggest gainer in this entire sordid terror episode is undoubtedly those political and social organizations that stood to be exposed and their nefarious terror gambit be laid bare. THUS THE SUSPICION AMONGST THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE !!

We also demand that Ratan Tata apologise to the courageous members of the police and the armed forces who he says were inept at countering the terrorists.

The fact is that the terrorists had weapons and ammunition to last them for 60 hours. All of that was not broght in merely in a rubber dingy. Undoubtedly a vast number of weapons had been stocked in both the Taj and the Oberoi prior to the arrival of the terrorists. This factor is crucial to the investigation as this could not have happened without inner complicity. Also even though R. Tata had recieved adequate warnings he refused to comply with the security requirements “so as not to inconvenience the guests” This apathy led to the deaths of hundreds.

Moreover R. Tata has stated that he will be approaching “external agencies” (read MOSSAD) for his internal security. The privatization of security, defence & armaments will undermine our national security. Ratan Tata has tied up with Israeli & US aerospace and arms production companies.

We thus stand by our earlier poistion that certain political forces from within our country organized this terror attack with the help of the American CIA and the Israeli MOSSAD who organzied the mercenary-terroists from Pakistan to attack Mumbai. A genuine terror attack was required if
• India was to further align itself within the US-Israeli orbit and every terror attack has served this agenda. Any doubts on this FACT. Every terror attack isolates and demonisesd Indian Muslims and creates space for Bush and Israel style tactics.
• Finally with the Indian elite being targeted the warmongering reached a feverish pitch which was never the case till the Aam Aadmi faced the brunt.
• The US that is enmeshed in a losing quagmire in Afghanistan needs Indian troops to intervene as its European NATO allies are fast deserting the sinking ship. The USSR lost the war with 3.5laks troops and the US with 1.5 lakh stands little chance. Thus every attempt is being made to pressurise Pakistan to carry on waging the war in Afghanistan and the Mumbai terror attack does serve the US interests in the region.
• Worse India’s task is to contain, threaten and wage war if need be against a Nuclear armed Pakistan. The crisis in the region is of the making of the US-Saudi-Israel and Pakistan and we would be best advised to avoid taking the American bait as that will only spread devastaion and war for India & the entire region.

For those who think that this theory is farfetched, they only need to STUDY the operations of the CIA and the MOSSAD within Pakistan.

FACTS:
• As all are aware the CIA has deep roots in Pakistan.
• The ISI chief Lt. General Shuja Ahmad Pasha is an American appointee.
• The Military Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is also a US appointee.
• US blocked the recent attempt by the civilian government to control the ISI and the Military and infact it is the US that wields far more influence within these sections, far more than the civilian government.
• The ISI and the Pakistan Military are no. 3 on the list of US financial aid after Israel and Egypt.
• Time and again the CIA and the MOSSAD have organized these terror gangs to strike at targets in Bosnia, Chechenya, Kosovo, Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia, South America and other regions of the World.In fact Lashkar e Taiyaba played a role in Bosnia via the ISI-CIA nexus.This is all on record and the dissenters are welcome to challenge us publicly.
• The American school for training terrorists is in Fort Benning, Georgetown – “School of the Americas” also called the “Western Hemisphere School for Security Co-operation” (www.soaw.org) This is the worlds premier institute for terror training and especially reviled across South America that faced the brunt of the US backed death squads.
Since now the media has rightly raised the spectre of the involvement of Dawood Ibrahim in the terror attack, we need to further deeply investigate the matter. Undoubtedly Dawood works for the ISI in its nefarious activities ranging from narco-terrorism, money laundering, smuggling etc. All of these factors go into creating a terror industry.

The fact that is not being stated is that Dawood has for a long time been a CIA ASSET. According to an imporatnt article by Jeremy Hammond who is the editor of the much respected “Foreign Policy Journal”, Dawood has been working for the CIA-ISI combine especially in its drug operation in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Europe. Russian writer Vladimir Radyunin had written about the role of the CIA in the increasing heroin cultivation and production in Afghanistan and the threat that it poses to Russia due to the widespread & increasing availibilty of refined heroin. The site ciadrugs.com will give all the necessary references to anyone who cares enough to research the matter and that is only to begin with.

Nariman House and the Israeli factor

One issue that continues to befuddle and boggle the mind is why Nariman House. Why was a building in a Colaba gaothan attacked. The common answer is that they were targeting Jews. Agreed !!

But why not attack the Israeli consulate located at Nariman Point barely a kilometre from the Oberoi, instaed of going all the way into the bylanes of Colaba into a building with no strategic value. Surely the Israeli consulate would seem far more probable.

We belive that the Jews who were killed were targeted as they were NOT ZIONISTS.

There are two clues in this direction:

1) During the funeral the family of the slain victims refused that the Israeli flag be draped over the coffin and angrily said that “WE ARE NOT ZIONISTS”.

2) Inspite of continued insistence of the Israeli authorities, the Nariman House family refused to upgrade the security of their building and said that they had faith in their God (YAHWEH). Thus the fact of the matter was that unlike most Jewish families who are extremely security conscious, the Holtzbergs refused to undertake even the basics which even any Mumbaikar would look into.

For those who even have an elementary knowledge of the history of the struggle within the Zionists and the anti-Zionists Jews over a period of 125 years, the above theory and facts will make immense sense. (read A. Lilenthal)

Thus it is our stated position that it was the MOSSAD that had given Nariman House as one of the targets to the LeT terrorists.

We also condemn the role and the changing positions of the Pakistani government and the Military. Every effort should be made without any excuses and the LeT and Jaish terror infrastructure must be destroyed without delay and Hafeez Saeed and Azhar Mahmood as well as Dawood be arested and tried and sentenced.

The problem is that we are dealing with governments from both sides of the border that are closely allied to the US-israeli orbit.

Thus our struggle is to create a genuine nationalist anti-imperialist movement within India and across the region.

Specific Intelligence Inputs

It is a blatant lie that the RAW had failed in its task of gathering information and warning the government and the various defense related sections. The RAW had tapped into the satellite phones of the LeT, warned of the boat taking off from Karachi, photograhed the same from its spy plane, given specific co-ordinates to the Navy on November 19, that even intercepted the boat but let it pas due to the fake ID cards that were issued from Probandar (Gujarat). RAW had given the targets as Taj and Marriot, the time, 9 – 11pm and both the Centre & the State were aware of these facts. Thus the question is, inaction or complicity.

Also interestingly the CIA had warned the Indian government of the impending attack. The basic question is why did not the CIA warn the civilian government led by Zardari and Gilani and also pressuried the ISI and its terror gangs from calling of the attack.

