Wahabbi Troops Burn Qurans, Level Mosques in Bahrain

Wahabbi Troops Burn Qurans, Level Mosques in Ba…, posted with vodpod

Wahabbi Troops Burn Shia Mosques in Bahrain

Wahabbi Troops Burn Shia Mosques in Bahrain, posted with vodpod

Khawarij: Has the Destructive Ideology Reincarnated? PART II

1979: Rebirth of Kharijites and Road to Pakistan 

 pakpotpourri2Ahmed Raza

The process of polluting Muslim school of thought started well before the incident of 1979 by radical ideologies like Egyptian ex-Communist Sayyid Qutb. He declared that a Muslim is either a “revolutionist” or an infidel, and went so far as to declare all the Islamic societies of his time apostate and fit to be overthrown, invoking the memory of the original Kharijis.

Leo Strauss an American philosopher also famous to be the God Father of the Neocons was responsible to draw a parallel theory of American nationalism on the lines Qutb’s apostate theory of own and other Islamic nations. Similarity lied in the aim, destruction of Islamic Civilization for Khawarijs and subsequent control of west on 60% of world’s energy resources for Americans Neocons. The only difference was the basic foundation on which both the extremists were drawing the lines. As Strauss was in knowledge of the divorce between the Church and the State long before his era, concentrated on selfish individualism of American masses and used the ideology of American Nationalism to its optimum. The said treatment was claimed to be done by Strauss to stop the decaying process of American society.

On the other hand, the strong concept of a religious Statesman in Islam couldn’t really diffuse the importance of religion; this made Sayyid Qutb to use religion as the driving force against the rulers of the Muslim world especially in Egypt. He was executed after a short trial conducted by Egyptian Government in 1966, but the seed to violence was sewed in the land of Islam.

After the death of Qutb, Aiman al Zahawari the die-hard follower of Sayyid Qutb took charge of protests launched after the execution of his ideal; the Egyptian started his agenda of polluting the Muslim societies with his takfiri ideology basing on the very foundation laid down by his master.

In a BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmare”, Aiman Al Zahawari has been shown leading the slogans against the Egyptian Government in a jail. Something very exceptional can be easily pointed out that Zahawari was reciting an incomplete Kalmaa (Tayyaba) ie “La Illaha Ilallah”, not reciting “Muhammad ur Rasool Allah”. This indeed shows an in different attitude towards the prophet of Islam, again invoking the memory of first Kharij, who was disrespectful to the prophet in one of the gatherings. The head shaved bearded man was from tamimi tribe and when he left the scene, prophet told his companions that “in his descend people will come who will be the worst creatures on this earth”.  Those who will kill them will be best rewarded by Allah swt. “They will look more religious in their deeds and will apparently propagate concepts which will not be in contravention to Islam but latently follow their evil agenda”. “They will use young innocent minds for their evil designs”. “They will kill Muslims and leave non-believers”.

Now nexus between Neocons and Khawarij was in evitable, the Muslim world couldn’t realize the depth and in turn horrific result of the said nexus. Factually speaking this was the second time this nexus was worked out in the history of Islam. It was in 11^th century during Crusades when Sultan Salah Uddin Ayubbi was fighting for the holy lands and from inside Hassan Bin Sabbah was busy in his terrorist activities through his suicidal attacks from the Castle of Death. Even, one of the bravest General of the Muslim history could not root out Hassan bi Sabbah until he was killed by furious Tartars.

After pulverizing the Arab societies especially in Middle East and North Africa, the satanic ideology of Kharjites was picked up by Western powers (Neocons) to use their barbaric cruelty for their own agenda. The said western schema was indeed in line with the Kharijites ( Aiman Al Zahawari) and the deal was on……………..the Ghost of Al Qaida.

Scene was set, after the defeat of Soviets in Afghanistan. It must be kept in mind that there was no single incident of suicide bombing even against Russians in 11 years of war between Mujahedeens and Russian Army. Now the Kharijites were poured in Afghanistan and Pakistan by westerners, with agendas of both complimenting each other. The targets were zeroed and fixed.

It’s time for 9/11, Afghan invasion and exploitation of Pakistan. Kharjites are now operating in the name of different terrorist organizations such as TTP (Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan). Numerous evidences are on record to prove this historical but evil nexus such as:

• Recovery of Indian and American weapons from Kharijites (TTP)
• Recovery of dollars and Indian currencies from the terrorists.
• Bodies of militants killed in action by Pakistan Army are not circumcised (One of the basic requirement for a Muslim)
• Hundreds of attacks on Mosques in Pakistan
• Brutal killings of Muslims of Pakistan
• No breather from drone attacks despite of the fact, that they are only improving the strength of suicidal recruits operating for Al Qaida and TTP.

The question now arises that how Pakistan can get out of this strangle hold of this potent nexus? This not only demands sophisticated strategic moves on political front but also correct employment of forces at operational and tactical level to counter original aim of the said nexus i.e. Destruction of Nuclear Pakistan. With Indian inclusion in the nexus, the dynamics of the issue has changed drastically and it has linked with the unrest in Baluchistan as well. Only military moves not coupled with societal reformations and education will not suffice the intensity for dealing with this dreadful situation.

One must take into account that success of Swat operation was due to a forceful reply from a coherent society of Swatis, which repelled the evil concept of Khawarijs with determination and steadfastness. Pakistani Armed Forces operated in a highly professional manner with political and media’s will behind them.

This needs to carry on for some time more, with same zeal, for clearing the whole of Pakistan from this menace. All the state tentacles especially judiciary and media should play the most pivotal role in educating society with authenticity (in the light of Hadiths) and deliberation, so that the common can himself pull out from these Khawarijs and contribute towards an exemplary punishment to these enemies of Islam and Pakistan.

It’s high time to educate Pakistan’s Islamic society about the real face of this Khariji Ideology in the context of TTP and alike terrorist organizations. The role of Pakistani Ulemas must be in line with interest of Islam and Pakistan.                     (The writer is a Senior Citizen based in Abbotabad, with a masters in History).

Al Qaeda advises to store weapons to create an Islamic state in Libya

ennahar

Terrorist organizations affiliated to Al Qaeda advise Libyan insurgents Libyan to stockpile weapons in preparation for the post-Gaddafi phase, saying the war in Libya is expected to continue even after the fall of the current regime

• Six terrorist groups affiliated to Al Qaeda called on insurgents who want to create an Islamic emirate in Libya to take steps and be ready for after Gaddafi, adding that the next enemy will be the pro-Western Libyan opposition.
• The terrorist organizations warn against the policy of Westerners who are beginning to prepare for the post-Qadhafi. For this, the insurgents also have to prepare now for another war by storing the weapons which they should not give back after the fall of the regime of Gaddafi.
• These six terrorist organizations invite the insurgents to search Libyan people with knowledge and skills in the military, recruit and protect them for the coming phase.
• Ennahar / Ismail Fellah

Carving Up Pakistan

Troops will never leave Afghanistan until regional hegemony and its full integration into the “international system” is complete. When they say “Long War,” they mean it. Imperialism 2.0.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Bangkok, Thailand April 22, 2011 – With NATO providing Al Qaeda air cover in Libya as they commit an array of egregious war crimes in their bid to seize the country, the last shred of legitimacy for America’s official narrative regarding their war on the Afghan-Pakistani border disappears before our eyes. However, a more rational explanation for the seemingly irrational campaign of frequent General Atomic* Predator drone attacks on Pakistani soil is not only on the table, but has been put there by the global corporate-financier oligarchs themselves.

To understand US-Pakistan relations within the context of the entirely fake “War on Terror” is impossible. Al Qaeda is merely the increasingly tenuous public excuse to justify continued wanton murder within Pakistan as well as occupations and interventions around the globe. In a broader geopolitical context, these constant and seemingly random attacks in western Pakistan serve a more diabolical purpose. With each attack on “suspected militants,” the all inclusive term used to describe CIA targets, the authority and stability of Pakistan’s establishment is undermined and whittled away. With many of the attacks claiming the lives of civilians, outrage and unrest is purposefully being fanned and spread. The recipients of this outrage and unrest is a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis.