Are not these obvious questions that we should raise ??

Draw your own inferences !!

There are other questions that will emerge as part of our “People’s Investigation”, that we will keep on putting out in the People’s domain. hard questions that will not be asked and answers that will remain buried.

That is the task ahead and the truth will prevail.

Satyamev Jayate !!

ORGANIZERS

SAYEED KHAN, VARSHA V V, AMOL MADAME, JAGDISH NAGARKAR, SHRIDHAR SHIRSAGAR, ARIF KAPADIA,
CHETNA BIRJE, RESHMA JAGTAP, JYOTI BEDEKAR, AFAQ AZAD, WINNIE THOMAS, TITO EAPEN, AVINASH KAMBLE, MUNAWWAR KHAN, HARSHAWARDHAN VARTAK, GHAZALA AZAD, IRFAN MULLA, INAYAT GAURAV KARIYA, HUSSAIN & ANIL

Pakistan & India: Of Jingoism & Objectivity

Pakistan & India: Of Jingoism & Objectivity

By SWARAAJ CHAUHAN

india.pakistan.kargil.jpg

Objective/fair reporting and debate have been the biggest casualty in the mass media and elsewhere in the past decade. Jingoism and bullying have managed to suppress voices of professionalism and reason. Here is a voice of reason from Pakistan.

(Unfortunately, in India and Pakistan the media/political discourse on Kashmir never takes into account the game plan, and geo-political stakes, of the world powers in Kashmir or even Afghanistan.)

Writing in the well-known Pakistani newspaper, The Dawn, Irfan Hussain writes: “Apart from religion, patriotism and misplaced national pride have probably been responsible for more mayhem and misery than any other cause in human history. And when patriotism and religion combine to fuel a conflict or a cause, the results are usually lethal.

“And now, the spectre of Hindu nationalism and Islamic jihad haunt the foreseeable future. Of these, the latter is global, cutting across national boundaries as Islam does not recognise political borders.

“But this is an oversimplification: most Islamic movements are linked to national causes, and not to dreams of world conquest and conversion. The Lashkar-i-Taiba, for instance, is dedicated to Kashmir’s liberation.

“Its goal in no way justifies its vile methods, but the context in which it is operating is to do with misguided patriotism… As we have seen over the last fortnight or so, the media in both countries have jumped in predictable directions.

“On Indian TV channels, there has been a steady drumbeat of macho warmongering of the worst kind. This has been matched by jingoistic posturing in Pakistan by a battalion of retired generals and diplomats, as well as professional hacks.

“All this sound and fury over the airwaves has presented the world with the unedifying picture of two hormone-driven teenagers spoiling for a fight. As Samuel Johnson said so perceptively back in 1775: ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’.

“Fortunately, leaders in New Delhi and Islamabad have shown more maturity than has been the norm in relations between the two countries.

“But there were some familiar knee-jerk reactions in evidence: visas for Pakistani civil society activists were blocked for no apparent reason. These are the very people opposing the jihadis in Pakistan, and whom India should be supporting.” More here…

Here is another article “Facing the truth” by Irfan Hussain, and I quote it in full: “Even in my remote bit of paradise, news of distant disasters filters through: above the steady sound of waves breaking on the sandy beach in Sri Lanka, I was informed by several news channels about the sickening attacks on Mumbai. My Internet connection is erratic and slow, but nevertheless, I have been bombarded with emails, asking me for my take on this latest atrocity.

Over the last few years, I have travelled to several countries across four continents. Everywhere I go, I am asked why Pakistan is now the focal point of Islamic extremism and terrorism, and why successive governments have allowed this cancer to fester and grow. As a Pakistani, it is obviously embarrassing to be put on the spot, but I can see why people everywhere are concerned. In virtually every Islamic terrorist plot, whether it is successful or not, there is a Pakistani angle. Often, foreign terrorists have trained at camps in the tribal areas; others have been brainwashed in madressahs; and many more have been radicalised by the poisonous teachings of so-called religious leaders.

Madeline Albright, the ex-US secretary of state, has called Pakistan ‘an international migraine’, saying it was a cause for global concern as it had nuclear weapons, terrorism, religious extremists, corruption, extreme poverty, and was located in a very important part of the world. While none of this makes pleasant reading for a Pakistani, Ms Albright’s summation is hard to refute. Often, the truth is painful, but most Pakistanis refuse to see it. Instead of confronting reality, we are in a permanent state of denial. This ostrich-like posture has made things even worse.

Most Pakistanis, when presented with the fact that our country is now the breeding ground for the most violent ideologies, and the most vicious gangs of thugs who kill in the name of religion, go back in history to explain and justify their presence in our country. They refer to the Afghan war, and the creation of an army of holy warriors to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then they go on to complain that the Americans quit the region soon after the Soviets did, leaving us saddled with the problem of jihadi fighters from all over the Muslim world camped on our soil.

What we conveniently forget is that for most of the last two decades, the army and the ISI used these very jihadis to further their agenda in Kashmir and Afghanistan. This long official link has given various terror groups legitimacy and a domestic base that has now come to haunt us. Another aspect to this problem is the support these extremists enjoy among conservative Pakistani and Arab donors. Claiming they are fighting for Islamic causes, they attract significant amounts from Muslim businessmen here and abroad. And almost certainly, they also benefited from official Saudi largesse until 9/11.

Now that government policy is to distance itself from these jihadis, we find that many retired army officers have continued to train them in camps being run in many parts of Pakistan. A few weeks ago, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, a prominent (and very loud) minister under both Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf, openly boasted on TV of running a camp for Kashmiri fighters on his own land just outside Rawalpindi a few years ago. If such camps can be set up a few miles from army headquarters, what’s to stop them from operating in remote areas?

Many foreign and local journalists have exposed aspects of the terror network that has long flourished in Pakistan. Names, dates and addresses have been published and broadcast. But each allegation has been met with a brazen denial from every level of officialdom. Just as we denied the existence of our nuclear weapons programme for years, so too do we refuse to accept the presence of extremist terrorists.

For years, it suited the army and the ISI to secretly harbour and support these groups in Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan. While officially denying that they had anything to do with these jihadis, money and arms from secret sources would reach them regularly. Despite our spooks maintaining plausible deniability, enough information about this covert support for jihadis has emerged for the fig-leaf to slip. And even if the intelligence community has now cut its links with these terrorists, the genie is out of the bottle.

Each time an atrocity like Mumbai occurs, and Pakistan is accused of being involved, the defensive mantra chanted by the chorus of official spokesmen is: “Show us the proof.” The reality is that in terrorist operations planned in secret, there is not much of a paper trail left behind. Nine times out of ten, the perpetrators do not survive to give evidence before a court. But in this case, one terrorist did survive, and Ajmal Amir Kamal’s story points to Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. The sophistication of the attack is testimony to careful planning and rigorous training.

This was no hit-and-run operation, but was intended to cause the maximum loss of life.

Pakistan’s foreign minister said that Pakistan, too, is a victim of terrorism. While this is certainly true, the rest of the world wants to know why we aren’t doing more to root out the training camps, and lock up those involved. Given the vast un-audited amounts from the exchequer sundry intelligence agencies lay claim to, their failure to be more effective against internal terrorism is either a sign of incompetence, or of criminal collusion. Benazir Bhutto’s murder, after an earlier attempt and many warnings, is a reminder of how poorly we are served by our intelligence agencies.

And while the diplomatic fallout from the Mumbai attack spreads and threatens to escalate into an armed confrontation, the biggest winners are those who carried out the butchery of so many innocent people. It is to their advantage to prevent India and Pakistan from coordinating their fight against terrorism. Tension between the two neighbours suits them, while peace and cooperation threatens their very existence.

The world is naturally concerned about the danger posed by these terror groups to other countries. However, the biggest threat they pose is to Pakistan itself. Until Pakistanis grasp this brutal reality and muster up the resolve necessary to crush them, these killers will tear the country apart.”

Past haunts the present in troubled subcontinent

Past haunts the present in troubled subcontinent

B.K.BANGASH/AP PHOTO
Supporters of Jamaat-ud-Dawa rally against restrictions and crackdowns on their organization on Friday in Pakistan. The charity organization delivers food, medicine, tents and social services better than the government.

Terrorist incidents prompt politicians to issue unequivocal declarations and the media to be definitive. An enraged citizenry’s pain has to be shared, anger assuaged, fears addressed. Governments have to do something, anything. But what, exactly, is rarely clear.

The limited policy options available after the Mumbai massacre illustrate the point.

India said the 10 attackers had

come from Pakistan. One option was to bomb or launch cruise missiles at suspect terrorist bases in Pakistan. The United States has done that in Syria, to stop the alleged traffic of fighters into Iraq. It is doing so in Pakistan, to stop the infiltration of Taliban into Afghanistan. But the U.S. counselled India not to go across the Pakistan border.

This case of “do as I say, not as I do” springs from the realization that Afghanistan cannot be won without Pakistan. If the Pakistani army has to guard its southern flank with India, it cannot help fight the Taliban in the north.

For years, Pakistan’s strategy has been to bleed India in Kashmir, the disputed Muslim-majority border state. It has done so through two proxy militias, from whose ranks the Mumbai murderers came. The gunmen did speak of Indian atrocities in

Kashmir and other well-documented ones against the Muslim minority in India.

Last week, Pakistan arrested the leaders of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, and froze the assets of both. It did the same with Lashkar’s parent charity organization, Jamaat-ud-Dawa.

This may be just a show. Pakistan had taken similar steps post-9/11, under American pressure, only to quietly let the

leaders go.

The groups were created by Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s primary intelligence agency. It wields enormous power – a legacy of the 1979-88 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It was the primary vehicle of the Central Intelligence Agency to funnel arms and money to the Afghan Mujahideen – the jihadists that Ronald Reagan loved.

Once the Soviets were driven out, the ISI remained active in Afghanistan and it branched out into Kashmir. The CIA had its Mujahideen, the ISI its Taliban and Lashkar. While the CIA jihad was deemed good, the ISI’s twin jihads were not.

The past haunts the present in other embarrassing ways. Among the militants arrested last week was the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attack, Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, a former Mujahid in Afghanistan. Yesterday’s hero, today’s terrorist.

America does not want to be reminded of any of this. This necessitates layers of deception.

It is said that the ISI has become a force unto itself, not totally under the control of the army. Or that it is under the army’s control but its rogue elements are not (like those rogue elements at Abu Ghraib). Or that the Taliban and other groups have outgrown ISI sponsorship and are independent.

So when President Asif Ali Zardari promises to crack down on the militants, he is putting on a show of his own. He cannot deliver. Two incidents show this is so.

On the night of July 26-27, his government announced that it was placing the ISI under civilian control, “with immediate effect.” The army intervened instantly and by 3 a.m. the order was reversed.

Post-Mumbai, he said he’d dispatch the director of the ISI to India to help with the probe. Within hours, the army had pushed him back.

Similarly, his conciliatory gestures toward India are taken with a grain of salt. He has adopted a softer stance on Kashmir. He has suggested a no first-use accord on nuclear weapons, something the army opposes. In September, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, he promised Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to expand bilateral trade.

But the Lashkar and Jaish champion a popular cause in Kashmir. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa delivers food, medicine, tents and social services better than the government.

The more Zardari talks of cracking down on these groups, the more he appears to be a puppet of the U.S. and India.

He is already seen as such. While his government says Pakistan’s sovereignty is sacrosanct, American drones roam inside Pakistan hitting suspected Taliban-Al-Qaeda targets and killing civilians, fuelling public anger. Zardari has either acquiesced to the covert operations or he is impotent.

On Thursday, thousands of Pakistanis protested, demanding a cut-off of the NATO supply line that runs from the port city of Karachi on land routes to Afghanistan.

Convoys have already been hit. Taliban-associated militants have torched supply depots, destroying hundreds of vehicles, including Humvees.

They have also ransacked nearly 900 tonnes of World Food Program shipments, prompting the agency to warn of Afghan starvation this winter. Suicide bombers continue to hit civilians as well.

Zardari argues, rightly, that Pakistan is a bigger victim of terrorism. Look, he says, I lost my wife, Benazir Bhutto, to terrorists. This year alone, 1,400 civilians have been killed.

Afghanistan’s problems over the last 25 years have spilled into Pakistan. If Afghanistan is yet to recover from being a failed state, Pakistan is in danger of becoming one.

Pakistan’s problems are beginning to spill into India.

Add to that the relevant internal problems of India (an alienated Muslim minority of 150 million), of Pakistan (weak democracy, strong army, growing Islamic radicalism), and of Afghanistan (tribalism, warlords, drugs, corruption).

Add also the bilateral tensions – Kashmir and the porous Afghan-Pakistan border that the Pushtuns/Taliban criss-cross at will.

There is, obviously, no silver bullet.