In particular, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is being intentionally weakened, undermined, and isolated from the whole of Pakistan. The threat of continued CIA operations are usually standing vis-a-vis concessions Pakistan is expected to make. After a recent show of defiance by Pakistancalling on the US to halt all drone operations within its borders, the CIA responded with multiple attacks, the latest of which killed at least 22, including woman and possibly children, seemingly just to spite and incense this reassertion of national sovereignty. The necessary concession expected of Pakistan this time around is their commitment to a military campaign against the Haqqani network, “allegedly based in North Waziristan.”

According to the International Herald Tribune article, “End to US drone hits if military launches North Waziristan operation,” which even at face value smacks of extortion, “Pakistan’s security establishment has long been accused of having links with the Afghan Taliban particularly the influential Haqqani network.” Considering that further strikes will put political pressure on the Pakistani government to concede, the US is driving a wedge between them and the ISI which is undoubtedly the “security establishment” the Tribune is referring to. Instability alone benefits the United States in the short-term to extort a myriad of concessions fulfilling a range of ambitions. But perhaps the most overarching theme is to sever permanently yet another link in China’s “String of Pearls.”

The “String of Pearls” doctrine encapsulated in a 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report, aims at co-opting, destabilizing and otherwise neutralizing nation states cooperating with China and enabling it to project power and influence along its long and vulnerable oil link to the Middle East. Starting in Africa, throughout the Middle East, into Central Asia and terminating in Southeast Asia, the United States has been conducting a widespread campaign of doing just this.

Pakistan in particular has jointly built a new port with China in the coastal city of Gwadar in the southern province of Balochistan. This port serves as a potential terminal for a north-south transit corridor to transport oil and goods directly into Chinese territory via the northern Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan. It also serves the potential to host a Chinese naval presence. The US bid to interfere internally to disrupt this is hardly a conspiracy theory. Globalist scribe Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces regarding the overarching importance of Pakistan in a broader geopolitical context and “suggestions” on how it can be solved.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” in name alone indicates yet another “freedom movement” contrived and fueled to give a favorable outcome to his corporate-financier patrons. He explicitly calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

The Baluchi ethnic group is in pink. Globalists would like to carve
out a “Free Baluchistan” in order to disrupt Chinese-Pakistani
relations. Baluchi rebels are already being armed and supported
by the US in terrorist operations against Iran.

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece unimaginatively titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Considering that Baluchi rebels are already being funded and armed to wage war inside of Iran, it is more than likely similar aid is being rendered to them to confront the ISI and Pakistan’s government. This three-pronged attack on Iranian, Pakistani, and Chinese sovereignty in a region where 3 nuclear armed nations converge and billions call home is beyond reckless, providing us further insight into the deranged, degenerate minds behind “global governance.”

Those under the delusion that US troops will ever leave Afghanistan are in for a disappointment. Barring catastrophic economic collapse or an unexpected and grievous tactical defeat on the battlefield for Western forces, troops will only be moved around, replaced, or even bolstered until regional hegemony is established. Even then, the globalist “civil society” underlay and local security forces fully integrated and subservient to global military alliances would need to be built up and reliable before a single boot leaves the region. This will take decades to complete, which is exactly why we are told the US and UK will be in Afghanistan literally for “decades.”

* General Atomic also makes the TRIGA research reactors found in many universities throughout America and around the world, including UT at Austin, Penn State, and even next to Kasetsart University in Thailand.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.

U.S. surge in Afghanistan launches reign of terror

U.S. officer:‘You have to show up at their door … and start killing people’

By Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition

APRIL 21, 2011

Afghans rebuild a home destroyed by a U.S. airstrike, Tarok Kolache, Afghanistan.

“You can’t just convince them through projects and goodwill,” another Marine officer said. “You have to show up at their door with two companies of Marines and start killing people. That’s how you start convincing them.”

This was the comment made by a Marine officer to the Washington Post for its April 16 story about “signs of progress” for President Obama’s surge strategy in southern Afghanistan.

The officer was discussing how the U.S. strategy succeeded in the signing of a security pact between elders of the Alikozai area in southern Afghanistan and the U.S.-backed Karzai government.

Many hundreds of young men from the Alikozai area were killed in an onslaught by U.S./NATO troops in months leading up the agreement, according to the Washington Post account.

“We started stacking bodies like cordwood,” said an officer in Sangin, who like other Marines asked for anonymity to speak frankly. “And they came to a point where they said, ‘Holy [expletive], there aren’t that many of us left.’ ”

The Washington Post is an enthusiastic supporter of the expanding war in Afghanistan. The newspaper editorial policy insists that the war is necessary for an improvement in the lives of average Afghans.

Like other U.S. corporate-owned media outlets, the Post pretends that the U.S. counter-insurgency strategy is aimed at winning the hearts and minds of impoverished Afghan villagers. Its own reports about war strategy, however, reveal that the Pentagon cares as much about Afghan villages as it did about those in Vietnam that were razed and burned by U.S. troops to “save them” from falling under the control of Vietnamese communists.

In this recent story, the Post approvingly explains why it was necessary for a battalion of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to completely destroy the village of Tarok Kolache after seven U.S. soldiers were killed and 70 others wounded in the first 100 days of an operation in the Arghandab district of Kandahar province last July:

… [I]nstead of sipping tea, [Lt. Col. David]Flynn decided to strike back.

An initial target was the village of Tarok Kolache, a collection of about a dozen mud-brick, multi-family housing compounds surrounded by pomegranate orchards. Video from surveillance aircraft indicated that the village had been vacated, save for insurgents who were manufacturing homemade explosives in the walled-off courtyards.

The Post carries before and after pictures of the entirely flattened village. “U.S. B-1B Lancer and A-10 Warthog jets conducted repeated bombing runs. A new ground-launched artillery rocket system also pelted the enclave. All told, almost 25 tons of ordnance was dropped on Tarok Kolache,” the Post states.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan is a terrorist enterprise. By employing these tactics of terror, the Pentagon seeks to force Afghan peasants to end their resistance to foreign occupation. They are succeeding in creating oceans of suffering among people, most of who have never heard of the World Trade Center or the September 11 attacks. In fact, a 2010 survey conducted by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) showed that 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar provinces knew nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks in 2001.

The real goal of the operation is not to “protect the American people.” Rather, it is to create a network of permanent military bases in an energy-rich and geostrategically important region that the U.S. Empire has targeted for enduring domination. The U.S. effort can kill thousands of Afghans and destroy their villages but it will not succeed in liquidating the resistance of the people. From Vietnam to Afghanistan—the Pentagon Brass have learned nothing.

Embracing Saudi Terrorism In Bahrain, Sowing Western Terrorism In Libya

Ignoring plight of Bahrain’s Shiites shames the West

BY HARRY STERLING,

FOR THE CALGARY HERALD

The unwillingness of many western countries to forcefully criticize the killing of anti-government protesters in Bahrain illustrates the hypocrisy of some western governments who selectively support pro-democracy uprisings only when it serves their own vested interest.

Their silence over atrocities and torture inflicted on Shiite protesters by Bahrain’s military and security forces -including systematic destruction of Shiite mosques and holy places -is shocking, especially given the West’s support for protesters fighting against other Middle East authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

In an ominous turn of events, Britain’s Independent newspaper reported April 21 that Bahrain security authorities have intimidated and arrested doctors and other medical staff in hospitals, denouncing them for treating individuals wounded during pro-democracy demonstrations. Some doctors have reportedly been held incommunicado or have been “disappeared”. All of this is in total violation of the Geneva Convention on treating people injured during conflicts.

Such reticence to condemn the systematic killing of civilians demonstrating against the ruling al-Khalifa family since the protest movement began peacefully Feb. 14 is, however, not unexpected.

While western countries, particularly the United States, were initially reluctant to come out too openly in favour of the pro-democracy movements in places like Tunisia H S and Egypt -some American officials even indicating then president Hosni Mubarak or Egypt could stay in power to maintain stability during a transition to democracy -criticism of Bahrain’s Sunni authorities was almost non-existent, limited to predictable exhortations for everyone to exercise restraint during such large-scale demonstrations calling for change.