But it is encouraging that thoughtful people in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan do see the big picture. So does America, at last. The much-maligned George W. Bush played a key role in averting a possible Indo-Pakistan war in 2002; in defusing tensions after the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in July, allegedly with ISI support; and in the days after the Mumbai horror.

Barack Obama, too, sees the complex linkages. Besides promising more troops to Afghanistan, he has said that his priority would be to address the problems of the region.

Canada, worried over its own Afghan mission, should think along the same lines.

Haroon Siddiqui’s column appears Thursday and Sunday. hsiddiq@thestar.ca

Africa, AFRICOM and Proxy Imperialism

Africa, AFRICOM and Proxy Imperialism

PDF

Print

E-mail

Wednesday, 17 December 2008

by Mark P. Fancher africom2

Imperialism ain’t easy. Times change, and the neocolonial exploiters have to stay on their toes. They must encourage “the illusion of independence” in the formerly colonized world, the better to maintain effective economic control. “Enter Africa Command – better known as AFRICOM,” whose “mission is to conduct ‘sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.”  The key phrase is, of course “in support of U.S. foreign policy,” a point that has not been lost on African nations.

Africa, AFRICOM and Proxy Imperialism

by Mark P. Fancher

“Except for Liberia, not one African country has been willing to host AFRICOM’s headquarters.”

Oil company executives would love to get their hands around the necks of the so-called “pirates” from Somalia who have hijacked aircraft carrier-sized super tanker ships. How about the militants in and about the Niger Delta whose attacks on oil company pipelines, facilities and personnel have caused production shortfalls of more than 33 percent for certain operations in recent years?  U.S. generals probably fantasize about sending in elite squadrons to wipe out those guys. But they know that if they were to do that – oh boy, would there ever be a diplomatic and possibly economic price to pay later. They dare not even contemplate the repercussions of a failed mission. They have recurring nightmarish memories of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Somalia back in 1993.

Controlling an empire isn’t as easy as it used to be. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, European states and the U.S. bullied their way through the underdeveloped world. With an oppressive iron fist, and no concern about anything but profits, colonizers used their militaries and other government personnel to brutalize the “natives” and plunder natural resources. No apologies were needed because, early on, opponents were in no position to mount a serious challenge.

However, after liberation movements consolidated themselves and intensified their resistance, it was no longer expedient for western powers to use their own nationals to administer colonial territories. Faced with attacks by seriously angry freedom fighters, exploiters pretended to withdraw from the territories they dominated, and rely instead upon indigenous tyrants to do their dirty work in purportedly independent countries. Heads of state like Mobutu Sese Seko of Congo flagrantly betrayed their people, looted state treasuries and imposed mass terror on their domestic populations.

By the late 20th century, the Mobutus of the world had outlived their usefulness. In a growing climate of global concern about human rights and the ever-increasing political sophistication of oppressed populations, the bloodthirsty neo-colonial buffoons became all-too convenient targets for movements that challenged the hegemony of western governments and multi-national corporations in southern countries.

“Exploiters pretended to withdraw from the territories they dominated, and rely instead upon indigenous tyrants to do their dirty work.”

Maintaining an essentially colonial arrangement in a post-independence world required a new level of finesse. The new leaders of underdeveloped countries had to present themselves as small “d” democrats who, while scrupulous about avoiding (detectable) human rights violations and corruption, nevertheless had to maintain friendly relations with the west and assure continuing unfettered western access to the underdeveloped country’s natural wealth. Preservation of the illusion of independence also required that the west avoid using its own armed forces to carry out military operations in underdeveloped countries. The deployment of U.S. or British troops to these regions to address essentially local problems would be far too reminiscent of old-style colonialism, and the global backlash would be overwhelming.

All of this (particularly developments in Africa) contribute to exceptionally high levels of frustration in the Pentagon and in the corporate suites that set the U.S. military agenda. Generals and corporate executives stare helplessly at maps of the African continent. They see Sudan, Nigeria, Congo, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and other places where they are convinced that several strategically deployed battalions of American G.I.s could land, fire a few rounds, drop a few bombs and quell any disturbances that have jeopardized profits, er, uh …”democracy.” But because that is not an option in the modern world, they have decided that the best way to do their dirty work in Africa is to have Africans do it for them.

Enter a new U.S. military initiative called Africa Command – better known as AFRICOM. According to official statements, AFRICOM’s mission is to conduct “…sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.”  AFRICOM statements assert: “The creation of U.S. Africa Command does not mean the U.S. military will take a leading role in African security matters, nor will it establish large U.S. troop bases. Rather, Africa Command is a headquarters staff whose mission entails coordinating the kind of support that will enable African governments and existing regional organizations, such as the African Standby Force, to have greater capacity to provide security and respond in times of need.”

This doesn’t sound completely unreasonable until we re-visit that critical clause in the AFRICOM mission statement that explains that the command’s work will be “in support of U.S. foreign policy.” Why not in support of Africa’s interests?  Perhaps because more often than not, Africa’s interests are in direct conflict with those of the U.S. This point has not been lost on Africans themselves. Except for Liberia, not one African country has been willing to host AFRICOM’s headquarters. The operation has been forced to base itself in Stuttgart, Germany where it is expected to remain for the foreseeable future. Dig that. A military command that was purportedly established to benefit Africa has been banished from most of the African continent.

“Preservation of the illusion of independence required that the west avoid using its own armed forces to carry out military operations in underdeveloped countries.”

In the face of almost universal African rejection, the AFRICOM machine stubbornly moves forward. What’s happening in Africa that makes it so important for the U.S. to find ways to have African soldiers carry out military missions that the U.S. prefers not to carry out itself? Plenty. Consider Sudan where U.S. policy would be much easier if it were feasible to send troops in to effect a regime change. U.S. sanctions against Sudan’s current leadership bar U.S. oil companies from maintaining operations in that country, while other countries (most notably China) are very active there and make very large profits. U.S. frustration over its helplessness in Sudan most likely led the U.S. to stand virtually alone in the world when it characterized mass killings and torture in the Darfur region as “genocide.”

Genocide has a very specific definition in international law that relatively few outside of the U.S. believe describes the mass killings in Darfur. Some have speculated that the branding of the Darfur situation as genocide was a U.S. attempt to manipulate the United Nations into effecting a regime change in Sudan. A General Assembly resolution gives the UN a responsibility to intervene militarily if necessary to protect populations from genocide. But wouldn’t U.S. officials believe it to be far more convenient for AFRICOM to train, direct and support African troops to go into Sudan and take care of business in precisely the way the U.S. would like to see it happen, and according to a U.S. timetable?

Although AFRICOM’s use of proxies to play the role of “cop” could be very useful to U.S. interests, Africa does not always present straightforward situations where attacks on “bad guys” will make the continent safe for western corporations. Sometimes internecine conflicts can be good for business. For example, a 2005 Human Rights Watch report states that from 1998 to 2003, more than 60,000 persons died in conflicts over control of gold fields in northeast Congo. The violence involved “ethnic slaughter, executions, torture, rape and arbitrary arrest…” The report attributed significant responsibility to Metalor Technologies, a Swiss refinery; and AngloGold Ashanti, two foreign corporations that allegedly financed and fueled at least part of the conflict. When necessary, war can serve to either distract attention from corporate mischief, or it can be a means by which one party to the conflict is used to achieve corporate aims.

The potential for the manipulation of war is at the heart of one of the major concerns about AFRICOM. In Congo, there is quite a lot to manipulate. In addition to squabbles over gold fields, there are ongoing battles being fought between Hutu and Tutsi forces that formerly clashed in Rwanda, and which now fight in Congo because groups of Hutu fled into that country. In addition, other countries in the region have been drawn into Congo’s numerous battles from time to time over the last decade at a cost of millions of lives.

“From 1998 to 2003, more than 60,000 persons died in conflicts over control of gold fields in northeast Congo.”

Not long ago, the New York Times reported on still another point of conflict in Congo. Militia groups made up of renegade government troops have fought to control tin ore mines. In a town called Bisie, the proceeds from sale of tin as well as the collection of bribes for access have motivated one particular militia group to defend its control of a local mine even from a consortium of South African and British investors who claim to have purchased rights to the mine two years ago. According to the New York Times, the militia group shot at the consortium’s helicopter and otherwise forced the company’s representatives to flee.

In Bisi and other places with comparable circumstances, how does AFRICOM determine how and whether it will become involved? Does it brand the militia group a security threat and use African troops to suppress it so that foreign investors will have a clear path to Congo’s natural resources? If so, what are the legal, political, historical and moral implications of the U.S. government playing such a role?

Use of African military proxies in Congo, or any other African country, to effect a foreign economic and geo-political agenda is no less imperial than direct intervention. The people of any given country have a right to self-determination under international law that includes the right to decide how their resources will be used.  Thus, in an ideal world, the question for AFRICOM would not be whether force will be necessary to protect the interests of South African and British investors. It would be how can AFRICOM best facilitate truly democratic control of tin ore and other Congolese minerals.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world, and all indications are that AFRICOM (more so than other military units or operations) is more subject to political influence because of a radical break from centuries-old military command structure concepts. As part of what is characterized as an “interagency” leadership approach, AFRICOM will be staffed by a significant number of civilians from the State Department and other federal agencies. The implications of giving non-military personnel with political agendas opportunities to significantly influence, if not direct military operations is breathtaking.

Barack Obama supported the AFRICOM concept throughout his presidential campaign. As he settles into the White House, those who are concerned about the danger that AFRICOM poses to Africa will do well to intensify ongoing efforts to raise the level of awareness about it and help to build a consensus for AFRICOM’s de-activation.

Mark P. Fancher coordinates the National Conference of Black Lawyers’ AFRICOM Task Force.

Hezbollah Condemns Violation; Leb. Will Protest to UN

Hezbollah Condemns Violation; Leb. Will Protest to UN

Hussein Assi Readers Number : 424

20/12/2008 A few hours following the Israeli violation of Lebanese sovereignty and kidnapping of two Lebanese citizens from within the Lebanese territories, Hezbollah issued a statement in which it declared that the incident was a flagrant violation of national sovereignty and a shameless assault on Lebanon’s security.

On Friday, an Israeli occupation force violated the sovereignty and kidnapped two Lebanese citizens from the southern town of Blida near the border with occupied Palestine. They released them on Saturday after interrogating them for hours.

“This incident constitutes an aggressive act with respect to all international and legal norms,” Hezbollah statement read. It called on everyone to assume their responsibilities. “What’s the position of the UN Security Council over this direct and obvious violation to the international resolution 1701 and over this attack against civilians within the territories of their sovereign country? What would the international organization do to respond to the attack and prevent its repetition?” the statement wondered.

Hezbollah emphasized that “silence, which became the recurrent reaction, was tantamount to encouraging the aggression and colluding with it.” The Resistance party called on the Lebanese cabinet to take the appropriate and firm measure to face the newest Israeli aggression against the country, stressing that preventing attacks against the country and defending Lebanese with all possible means was the right of all Lebanese.

In the same context, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman on Saturday said he plans to protest to the United Nations after Israeli soldiers kidnapped two civilians near the border overnight. “Lebanon will send a protest letter to the United Nations as soon as the army reaches a final conclusion on the exact location where they were kidnapped,” Sleiman said according to a statement read out by Information Minister Tarek Mitri after a cabinet meeting. “Repeated violations of Lebanese sovereignty by Israel clearly show its attitude towards Lebanon,” he said.

For his part, Prime Minister Fouad Saniora also condemned the incident and called for a “halt to all Israeli violations whatever the pretext,” Mitri said. Saniora noted that “the Israelis do not cooperate with UNIFIL to define the blue line” established by the UN in 2000 to act as the frontier after the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon.

Earlier, Al-Manar’s correspondent in the south said that the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) received Tarraf Tarraf and his brother Hassan Tarraf, both aged about 50, and handed them over to the Lebanese army. In turn, the Lebanese army transported the men to the hospital for treatment from Israeli dog bites they sustained during interrogation by the Israeli army.
Lebanese security forces said that the men were kidnapped on Lebanese territory.

For his part, Tarraf Tarraf said he and his brother had been working in their olive grove near the border village of Blida when “Israeli soldiers attacked us, setting their dogs on us, before taking us trussed up to Palestine.”

They were beaten during transport and then interrogated for three hours about why they were in the area and whether they had links with Hezbollah, he said.

On Friday night, an Israeli army occupation spokesman claimed the men were arrested on for having “crossed the border.”

The Lebanese official said the army regards the incident as a violation of Lebanese territory, adding that a joint commission from the army and UNIFIL is making on-the-spot enquiries.

UNIFIL said the men were released after it contacted the Israeli authorities. “The Israeli authorities handed over the two Lebanese after the intervention of UNIFIL command,” spokeswoman Yasmina Bouziane said. “We are in contact with the Lebanese army and the Israeli forces and we call on all parties to show restraint,” she said, adding: “The circumstances of this incident are still unclear.”