There was a very compelling reason for the U.S.’s low-key response: Bahrain is the headquarters of the American Fifth Fleet. Given the crucial importance of that naval base, being openly critical of the al-Khalifa elite was to be avoided.

Nor was the Obama administration prepared to question the intervention of 5,000 Saudi military forces, along with 1,000 Gulf state troops, which crossed the causeway onto the island of Bahrain to assist in putting down the perceived threat posed to the Sunni minority al-Khalifa ruling regime led by King Hamad. (It’s

said Saudi Arabia originally helped finance the 25-kilometre-long causeway to ensure it could contain any threat represented by the Shiite majority to either Bahrain’s Sunni regime or Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Sunni rule.)

According to reports by the Independent newspaper, Saudi military personnel joined Bahraini forces in the deliberate demolition of Shiite mosques and shrines, Shiites regarded by Saudi Arabia’s conservative Wahhabis as heretics.

The New York-based group Human Rights Watch says countless people detained by Bahrain’s security forces were tortured including a reform-minded Shiite militant, Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer, who died while in custody, his body showing signs of being beaten.

The low-key response of Washington and London to human rights abuses against Bahrain’s Shiites has, as expected, been denounced by Iran.

However, some western governments predictably see Tehran somehow linked to the original demonstrations in the capital of Manama.

But those observing the initial demonstrations at Pearl Square, with even women and children present there in makeshift tents, say the protest movement was essentially homegrown and violence-free, Bahrain’s security forces unleashing the violence against demonstrators. On March 18, police totally demolished the encampment at Pearl Square resulting in seven or more protesters killed.

Although the al-Khalifa elite seemingly has opted to end the protest movement by force, they may rue the day they went so far as to actually demolish Shiite holy places. Such a move has the potential to inflame the entire Shiite world community with totally unpredictable consequences, not just for the al-Khalifa family but also for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as well as the always-volatile Middle East region -not to mention the strategic interests of the U.S. and other countries, including the European Union.

The implications for Washington have already become apparent. Because of its desire not to alienate Saudi Arabia and the other non-democratic Gulf states -and to ensure the continued use of Bahrain’s naval base -the Obama administration now stands accused of total hypocrisy when it comes to supporting democracy and respect for human rights in the Middle East.

In the mind of cynics, what counts for the United States is not democracy for oppressed societies, but rather pure unadulterated self-interest. Washington initially tried to mute criticism of Egypt’s Mubarak because of his anti-Islamist policies and peace treaty with Israel, only reversing position when he clearly had become a liability. Similarly, Washington was reluctant to call for Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign because of his co-operation in fighting al-Qaeda.

Some believe U.S. reluctance to criticize Saudi Arabia for its actions was strongly influenced by the issue of petroleum supplies. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States sit on the world’s largest oil reserves. The U.S. and European countries, particularly Britain and France, have had strong economic interests in ensuring prowestern regimes remain in power to protect western petroleum interests there.

The West could afford to belatedly turn against then president Mubarak and now President Saleh in Yemen because their oil wealth was almost inconsequential.

But keeping King Abdullah and his brothers happy in Saudi Arabia is an unquestioned priority in the realpolitik world of American governments.

Whether the longoppressed Shiite majority in Bahrain are prepared to accept this “business-isbusiness” reality is yet to be determined.

Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator who writes regularly on Middle East issues.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

John Birch Society–Still Blaming the UN for America’s Crimes of Empire

[U.S. House and Senate] Help Get US Out of the UN

Liberty Alerts, JBS.org Freedom Campaign

Help Get US Out of the UN

The United States is currently engaged in another unconstitutional and undeclared war in the Middle East. President Barack Obama explicitly cited a United Nations resolution as his source of authority to wage war in Libya. It is this acquiescence to the United Nations that is and has been for many decades the excuse and the political cover the United States government has used when it wished to involve itself in regime changes or changes in the form of government in many countries around the world.

Let’s leave aside all the documented cases of corruption and abuse within the UN — the heinous rape of innocents, the Oil-for-food program, the continuous human rights violations of UN member countries — and the fact that not one UN-managed military conflict has resulted in a speedy or peaceful settlement, for now. When a UN treaty or Security Council vote is used to supersede the United States Constitution, a definitive loss of sovereignty for a once-independent nation that should govern according to the best interests of its own citizens and that from early warnings should have remained free of foreign entanglements, occurs.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has once again introduced a bill that would instantly remedy any UN superiority over the Constitution. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009, H.R. 1146, is worded exactly the same in this 112th Session of Congress as it was worded for previous sessions. Quite simply it terminates all U.S. participation in the UN, repeals the UN Headquarters Agreement which would leave the UN no offices along the East River in New York, stops all appropriations and contributions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the organization, discontinues diplomatic immunity for UN officials, and most importantly ends the United States’ participation in any agreements or conventions with any UN organ, body, or agency or commission.

To avoid sapping America’s military strength and the use of American service men and women as cannon fodder in millennia-old conflicts in the Middle East and around the world under UN auspices, often exacerbated by America’s foreign policies and put in place to promote the New World Order in the first place, and to disentangle the United States from enormously costly wars and the financial support of the UN itself, it is very important to become proactive in promoting sponsorship and passage of H.R. 1146.

The debate about Libya will continue in the once-hallowed halls of Congress for awhile and should be used as an opportunity to raise awareness about the UN’s role.  To quote Alex Newman in The New American article entitled “Clinton: Obama Will Ignore Congress on Libya War,” “If the American people’s representatives are willing to be slapped in the face — without doing anything about it — by an administration that acknowledges no limits on its power, they might just as well head home.”  The same should apply to the citizens who have complacently and apathetically accepted the usurpation of the congressional role by the executive branch, allowing the representational form of government and the supreme law of the land’s principles to be relegated to the history books.

You can refuse to be so ill-treated, though. Contact all your representatives and educate them to this subversion of their congressional role and the U.S. Constitution. Insist they rein in the blatant and arrogant actions of the Executive Branch and domination by United Nations policies.

As Help GetUSOut! of the United Nations via H.R. 1146.

Used with the permission of the John Birch Society.

The #1 Victim of Al Qaeda Attacks? Muslims

Written by Common Ground News Service

Late last month, Yemeni officials claimed that Al Qaeda-affiliated gunmen allegedly took control of a munitions factory in southern Yemen and then booby-trapped the facility after looting it. Residents of the town who flocked to the factory afterward trying to recover what was left were caught in an explosion. Over 100 people were killed.

Terrorists claim that by carrying out similar attacks, they are protecting Islam and fighting the “enemies of God”, clarifying in countless statements that non-Muslims are their primary targets. Of course, killing anyone is wrong. And terrorist attacks carried out by Al Qaeda and affiliate groups have not exclusively targeted any specific religious, sectarian or ethnic group.

In fact, numbers and statistics show that the majority of their victims are Muslims.

A study from December 2009 by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point says that “the vast majority of Al Qaeda’s victims are Muslims” and that only “15 percent” of those killed are Westerners.

These numbers prove that terrorists do not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, and consider all people who do not agree with their ideology as “legitimate” targets of violence.

This strategy of using violence has subsequently alienated Al Qaeda from mainstream Muslims and proved to be a failure in all respects for the simple reason that it is self-destructive. Besides various statements made by Muslim groups around the world voicing their objection to terrorism and violence that cause death and destruction under the banner of Islam, Al Qaeda and similar groups have never enjoyed a large fan base among the world’s Muslim population. The Pew Global Attitudes Project found that in 2009 when researchers asked Muslims whether “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified to defend Islam from its enemies”, majorities in eight of the nine Muslim-majority countries responded that such violence could never be justified to defend Islam.

Moreover, Al Qaeda labels Muslims who do not support the group’s ideology as apostates, one of the most serious charges in Islam. Using this term loosely to accuse their enemies has only earned terrorists increasing hostility and decreasing support of the Muslim world in the past few years.