Northcom Chief Vows to Address Worries About New Homeland Unit

Northcom Chief Vows to Address Worries About

New Homeland Unit

A senior military official pledged Wednesday to address congressional concerns about a new homeland emergency response task force that is designed to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Air Force Gen. Victor E Renuart Jr., commander of U.S. Northern Command (Northcom), also told reporters that the new force, which will eventually total 20,000 personnel, will not require new funding right now and is not meant to authorize the federal government to enforce martial law.

Last week, Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, complained that Congress had not been properly briefed on the new initiative, complicating its job as steward of the defense budget.

Renuart said that he planned to meet with Murtha in the coming weeks to discuss the program. “There have been some misunderstandings on the part of some in Congress on what this force is designed to do,” he said.

He said the unit, which is called the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF), will not require significant new funding from Congress.

The new task force has come under fire from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union that are concerned the move furthers the militarization of the homeland security mission. Critics also say the move could violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which aims to prohibit the federal government from using the armed forces in a domestic law enforcement capacity without congressional approval.

Renuart said the Pentagon does maintain a capability to impose order following a domestic crisis if law enforcement and national guard security efforts fail. But he added that he did not anticipate that scenario and it is not the mission of the new force.

“It is not a force designed to go in and enforce laws. The national guard is empowered to do that through the states,” said Renuart, “This force is designed to go and render assistance and aid, as opposed to create security.”

Terror finger points at Pak army

Terror finger points at Pak army

New Delhi, Dec. 20: The Centre is now viewing the Mumbai attacks as the direct handiwork of Pakistan’s military that trained and armed the militants and planned the strike in detail, top government sources are saying.

This is a shift from India’s initial response when foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee led the government in drawing a distinction at two levels — first, between the government in Islamabad and rabid “elements in Pakistan” and, second, between the civilian administration led by Asif Zardari and the military led by Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

India’s security establishment has also begun a series of high-level meetings to review the state of defence preparedness. There are concerns that the military’s inventory is wanting. In one of the meetings today, defence minister A.K. Antony authorised a fast-track procurement of equipment for the coast guard.

The nuanced change in Delhi’s views follows the interrogation of gunman Mohammed Ajmal, an analysis of the attack by ballistics specialists in the military and the conclusion that the attackers were trained professionally.

Mukherjee today said the attack was planned meticulously and that Ajmal had given a “chilling account” of who his handlers and trainers were. “This was cold and calculated murder. One of the terrorists, who has been captured alive, has given us a chilling account of his handlers. A few months earlier, the Indian embassy in Kabul was the target of a terrorist attack. The impunity with which these attacks are carried out is possible only because the safety of the handlers has been assured,” he said.

Mukherjee began signalling the change in stand from Friday. “The Mumbai terrorist attack is the latest instance of how sub-regionalism, regionalism and multilateralism are threatened by non-state actors with the aid of para-state apparatus. In the face of the gravest of provocation, perhaps the time has come now to fine-tune India’s priorities,” he had said.

“Para-state apparatus” is a phrase usually adopted by military and espionage agencies to argue that non-state actors operate with the support and shelter of a state but ensure that the links are deniable.

In Delhi, the suspicion that Pakistan’s military and Kayani knew of the attack even if he did not authorise it, is being strengthened. Officials cite a New York Times report that quoted CIA analysts as saying Kayani had prior knowledge of the Kabul attack.

In India, the military has almost always argued that militants based out of Pakistan are actively supported by the Pakistan army. Most recently, it cited the ceasefire violations across the LoC this year when gunmen in civilian clothes near Pakistani army pickets fired at Indian positions.

Naval commandos and the army-staffed Special Action Group of the National Security Guard, who led the counter-terrorist operation in Mumbai, have pointed to the dexterity with which the attackers handled their weapons and used their ammunition.

The Indian Army believes such terror outfits cannot be curbed unless the Pakistani military’s war-waging potential is severely damaged. Delhi is now closer to this view than it was immediately after the attacks. But the Centre wants to convert the global sympathy for India into support.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Mukherjee are likely to meet heads of Indian missions early next week in Delhi. Already, the government has shared information on the investigations with the heads of 13 missions of countries whose nationals were killed in the attacks.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice today said the steps taken by Pakistan were “not nearly enough” and asked it to keep on working to “really deal” with terrorism to help ease the “crisis” with India, PTI reported from Washington.

Top

Shut Down Anglo-Saudi Global Terror Apparatus Behind Mumbai Attack

Shut Down Anglo-Saudi Global Terror Apparatus

Behind Mumbai Attack

Jeff Steinberg

For the first time in living memory, an international spotlight has been focused on the British Empire’s guiding hand behind global terrorism. It took the stunning 72-hour attack on the Indian port city and financial capital of Mumbai, from Nov. 26-29, to focus world attention on “Londonistan,” the capital of international narco-terrorism.

In league with a network of Saudi Arabian based “charities,” Great Britain has been singled out for its role in harbouring, recruiting, and financing an alphabet soup of religious, ethnic, racial, and tribal irregular warfare fronts, capable of launching destabilizations-on-warning in every part of the globe.

This irregular warfare apparatus, in turn, is dependent on a global underground economy of illegal drug and weapon traffickers, money launderers, and other criminals. The seeming paradox of religious fundamentalist organizations of all stripes being in bed with some of the world’s most violent criminal organizations, is no paradox at all, when considered from the standpoint of London’s imperial divide-and-conquer methods.

It is this broad apparatus, above and beyond the subsidiary MI6-created Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), and its terrorist fronts such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which was behind the Mumbai attack, and which is now feeling the heat of a growing international investigation.

Furthermore, with London growing increasingly uncomfortable with the incoming Barack Obama Administration in Washington–as more and more Cabinet and White House posts go to veterans of the Clinton Administration and key figures in the patriotic American military/intelligence institutions–the spectre of more such asymmetric warfare attacks as the Nov. 26-29 assault on Mumbai must be anticipated and pre-empted.

Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly warned of the danger of a London-ordered assassination of the U.S. President-elect, particularly during the period before his Jan. 20, 2009 inauguration–while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are still in charge.

The threat to Obama is not at all unrelated to the fact that U.S. institutions, as distinct from the Bush-Cheney White House, are moving directly against this British-Saudi nexus of terrorist support. These moves, immediately aimed at preventing a London-orchestrated new war on the Indian subcontinent, between the two regional nuclear weapon states, pit certain U.S. circles directly against British intelligence and the City of London financiers, who stand behind the international drug trade, long ago labelled by EIR as Britain’s Dope, Inc.

The current drive to shut down the Anglo-Saudi hub of world terror, and the role of U.S. institutions in abetting this fight, has dramatic implications for the larger battle over who will define the new international financial system, which will certainly be erected atop the corpse of the present, hopelessly bankrupt post-Breton Woods “globalized” financial arrangements.

The Anglo-Dutch forces would sooner plunge the entire planet into a “new dark age” of permanent warfare and genocide, rather than permit a revival of the kind of post-imperial world envisioned by the late American President Franklin Roosevelt–a world of collaboration among perfectly sovereign nation-states. Thus, the ongoing fight to get to the bottom of the Mumbai attacks takes on the highest strategic significance.

- The Mumbai Probe -

According to senior U.S. intelligence sources, the first warnings to Indian security services about a pending terrorist attack on Mumbai–months prior to the Nov. 26 seaborne assault–came from Washington. U.S. intelligence agencies, as part of their ongoing focus on the Pakistan/Afghanistan theatre of operations, intercepted communications about a planned attack on Mumbai, transmitted through a satellite communications network housed in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), used by a wide range of “jihadi” organizations and networks. U.S. intelligence passed the information to New Delhi.

The U.A.E. communications link, according to the U.S. sources, is part of a global network, cantered in the Persian Gulf, that provides a range of services, including large amounts of cash, to organizations based in the no-man’s-land along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, including the Pakistani North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), as well as in Pakistani Kashmir.

The same apparatus provides similar support to Salafi networks operating in the Balkans, Chechnya, Somalia, Kenya, Iraq–and even the United States.

Evidence of the pivotal Anglo-Saudi role in this global apparatus was already being compiled by U.S. intelligence services long before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

For example, on Aug. 21, 1997, U.S. agents of the CIA and FBI, accompanied by Kenyan police, raided the Nairobi home of Wadih el-Hage, the personal secretary to Osama bin Laden, and a subsequent mastermind of the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Among the documents and computer files confiscated in the raid were lists of prominent Saudi bankers, including Salah al-Rajhi, the co-director of the $26 billion al-Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp.

The Saudi Arabia-based al-Rajhi Bank has been identified by U.S. investigations as a major source of funding for al-Qaeda and related Salafi networks worldwide. The chairman of the bank, Sulaiman Abdul Aziz al-Rajhi, was identified in March 2002 as a member of the Golden Chain, a network of al-Qaeda funders, whose names were discovered in a raid on the Sarajevo, Bosnia offices of the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), a Saudi charity.

Al-Rajhi was also the financier and sponsor of a network of Islamist fronts in the United States, referred to as SAAR (the initials for “Sulaiman Abdul Aziz al-Rajhi”), which was shut down by U.S. authorities on March 20, 2002, in a series of raids in Northern Virginia. A CIA report the next year warned, “Islamic extremists have used al-Rahji Banking and Investment Corporation since at least the mid-1990s as a conduit for terrorist transactions…. Senior al-Rajhi family members have long supported Islamist extremists and probably know that terrorists use their bank.”

Some of the terrorist funds laundered through the al-Rajhi Bank disappeared into what was described by one of the investigators as a “black hole” of non-existent “charities” located on the British Isle of Man–the scene of “offshore”–unregulated–banking activities.

The British links to al-Rajhi Bank and scores of other jihadi fronts with Saudi ties, run very deep–beginning with the fact that half of the 2 million Muslims living in Great Britain are from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, including leaders and top financiers of nearly all of the organizations now under investigation for the Mumbai attacks. Dating back to the late 1990s, particularly following the 1999 Air India hijacking by Kashmiri separatists, the Indian and Pakistani governments have both filed formal diplomatic protests to the British Foreign Office, charging that the British government has been harbouring and financing known terrorists.

In some cases–like the al-Rashid Trust–the British hand behind the very terror networks that staged the Mumbai attack, is blatantly out in the open.

On Sept. 23, 2001, just days after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department designated al-Rashid Trust as a “financial facilitator of terrorism.” The Treasury Department cited the London-based website “Global Jihad Fund” as a major source of financing of al-Qaeda, along with Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, with the funds passing through the al-Rashid Trust. An Oct. 26, 2001 report on al-Rashid Trust, published in Asia Times, noted that the Trust raises money in the Middle East and “everywhere Pakistanis can be found, especially in Britain.”

At the time of the Treasury listing, al-Rashid Trust was headed by Maulana Masood Azhar, one of the terrorists released by the Indian government in exchange for the 180 hostages aboard Air India flight 814, which was hijacked in 1999 and brought to Kandahar, Afghanistan. Azhar was arrested by Pakistani authorities on Dec. 8, 2008, as part of the post-Mumbai crackdown. He was identified as the head of the Jaish-e-Mohammad.

- Air India Hijacking, Revisited -

The 1999 Air India hijacking also resulted in the freeing of British terrorist Ahmed Omar Sheikh, a London School of Economics student-turned-jihadi, who would later murder kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl at the offices of al-Rashid Trust in Karachi, Pakistan. After the Air India hostages were freed, the British government offered to give asylum to the British-born Sheikh, on the grounds that he had never been charged with a crime on British soil. The Indian government filed a formal diplomatic protest.

The Pearl murder, for which Sheikh has been convicted and is awaiting execution in Pakistan, also involved Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, the man identified as the actual author of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, the Air India hijacking brings the London-Saudi roots of the present Mumbai probe back, full circle.

That 1999 hijacking was masterminded by Dawood Ibrahim, a Mumbai-based gold smuggler, and boss of the Mumbai underworld, who fled to the British offshore banking haven of Dubai, following another major terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001. Ibrahim later surfaced in Karachi, where he is currently based, but he maintains an active presence in the Indian underworld, laundering gold through “Bollywood” movie productions, and running smuggling operations through the Mumbai port. Dawood Ibrahim’s apparatus has been identified as the key on-the-ground facilitators of the Nov. 26-29 Mumbai onslaught.

From London-based and British government-protected Pakistani and Saudi fundraising networks, to a vast circuit of fundamentalist mosques and madrasas (schools) all over Britain, to the parallel networks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, this global narco-terrorist structure is now being spotlighted, as never before.

As more and more details surface of the buildup of this British intelligence-sponsored jihadi apparatus, over the decade of the 1990s, EIR will revive our January 2000 push for the U.S. State Department to consider whether Great Britain should be put on the official list of state sponsors of terrorism (see EIR, Dec. 12, 2008 for excerpts from our memorandum). Such action, even at this late date, may prove to be the most effective deterrent against an otherwise imminent eruption of global asymmetric warfare, in which the Mumbai attacks may prove to be the Sarajevo of the 21st Century.