Al Qaeda’s ideology is built on highlighting differences amongst Muslims, as well as between Muslims and those of other faiths, rather than helping humanity search for common ground and move toward peace, mutual understanding and respect. It is by no means a call for “Muslim unity”, as Al Qaeda’s ideology represents a greater threat to Islam than any other religion.

On more than one occasion, Muslims around the world have presented alternatives to Al Qaeda and to violence as means to achieve political goals. The ongoing waves of change in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen reaffirm that Muslims are able to topple dictators, create policy changes, and demand freedom and democracy peacefully. As people continue to fight for their rights in this part of the world it will be even more difficult for terrorists to find a safe haven in democratic societies, as history has not seen democracies breeding terrorism the same way autocratic and oppressive regimes do.

As Arab and Muslim societies continue to march toward democratic change, Al Qaeda’s arguments will be less relevant. We are realising now that real and lasting change can only occur through peaceful uprisings as opposed to military coups or extremist ideologies that propagate violence. Al Qaeda has always used oppression in the Arab and Muslim worlds to justify seeking violence to achieve its political goals.

Thankfully, it’s just not working.

Khawarij: Has the Destructive Ideology Reincarnated? Part-1

This is a Pakpotporri Exclusive                                                                                                                                                                                         By:Ahmed Raza

Pakistan in its 63 years of existence has gone through many natural and far more than that, men made disasters (Wars). One of which Pakistan is still fighting- has no designated battle field-enemy has no uniform- Complete country is a battle ground now. We have lost more than 15000 Pakistanis in this war of unknown killing zone. Is this not the time to ponder and study the roots of this horrifying enemy? One, who has transformed us in a society of chauvinistic and psychologically depressed human beings, yes, We are very late to respond but nations do commit mistakes-we all did it-it’s time to react to the realized fact. Rebirth of Khawarijs (The Deviators) on this planet is the case in discussion here, especially when they are now entrenched against us in the silhouette of terrorist organizations like TTP (Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan). For analytical assessment of their agenda it’s always better to refer history.

It was 1^st Muharram of 1400^th Islamic year (20^th November 1979)-Mecca was praying as usual in the Grand mosque Kaaba-as the Imam finished his prayers some young Arabs equipped with automatic weapons entered the arena. All the gates were closed leading to the inner part of the mosque Mataf. Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-Otaibi presented a young man aged approx 25 years, Muhammad bin Abdullah as Mahdi – the crowd was stunned-they took over the control of the Grand mosque within minutes as professional trained soldiers…………………….

One of the most horrendous events in the Islamic history had happened, the Holiest Grand Mosque of Muslims the Kaaba was attacked and sieged by a fake Mahdi supported by Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-Otaibi. It shook the very foundation of Al Saud Kingdom, Mecca’s bloody siege lasted two weeks, causing hundreds of deaths and inflaming human rage all around the globe.

To understand the reasons leading to this horrific episode, it is imperative to look into annuls of recent history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with emphasis on the ruling family of Al Saud.

…………..The Al Saud family that today rules the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a member of the Anizah, a Northern Arabian or Adnani, tribal confederation historically located in the Najd, or Central Arabian Peninsula. The family derives its name from its 18^th Century ancestor, Muhammad bin Saud, who joined forces with an austere Islamic reformer, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab, in a military religious alliance for control over Central Arabia. Muhammad bin Saud was defeated by the Egyptian Army, which moved to Arabia for protecting Hejaz on the orders of the Ottoman Caliph.

The left job was taken over after a century by Abdul Aziz Bin Saud, who captured Najd and eastern coast of Arabia by 1912. In 1925 the forces of Ibn Saud captured the holy city of Mecca from Sharif Hussein bin Ali, ending 700 years of Hashemite rule. On 21 April 1925 the Saudis destroyed some of the most holy places of Islam, Jannat-ul-Baqi and Jannat-ul-Mualla, hence completing the agenda of military-religious alliance of Ibn Saud with Wahabbis.  On 10 January 1926, Ibn Saud proclaimed himself King of the Hejaz in the Great Mosque at Mecca. On 20 May 1927, the British government signed the Treaty of Jeddah, which abolished the Darin protection agreement and recognized the independence of the Hejaz and Najd with Ibn Saud as its ruler.

What happened in 1927 was triggered during The First World War which changed the political dynamics of the heartland of the Muslim world, abolition of Ottoman Caliphate brought western concept of state and nation hood. The concept of Euro Christians with sovereignty rests with the people prevailed in the center of Islamic civilization. Role of British diplomacy and created fervor of Saudi nationalism (courtesy British unprecedented help) paved the way for the first Monarch of Hejaz the Saud Family.

The said diplomacy of British in Arabian Peninsula was multi-dimensional but highly integrated.

• First of all, the objective of snatching control of the Hejaz the holy lands (Mecca and Madina) from the Caliph.
• Secondly Britain wanted a friendly regime in control of the Hejaz so that it could better be able to manipulate the politics of the peninsula.
• Finally, the politics of the peninsula and the defeat of the Ottomans were strategically linked to Zionism’s efforts to build a diabolical consensus with Britain in the pursuit of the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Fall of Caliphate lead to non-existence of Dar al Islam. Nowhere in the world, it exists now, as it has never existed.

A little about Dar al-Islam,

While the Hejaz was Dar al-Islam every Muslim had the right to enter that territory.

• He did not need a visa.
• There was no such thing as Saudi sovereignty.
• There was no such thing as Saudi citizenship.
• The right of entry into any part of Dar al-Islam was one of several rights which Muslims had, such as the right to reside in Dar al-Islam,
• They did not need residence permits, the right to seek livelihood in any part of Dar al-Islam, they did not need a work permits etc.

The birth of the State of Saudi Arabia resulted in the denial and eventual elimination of all these rights of Muslims as Ummah.

What made present Saudi Arabia and especially Al Saud Family win over the confidence of the complete Muslim world? It was through an exceptional support of British to Al Saud family, after the fall of Caliphate, which did this magic for them. On the other hand to gain all possible control over the Hejaz, the Saud family also enforced very strict brand of Islam(Wahabbism) in the new born state. The century old military-alliance between Al Saud and Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab was best achieved now, with Muslims strictly following Wahabbi sect (the purest form of Islam) as they claim, right in the heart-land of Islam-the Hejaz.

Every sect of Islam has its own effects on the minds of the people; the Wahabi perception is also not alien to this effect. The fanatical chapter of Wahabbi ideology of Islam gave rebirth to Takhfiri concept of Islam associated with Kharijites.

Aḥmad, Muslim, and Ibn Mājah recorded a Ḥadīth from Abū Dharr who narrated that, Allah’s messenger said:

“There will definitely be a people after me from my nation who will recite the Quran yet it will not even reach beyond their throats. They will pass through the religion as an arrow passes through a target, then they will not return back to it. They are the worst of people, the worst of all creatures”.

The origin of Kharijism lies in the first Islamic civil war, the struggle for political supremacy over the Muslim community in the years following the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). After the third caliph (Uthman ibn Affan), a struggle for succession ensued between Caliph Ali and Muʿāwiyah, the governor of Syria and cousin of Uthman.

According to the concept of Kharijites the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar were rightly guided but believed that Uthman ibn Affan had deviated from the path of justice and truth in the last days of his caliphate, and hence was liable to be killed or displaced. They also believed that Ali ibn Abi Talib committed a grave sin whence he agreed on the arbitration. In the Battle of Siffin, Ali acceded to Muʿāwiyah’s suggestion to stop the fighting and refuge to negotiation. A large portion of Ali’s troops (who later became the first Kharijites) refused to concede to that agreement, and they considered that Ali has breached a Qur’anic verse which states that The decision is only for Allah (Qur’an 6:57), and hence the Kharijites thought that the outcome of a conflict can only be decided in battle (by God) and not in negotiations (by human beings). Later on, Abu lo lo feroze majoose a renowned Khawarij killed the Fourth Caliph of Islam “Ali”.

Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and Abū Dāwūd recorded a narration in which ‘Alī said:

“There will come towards the end of time a people who will be young in age, having reckless and deficient intellects. They will speak with the statements of the best of creation, yet they will pass through Islam just as an arrow passes through a target. Their faith will not even reach beyond their throats. Wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them will have a reward on the Day of Resurrection”.

Coming back to the events of Kaaba 1979, what was immediately required for Saudi Army to operate with conviction to end the fiasco, was a Fatwa by the highest religious council of the country. As fighting in the holy land was completely prohibited by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), any defaulter in this regard was to be executed without fail. The Juhayaman and his men along with The Fake Mahdi were to be executed on the authority of that fatwa, as they breached the order of Prophet in the Holy Kaaba.

Bin Baaz, the religious head of the Saudi Government was a prominent Wahabbi scholar, who was to act promptly to end this embarrassment of highest order. He, on the other hand has been ignoring the wrongful deeds of Juhayaman in the past, to an extent, that about a year back he got him released from Governments custody on the charges of suspicious activities against the state. It is imperative here to mention that Juhayaman was a staunch practicing Wahabbi and this fact was very well known to Bin Baaz.

It took more than three days to get the appropriate Fatwa from Bin Baaz and his council. Even convergence of all 22 ulemas in Ryiadh to frame the required Fatwa was not achieved after 48 hours of the catastrophe.

All is well that ends well, Saudi troops acted promptly after the initiation of Fatwa, which clearly declared Juhayaman and his men as Kharijites (deviators). The perpetrators were executed as per the law, but the ridiculous khariji ideology was born yet again.

In the next article I will make an endeavour to crystallize the happenings leading to transportation of this re-born Khariji ideology to Pakistan and what role US and India played in it.                                                                                                              (The writer is a Senior Citizen based in Abbotabad. He is a masters in History. This is is first article).

Libya and the new US strategic doctrine

by Thierry Meyssan* The allied military operation in Libya marks a major strategic change. Washington has renounced a war of occupation and has sub-contracted its future ground operations to its allies. Thierry Meyssan describes the new strategic paradigm of the United States: forced globalisation is over, the era of two worlds has begun.

People often say that generals don’t see change coming and prepare the next war as if it should resemble the previous one. The same thing applies to political commentators: they interpret new events not for what they are, but as if they repeated those which preceded them.

At the time when popular mass movements deposed Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt many believed they were seeing a ’Jasmin Revolution’ [1] and a ’Lotus Revolution’ [2] in the style of the colour revolutions organised in sequence by the CIA and the NED after the fall of the USSR. Certain facts appeared to confirm this view, such as the presence of Serbian agitators in Cairo, or the diffusion of propaganda material [3]. But the reality was entirely different. These were popular-based uprisings, which Washington unsuccessfully attempted to hijack to its advantage. In reality neither Tunisians nor Egyptians were aspiring to an American Way of Life, but on the contrary, to get rid of puppet governments manipulated by the United States.

When the unrest erupted in Libya, these same commentators tried to get abreast with reality, telling us that a real popular rebellion was at hand, this time against Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator. They accompanied their editorials with sweet lies portraying the Colonel as a timeless enemy of Western democracy, omitting to mention his active collaboration with the United States for eight years [4]

However, when taking a closer look, what we see happening in Libya is, first and foremost, the resurgence of the historical antagonism between Cyrenaica on one side, Tripolitania and Fezzan on the other. It is only of late that this conflict has taken on a political tinge, when the insurrection identified itself with the monarchists and was soon joined by all sorts of opposition groups (Nasserists, Khomeinists, Communists, Islamists et cetera). In sum, at no time has the rebellion spread to the entire country.

The voices which denounce the fabrication and exploitation of this conflict by a colonial cartel are invariably met with scorn. The majority opinion considers that foreign military intervention enables the Libyan people to free themselves from their tyrant and that the excesses of the coalition cannot be worse than the crimes of a genocidal killer.

However, history has already shown the falsity of this reasoning. For example, many of the Iraqis who were hostile to Saddam Hussein and welcomed western soldiers as saviours are now saying – eight years and one and a half million civilian deaths later – that life in their country was better under the despot.

Above all, this judgment is based on a series of erroneous premises:

 Contrary to western propaganda allegations, which the chronological and geographical proximity of events in Tunisia and Egypt may have appeared to validate, the Libyan people did not rise up against the Gaddafi regime. Gaddafi still enjoys popular legitimacy in Tripolitania and in Fezzan, regions where the Colonel has distributed arms to the population to resist against the advancement of both Cyrenaica insurgents and foreign powers.

 Contrary to western propaganda allegations, which some of the incendiary declarations by the ’the brother leader’ himself may seemingly have corroborated, Gaddafi has never bombed his civilian population [5]. He has used military force against putschists without worrying about the consequences for the civilian population. This distinction makes no difference to the victims but in international law it separates war crimes from crimes of humanity.

 Finally, contrary to western propaganda allegations and despite Bernard Henry-Lévy’s farcical revolutionary romanticism, the revolt of Cyrenaica was anything but spontaneous. It was prepared by the DGSE, MI6 and the CIA. The French put the National Transitional Council together by drawing on the information and contacts of Massoud El-Mesmari, ex-companion and confident of Gaddafi who defected in November 2010 and was given asylum in Paris [6]. With the aim of reestablishing the monarchy, the British reactivated the network of Prince Mohamed el-Senoussi, pretender to the throne of the United Kingdom of Libya, currently exiled in London, and distributed the red, black and green flag brandishing a star and crescent [7] The United States seized military and economic control by repatriating Libyan exiles from Washington and slotting them in key ministerial and military positions within the National Transitional Council.

The ongoing debate about the cogency of the international intervention is the tree which hides the forest. If we take a few steps back, we will realise that the strategy of the leading western powers has in fact changed. Of course, they continue to indulge in the rhetoric of genocide prevention and the duty of humanitarian intervention, or of brotherly support for people who are struggling for their liberty, (provided they open their markets!), but their acts are different.

The “Obama doctrine”

In his speech at the National Defense University, President Obama defined several aspects of his strategic doctrine, pinpointing what distinguishes it from those of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush [8]

He primarily declared : In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.

Such speed contrasts with Bill Clinton’s time. This has two explanations.
On the one hand, the United States of 2011 has a coherent project (analysed below), whereas in the 90’s it vacillated between taking advantage of the collapse of the USSR and enrich itself commercially or building an unrivaled empire.
On the other hand, the Obama administration’s ’reset’ policy, which seeks to substitute confrontation with negotiation, has borne some fruits with Russia. In spite of being one of the major economic losers, Russia has nevertheless gone along with the principle of the Libyan war even if nationalists Vladimir Putin [9] or Vladimir Chamov [10] must have developed stomach ulcers as a result.

Then, in the same 28 March 2011 speech, Obama further stated: Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.

After having placed France in the lead whilst pretending to trail behind, Washington admitted to having “coordinated” all military operations since the beginning. But it was only to announce the immediate transfer of this responsibility to NATO.

Finally, President Obama concluded: There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

Barack Obama broke with the inflamed discourse of George W. Bush who attempted to extend the American Way of Life across the world through the use of force. While he is willing to deploy military means for humanitarian causes or for peace-keeping operations, he doesn’t contemplate resorting to war except for the sake of ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce.

This merits a deeper explanation.

The strategic shift

By convention or convenience, historians label each strategic doctrine by the name of the president that puts it in place. In reality, today the strategic doctrine is elaborated by the Pentagon and no longer by the White House. The fundamental change was not generated by the arrival of Barack Obama to the Oval Office (January 2009), but by that of Robert Gates to the Pentagon (December 2006). The last two years of the Bush presidency did not emanate from the “Bush doctrine”; they were already foreshadowing the “Obama doctrine”. It is because he has succeeded in this mission that Robert Gates now plans to retire from office with the pride of a job well done [11].

In order to explain myself better, I will make a distinction between a Rumsfeld doctrine and a Gates doctrine.
In the first case, the primary objective was to change political regimes, one by one, everywhere in the world, until they were all in tune with the United States. This is what is known asmarket democracy, being in reality an oligarchic system in whichpseudo citizens are protected from the arbitrary actions of the state and can choose their governments but not their policies.

However, indicates Barack Obama in the same discourse:Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

In short, the objective of a Pax Americana, meant to protect and at the same time dominate all the peoples of the earth, is economically unachievable. And so, too, the ideal of converting the whole of humanity to the American Way of Life.

Another imperial vision, more realistic, has progressively emerged at the Pentagon. It has been vulgarised by Thomas P.M. Barnett in his book The Pentagon’s New Map. War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century.

The world will be divided in two. On one side the stable centre, constituted around the United States by developed countries that are more or less democratic. On the other side a periphery, left to its own devices, plagued by under development and violence. The role of the Pentagon will be to ensure the civilised world gets access to the necessary natural resources located in the periphery which is inept to use them.

This vision implies that the United States will no longer be in competition with the other developed states but will instead become their security leader. This appears to be plausible with regards to Russia, inasmuch as President Dmitry Medvedev opened the way for collaboration with NATO at the time of the commemoration parade marking the end of the World War II, and again during the Lisbon summit. It will perhaps prove to be more complicated with China whose new ruling team seems to be more nationalistic than the previous one.

The division of the world into two zones, stable and chaotic, where the second only serves as the reservoir of natural resources for the first, poses evidently the question of delimitations. In Barnett’s book (2004), the Balkans, Central Asia, almost all of Africa, the Andes and central America are relegated to the shadows. Three member states of the G-20 (of which one is also a member of NATO) are condemned to chaos: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. This map is not etched in stone and changes are still possible. Thus, Saudi Arabia is currently earning its stripes by crushing the revolt in Bahrain.

As it is no longer a question of occupying a country, but only of securing zones for exploitation and to raid them when necessary, the Pentagon must extend to the entire periphery the process of fragmentation, of remodeling, already started in the Greater Middle-East. The goal of war no longer being the direct exploitation of a territory, but the eradication of all means of resistance. The Pentagon is concentrating on controlling the maritime routes and aerial operations while sub-contractig as much as possible the ground operations to its allies. It is this phenomenon that has begun in Africa with the partition of Sudan and the wars in Libya and Ivory Coast.

If, from a democratic perspective, the overthrow of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi would be a gratifying development, it is neither necessary nor in the Pentagon’s interests. According to the Gates doctrine, it is better to put up with a hysterical and humiliated Gaddafi in a downsized Tripolitania than to be faced with the spectre of a great Libya capable one day of resisting imperialism anew.

Of course, this new strategic vision will not occur painlessly. There will be ever increasing numbers of migrants fleeing the hell of the periphery in order to reach the paradise of the centre. And there will always be some incorrigible humanist who believes that one’s paradise should not be built on the hell of others.

This is the project which is at play in Libya and it’s in relation to this that each one must take a stand.

Share this
   

Thierry Meyssan French political analyst, founder and chairman of theVoltaire Network and the Axis for Peace conference. He publishes columns dealing with international relations in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. Last books published in English :9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate. This author’s articles  To send a message  Translation Julian Hunter

---

[1] “Washington facing the ire of the Tunisian people“, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 25 January 2011.

[2] “Egypt on the brink of a bloodbath“, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 1 February 2011

[3] The U.S. colored revolution user manual for Egypt, Voltaire Network, 2 March 2011.

[4] “Gaddafi’s photo album: a festival of hypocrisy!“, Voltaire Network, 26 March 2011.

[5] Russian military: “Air strikes in Libya did not take place“, Voltaire Network, 2 March 2011.

[6] “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November“, by Franco Bechis, Voltaire Network, 25 March 2011.

[7] “Libya: When historical memory is erased“, by Manlio Dinucci,Voltaire Network, 2 March 2011.

[8] “Remarks at National Defense University by Barack Obama in Address to the Nation on Libya”, Voltaire Network, 28 March 2011.

[9] Remarks by Vladimir Putin on the situation in Libya, Voltaire Network, 21 March 2011

[10] Russian Ambassador to Libya tags Medvedev as traitor, Voltaire Network, 27 March 2011.

[11] Robert Gates on his way out, Voltaire Network, 11 April 2011.

Tarpley: Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia Gets Pakistani Military Support vs CIA Color Revolution

Tarpley: Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia Gets Pak…, posted with vodpod

Ukraine not to join Customs Union – Foreign Minister

	22.04.2011, 12.49
	KIEV, April 22 (Itar-Tass) – Ukraine will not join the Customs Union (of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan), Ukrainian Foreign Minister Konstantin Grishchenko said on Friday in reply to questions by parliamentarians. Speaking in parliament, he reminded the audience that President Viktor Yanukovich had offered to cooperate with that organization on the “three plus one” formula. “This means the following – first of all Ukraine intends to cooperate with the Customs Union without formal membership in it,” he said. “We are not in the process of negotiations with the Customs Union,” he added. According to Grishchenko, Russia does not make Ukraine’s entry into the Customs Union as condition for continuing cooperation. Russia has just “expressed its wish to see our country in that union,” the foreign minister said. “In accordance with the foundations of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy, European integration remains the main foreign policy priority for our country,” he added. According to Grishchenko, Ukraine intends this year to sign an agreement on associated membership with the European Union, which also includes an agreement on a free trade zone. “It is very important for Ukraine that the formation of the Customs Union should not worsen terms of trade with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” he said. According to the minister, “there is a threat that measures of protection applied in trade with one country would involve the whole territory of the Customs Union,” Grishchenko added. He also reminded parliamentarians that in trade with Belarus the free trade regime is applied to all items, while in trade with Russia, sugar is excluded from the list of commodities falling under the regime of free trade. As for trade with Kazakhstan, nine Ukrainian products, including sugar, tobacco, alcohol and some other goods, are excluded.

US to give Pakistan 85 Unarmed Toy Airplanes/”mini-drones”

[This is the reason Gen. Kayani has suffered limitless American degradations, for a bunch of toy airplanes?  Hell, Pakistan could have built these things themselves.  Pakistan will never be free from America's clutches, until it frees itself from the reign of its American-owned generals.]

US to give Pakistan 85 mini-drones

Friday, April 22, 2011

  Which one is US military and which one from Estes Models?

ISLAMABAD: The US will provide Pakistan with 85 small “Raven” drone aircraft, a US military official told Reuters on Thursday, a key step in meeting Islamabad’s calls for access to US drone technology.The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to disclose the cost or model of the non-lethal, short-range aircraft, which are manufactured by the US-based AeroVironment Inc . Reaffirmation of the relationship between the US and Pakistani militaries was the most important aspect of his meeting Wednesday night with his Pakistani counterpart, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said, according to Pentagon Thursday.

The meeting was the first opportunity Navy Adm. Mike Mullen and Pakistani Gen. Asfaq Parvez Kayani have had to meet since the Raymond Davis arrest earlier this year chilled relations between the two countries.

“Certainly, we understand we’ve been through a pretty rough period,” Mullen told reporters travelling with him, according to Pentagon. “I feel that the relationship that we had had a lot to do with our ability to get through this rough period.” Significant challenges remain in the relationship, and he and Kayani brought those up in their meeting, Mullen said.

Pak News Claims Shamsi Air Base taken back from CIA, US forces

Shamsi Air Base taken back from CIA, US forces

Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has stopped all US operations from the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan, an airport which was given to American forces for use after 9/11 and drone attacks were launched from the base on targets in the tribal areas, military sources have confirmed. It was also used extensively in 2001 when thousands of US sorties took off to bomb Afghanistan a few weeks after the 9/11 attack in New York.As the relations between Islamabad and Washington have strained due to latter’s mounting interference and repeated breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty, the US Embassy spokesman, Alberto Rodriguez, confirmed that there are no US forces at the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan.

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) spokesperson, when approached about his version on the vacation of US forces and the deadly drones from Shamsi airfield, explained that the airfield does not belong to the PAF while the Pakistan Army sources confirmed that the airfield was free from the American forces.

No one was prepared to share with The News the dates or the time period when the Shamsi airfield was vacated by the Americans although the sources insist that it is a recent development.