Book review: When prime ministers bowed to jihad

Book review: When prime ministers bowed to jihad

by Khaled Ahmed

Pakistan: Fauj aur Mullaon kay Darmiyan;

By Hussain Haqqani;
Translated into Urdu by Shafiqur Rehman Mian;
Vanguard Books Lahore 2008;
Pp308

Shafiqur Rehman Mian has done a good job of translating a book that is full of terms not always easy to render in Urdu. He goes for the easier version, eschewing the more precise but more heavily Arabised words in vogue these days. For instance Divide and Rule is less accurately but more readably rendered as larao aur hakumat karo.

Husain Haqqani’s English version was Pakistan: between Mosque and Military (Vanguard Books). He holds that Pakistan’s textbook nationalism is India-centric and any attempt at changing this indoctrination is robustly resisted in Islamabad. In the post-2000 period, most of the attempts made by the Musharraf government to detoxify the textbooks had failed. This move was aimed at eliminating two elements in the books: the anti-India (strategic depth) reference and its corollary, the reference to Islam (internal fusion of identities in order to face India effectively).

Anti-Indianism necessitates the dominance of the army and the army needs Islamisation to secure its back as it faces India. The opposition in Pakistan wants the army out of power but wants to retain the textbook nationalism, a policy that contains two mutually destructive passions. The only party capable of grasping the importance of altering the nature of Pakistan’s nationalism — the PPP — is humbled by the brainwash of the Punjabi vote-bank in favour of this nationalism.

Haqqani reveals that after Nawaz Sharif got the divided mujahideen to agree to an interim government after the fall of the Najibullah regime in Kabul, Pakistani army helicopters actually flew Hekmatyar and his men to a place outside Kabul so that he could take over as a member of the mujahideen cabinet. Pressured by the ISI and his IJI cohort, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Nawaz Sharif had toed the line on Hekmatyar, but he was becoming aware that Hekmatyar had no support among even the Pushtun mujahideen.

During his first tenure he did try to ‘balance’ the Afghan policy, but the cumulative pull of the ISI and Jama’at-e Islami on his vote-bank was too strong for him to resist. In 1993, after the Nawaz Sharif government was ousted from power and Ms Bhutto once again returned to rule Pakistan, the establishment was still rolling with its old momentum. Even the intelligence agencies under her were divided. Hameed Gul ‘cells’ existed in the ISI and the ‘professional’ army chief continued to feel weak and besieged by the ghost of General Zia.

Ms Bhutto was even more vulnerable to the pressures the military put on her with regard to the Kashmir policy, which was clearly falling apart in the mid-1990s, with the US declaring the big operator in Held Kashmir — the Harkatul Ansar militia — a terrorist organisation. The new ISI chief General Javed Ashraf Qazi told the Americans he knew nothing about the banned Harkatul Ansar and therefore could not arrest any of the Harkat leaders. The banned militia resurfaced as Harkatul Mujahideen, which was to become the most dreaded military arm of Al Qaeda in the days to come. The generals thought as one on Kashmir and India.

This is one thesis on which Haqqani cannot be faulted: from Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan to Ziaul Haq, Jehangir Karamat and Musharraf, Islamist and non-Islamist generals alike, were unwilling to help a prime minister shift away from an India-centric worldview. Nawaz Sharif and Ms Bhutto were both blackmailed into pretending to advance the Kashmir policy and actually use it as a plank during election campaigns. It is moot if the weak ‘professional’ army chiefs too were similarly blackmailed.

The second PPP tenure also saw the Hamid Gul ‘cell’ type of rogue military officers masterminding a takeover which would be politically fronted by philanthropists like Abdus Sattar Edhi and Imran Khan. (Haqqani doesn’t mention Imran and is skimpy on detail.) This was followed by an actual attempt at an overthrow in 1995 led by a major general who was ‘allegedly’ patronised by an ex-ISI chief.

A ‘weak’ army chief was also to be targeted by the coup-plotters together with Ms Bhutto and her government. Was the next ‘weak’ (professional) army chief General Jehangir Karamat able to punish the coup-plotters? Evidence is that he avoided confronting the ‘strong’ elements within the army whom a more thoroughgoing ‘correction’ would have offended.

General Javed Nasir kept snubbing the weak army chief even after he was ousted from the ISI. Haqqani reveals that he authorised the 1993 attack, through Indian underworld figure Daud Ibrahim, on the Bombay Stock Exchange, which killed 250 as a revenge for the destruction of Babri Masjid by Hindu fanatics. That was the year that Javed Nasir was prematurely retired from the ISI, only to be given a more important ‘India-related’ job in the Evacuee Property Trust in Lahore regulating the Sikh properties in Pakistan and therefore the traffic of Sikhs to their shrines.

Who gave him the job? Javed Nasir’s list of ‘enemies of Islam’ at the ISI included ‘the United States, Hindu leadership of India and the Zionists’. Musharraf fired him from his Lahore job also in 2002. His pro-Kargil Operation articles in the press, written in the low-IQ but highly spiritually uplifting style of Hamid Gul, did not save him in the end.

When Nawaz Sharif came to power for the first time (1990-1993), he was steamrollered into pushing the Kashmir policy. Despite Foreign Secretary Shaharyar Khan’s reasoned argument that Kashmir could not be won through jihadi militias, he inclined in favour of the ISI, making the clandestine Kashmir policy more clandestine in the face of rising American objections.

The covert policy swung out of control under Ms Bhutto in 1993 as Mast Gul, a Jama’at-e Islami hero of Charaar Sharif, was paraded in the streets of Pakistan by the ISI against her wishes, during which Mast Gul condemned her government! She appealed to the US to come to her help ‘against militancy and terrorism’ but the truth is that militancy and terrorism were emanating from the military and the American routine was to support whoever was powerful so as not to ‘go against the people of Pakistan’.

Haqqani narrates the story of how in 1998 Nawaz Sharif was compelled to mend fences with Muridke near Lahore when the Governor Punjab and the federal information minister called on its leader and praised him and his terrorist forays into India.

He also mentions the October 2001 attack by Jaish-e Muhammad on the Kashmir assembly in Srinagar. It first owned it, but later denied it. Then in December the same year Lashkar-e Tayba attacked the Indian parliament, bringing the Indian army eyeball-to-eyeball with the Pakistan army on the borders. Musharraf arrested Hafiz Saeed but let him go after keeping him in safe custody for some time. In Urdu, the book reads like treason. *