Almost a year back, Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar spoke on the topic of the Shamsi Air Base confirming that it was being used by American forces for logistical purposes but, he added, the government was not satisfied with payments for the use of the facility.

Mukhtar, however, did not go into the nature of airfield’s use by the American forces. Prior to Shamsi, Pakistan had also got vacated from the US forces the Jacobabad Air Base and Pasni, which were used for its operations in Afghanistan.

The US has been using the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan province to station unmanned Predator drones that have been used to attack terrorist targets inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. Shamsi airfield, also called Bandari, is a small airfield and air station located about 200 miles southwest of Quetta near the town of Washki.

In 2009, media reports revealed that the airfield was used by the United States Central Intelligence Agency as a base for Predator drone attacks on so-called militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas but ended up killing several hundreds innocent people. On January 9, 2002 a US Marine Corps KC-130 aircraft reportedly crashed on approach to Shamsi. All seven crew members were killed in the crash.

In February 2009, The Times of London had announced that it had obtained Google images from 2006 which showed Predator aircraft parked outside a hangar at the end of the runway of the Shamsi airfield. Before that, a US Senator Dianne Feinstein said that the CIA was basing its drone aircraft in Pakistan. The US company Blackwater was also reported to have a presence there, hired by the government to arm the drones with missiles.

It was General Musharraf who had permitted the US to use its airbases not only to attack Afghanistan but also to launch drone attacks on the people of Pakistan in the name of the so-called war on terror. The present regime also continued with Musharraf’s policies and allowed much larger number of drone attacks than before.

WikiLeaks had revealed that Prime Minister Gilani had endorsed the drones’ policy. Gilani was reported to have even said to the US officials that his government would raise hue and cry over these drone attacks for the sake of countering the public pressure.

However, of late and after the Raymond Davis episode, things became extremely tense between Washington and Islamabad with the CIA insisting to carry on with its operations, including the drone attacks inside Pakistan, while the ISI is adamant to restricting the Americans from crossing the red-line.

Russian Forces Kill America’s Pet “Islamist,” Another Saudi Terrorist

[Russia eliminates one pre-fabricated synthetic terrorist and America's Wahhabi friends dutifully supply another.  This latest kill replaced the highly romanticized Saudi actor known as "Emir Khattab, who was himself another CIA/Mossad creation.  (SEE:  If the Script Calls for Credible “Bad Guys,” Then Invent Some!).]

Russia Kills ‘Top al-Qaida Envoy’ in Chechnya

Russian security forces killed in Chechnya a Saudi militant who was the top envoy of al-Qaida in the Northern Caucasus and responsible for deadly attacks, the national anti-terror committee said Friday.

The militant — known by the nom-de-guerre of Moganned — was one of three rebels killed in a clash with Russian security forces around the village of Serzhen-Yurt in Chechnya on Thursday afternoon, it said.

“One of the eliminated bandits has been identified as the main emissary of the international terrorist organization al-Qaida in the Northern Caucasus, a citizen of Saudi Arabia by the name of Moganned,” the committee said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies.

It said that alongside Chechen militant leader Doku Umarov — Russia’s most wanted man who security forces have repeatedly failed to kill over the last years — Moganned was a leading figure among rebels in the region.

After waging two wars against separatists in Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin is now battling an Islamist-tinged insurgency that has also spread to the neighboring regions of Dagestan and Ingushetia.

The committee said that according to intelligence from detained militants Moganned had fallen out with Umarov and become a rival to the elusive Chechen in the rebel underground.

“Almost all acts of terror using suicide bombers in the last years were prepared with his involvement,” it said.

Moscow over the last year has been rocked by an airport bombing that killed 37 in January 2011 and a twin suicide bombing that killed 40 on the Moscow metro in March 2010.

Both of these attacks have however been claimed by Umarov and Russian officials have also pointed to his involvement. But over the last weeks they have come under increasing pressure to explain their failure to eliminate Umarov.

The Russian authorities have repeatedly indicated that Umarov was killed in the Caucasus, only to be forced into embarrassing backtracking when it emerged that the militant had escaped.

Russia hoped it killed Umarov in an air strike in Ingushetia last month but officials later admitted it appeared he had slipped away again.

A man purporting to be Umarov then telephoned the North Caucasus service of Radio Free Europe, saying that he was “absolutely healthy” and threatened further attacks.

The statement also claimed links between Magonned and Georgia, with whom Russia fought a war in 2008 and still retains tense relations.

It said he had been hoping this summer to receive a batch of new fighters from over the border with Georgia and with their help win overall control of the insurgency in the Caucasus.

Russian news agencies said Magonned had been in the Northern Caucasus since 1999 when he arrived to reinforce a group based in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge led by the notorious Arab militant Khattab, whom Russian forces killed in 2002.

By 2005, he had emerged as the main coordinator for handling money that was coming in from abroad to support the militant underground.(AFP)

Crossing the red line

Admiral Michael Mullen appends to his resolve not to let the bilateral equation collapse. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

After the failure of the ISI-CIA meeting in Washington, the Pak-US military top brass, too, has apparently not seen eye to eye on their diverging policies on terrorism. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen flew in seemingly holding an olive branch and saying the two countries could not afford to allow their anti-terrorism alliance to unravel, but ended up saying things that denote just such an unravelling. Before going in for the important meetings in Rawalpindi, he stuck to the red line often read out to Pakistan: “It’s fairly well-known that the ISI has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network. Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners. And I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

But he also appended to this his resolve not to let the bilateral equation collapse when he said: “The ability to sustain a very difficult period as we have recently, between Pakistan and the United States, is in some ways indicative of the strength of the relationship. That doesn’t mean we don’t have challenges to continue to address, because we do.” This ‘very difficult’ recent period was characterised by a furore in Pakistan over the arrest of a CIA agent who had killed two Pakistanis in Lahore and the subsequent demand by Pakistan that the CIA cut back on its activities in Pakistan and put on record the functions of American officials coming in on diplomatic passports. The US admiral, in fact, publicly admitted this, saying that it was a “setback” to relations between the two countries.

Part of Pakistan’s response to Admiral Mullen’s remarks, as reported in the press, may not be considered very convincing except to the Pakistanis, 70 per cent of whom express dislike of the US and some even recommend cutting off relations with it. Officials say the Haqqani connection is not there and that “even if you are enemies, you have a relationship”. The upshot is that Pakistan is not willing to change its current policy on North Waziristan and may not be interested in explaining the real reason why it doesn’t want to send in the troops to remove the Haqqanis and other foreign terrorists from there, in that they could be used as bargaining chips when the Afghan chessboard is reconfigured, say, following an American troops pullout. However, sooner or later, the militants who have found a safe haven in North Waziristan will have to be attacked. The more credible part of the response, that the military is too thinly spread since it is operating in other militancy-prone areas, might actually be a more fruitful subject of discussion with the Americans.

The US military chief could not be drawn out on drone attacks, but that is the burning issue in Pakistan on which the military again reiterated its stance, that they are harmful for security and peace in the region. In fact, the military is now backed by all political parties, both in power and those in the opposition. The widening opposition to the drones, coming now also from the PPP and the ANP, has perhaps been crystallised by the virtual non-implementation of the Kerry-Lugar funds after the legislation was passed in 2008. At that time, the fact that it would give a hefty allocation for civilian sectors in Pakistan was much-hyped, but so far only a tenth of the funds have actually made their way into Pakistan.

If Admiral Mullen thinks that both sides will equally strive not to allow the alliance from unravelling, he will have to make sure that advantages from this alliance are equally shared. Also, the Americans have to do something to negate the impression among many Pakistanis that when things get tough for them in Afghanistan, they start passing the buck to Pakistan. For the latter, it is important to separate ‘incapacity’ from ‘strategy’ and come clean on why it is not taking on the terrorists on its soil.

“Patsy-Stan,” the Perilous Partnership With America

Turning on an “ally” Coolie kuta

Mostaque Ali

.
It was Henry Kissinger in the mid-1970′s who said roughly, “It is more dangerous to be an ally of the USA, then its enemy.”

And so the Shah of Iran found out in 1978-79; Ditto Diem of South Vietnam; General Noriega of Panama 1989; Marcos of the Philippines; Saddam of Iraq in 1990/91; Gaddafi of Libya 2011; Mubarak of Egypt 2011; Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan from 1965–69; General Musharaf of Pakistan 2007–8; Mullah Omer of the Taliban 2001. Yes Mullah Omer of the Taliban and the USA were once great buddies, in fact the American’s installed him into power using the resources, manpower and logistics of the Pakistan military……..but despite all this Pakistani help, by pure definition mullah Omer was an American installed puppet.

America is a nation with competing Jewish interests (various elite groups). Being a puppet and a client state of such a nation imperils the long term interests of the ally of the USA, unless you are a powerful independent state, or you are at the other end of the spectrum where the client state is so small and insignificant…the American’s don’t really need to impose any real new policies (Kuwait, Kiribati). When the competing Jewish interests are imposed on a client nation as policy, this may severely strain the relationship between the two states because the new American policy being imposed is so bad (drone strikes in Pakistan’s case) that the client regime comes under strong domestic pressure, naturally.

The American reaction usually in the last scenario above, as the lone superpower is not to reflect, be circumspect and offer alternative solutions and policies…..but to change the puppet in charge who WILL carry out American policy in the client state.

Musharaf often referred to as Busharaf for obvious reasons, who conceded to the USA ON SECURITY within Pakistan, more than any other Pakistani leader (The Americans using the pressure tactics of the 9/11 false flag event, “We’ll bomb you back to the stone age”, courtesy of Richard Armitage), was still unsatisfactory for the American’s who envisaged a colonial Raj takeover of Pakistan, under the guise of GWoT, to secure its nukes for Israel, post 9/11. Thus Musharaf was pushed out using Benazir Bhutto’s death, civil society and a cooperative military…..to impose Zardari, Mr. 10% who was/is correctly believed by the USA to be totally amoral, capable of selling his own mother if the price is right. Such a man as Zardari was deemed more useful for America’s agenda in Pakistan which is…..creeping occupation of Pakistan using GWoT, and the securing of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, about which Raymond Davies may have been probing deep in the Punjab, as a pose to doing his work in the NWFP. Under Zardari drone strikes in Pakistan has increased dramatically.

Many in the Pakistan military, especially in the top brass love the USA….since many have under gone extensive training there. But as the examples of Third World dictators exiting show above, the American “love’ is rarely reciprocated or permanent.

In the below article Admiral Mullen as head of the American armed forces, makes vague suggestions that the Pakistani government is somehow tied to terrorism. Building up the image that Pakistan is terrorist hub number one.

This is utter nonsense…….technically and specifically if we are referring to the civilian government of Asif Zardari of the PPP. 1) The civilian government of Zardari was brought into power by the USA, toppling Musharaf, and thus the American’s must have had inside knowledge of Zardari’s true nature….and what really motivates Zardari…….$/money. 2) The real power in Pakistan, thanks to the USA, is the military…using the ISI…..and thus the only real “government” with any control of events in Pakistan is the military.

Now if Admiral Mullen is pointing a finger at the Pakistan military and their ties to terrorism then he should be more clear, for everybody’s sake, and say so. YES, if he were to say this then he would be correct………the 500,000 Jihadi’s in Pakistan now are ALL controlled by the Pakistan military, and have been groomed since the late 1970′s. They represent the proxy militia arm of the Pakistan military which carry out the Pakistan military’s policy both within Pakistan and outside……without having to use the regular forces (800,000) or the paramilitary (300,000)……fighting Shia minorities in the extreme North, or NWFP….fighting India in Kashmir ongoing (Kargil also)….fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Pakistan’s interests as per the “strategic depth” policy put forward by the American’s themselves.

Finally the 300 terrorist incidents inside Pakistan since 2001, with about 4000 civilian deaths have been carried out by the same Pakistan military controlled Jihadis……LeT, HuJI, Taliban, Swat Taliban, Asian Tigers and what ever other cock and bull names these Pakistani military controlled outfits call themselves for the week………..the objective being (i) To destabilize the civilian government since 2008 (ii) Promote the truly bizarre perverse calculation and logic within the Pakistan military that uncle SAM won’t let the Pakistan state fail, and will/must not allow it to fall into the hands of the Taliban………the oft repeated mantra…and thus must pour security resources into the hands of the brave loyal Pakistani military fighting an epic hand to hand battle against terrorists within GWoT, for the USA. (Coolie Kuta logic which is dangerous for Pakistan). (iii) Each terrorist incident carried out by the Pakistani military controlled Jihadis increases the positive profile of the Pakistan military in the eyes of the civilians, as national custodians of Pakistan’s defenses and security!!!!

In defense of the indefensible Pakistan military one has to say that many greasy Third World nations do run various “militia” groups in South America, Africa and Asia……often with full American backing, arming, training…….Guatemala….El Salvador…..Indonesia (Admiral Mullen is obviously behaving like the Pot calling the kettle black) BUT…..500,000 jihadis I have to say is too many for such a failed unstable strife ridden state as Pakistan.

But as with the above proverb, IT IS THE USA which fully advised, armed, trained, funded Pakistan’s Jihadi monsters from the 1970′s using the Pakistan military to fight the Soviet Union initially, and said nothing and did nothing to control this monster once the job was done in 1989.

The Taliban is the love child of the USA and the Pakistan military from 1994.

The fake phantom “al-Qaeda” is the love child of the USA/Israel and the Pakistan military……..a threat to nobody unless a threat needs to be created.

The revolution syndrome

—M Hassan Hakeem

Many analyse the present situation of the country as ripe for a ‘revolution’, seeing what has been going around in rest of the world. But comparing the
socio-political liberties of Pakistanis with those of Arabs and Africans leads one to conclude that the former have a greater proportion of independence in most, if not all, aspects 

The world community is
witnessing a new chapter of democratic history being written with protests emanating from North Africa and spreading to the entire Arab world. The uprisings are similar to the ones witnessed in the 1990s in demands but intense in magnitude and momentum. With no visible leadership on top of these excited demonstrators, these uprisings are like a headless body structure, senseless and leaderless, a cruise with no destination at all.
The ‘Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia’ speaks volumes about American puppetry: a stage show where actors change while the play remains the same. The public needed a legitimate mechanism to ventilate grievances. Now that long-term ally of the West, Ben Ali, has been ousted, the system still remains intact while the players have ostentatiously been changed; an old wine in a shiny new bottle. Egypt’s case is no different. Now being ruled by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, that has always been a close ally of the US, the public mood is still dark and discontent looms large.
Likewise, Libya has been the latest addition to this list. Colonel Gaddafi functioned internationally by pitching himself as a revolutionary anti-imperialist, immune to western manipulation. There have been a number of revolts and worse humanitarian crises in recent years (if the Rwandan genocides of the early 1990s and the Yemen uprising are anything to go by), where NATO, with the US at the helm, did nothing.
A number of reasons correspond to the military intervention by NATO. One of them is that Libya has more often than not been on the outskirts of the American domain of influence and the latter finds this window of opportunity providential to its imperial interests. Secondly, there is the issue of western interest in Libyan oil resources, a fact being kept under the wraps. Libya, a key supplier to Europe, appears to be a square deal for the West. However, the western media remains completely negligent in reporting that oil tankers have started arriving at the Marsa el-Hariga export terminal to load oil bound for Qatar. The Italian government’s formal recognition of oil rich town Benghazi-based Transitional National Council (TNC) ensures that the Libyan opposition will sell oil to Italy. This is a blatant attempt to protect British and western companies’ massive investments in Libya.
Thirdly, Washington’s reaction was slow and stilted in case of Tunisian and Egyptian uprising and its tight lipped statements were heavily criticised world over. Fourth, the emergence of Islamic Brotherhood in Middle Eastern uprisings has actually motivated the US to intervene proactively this time on to foster ties with these fundamentalist groups through military support and aid.
Africa and the Arab world equate chaos with ‘revolution’ and think of turmoil as synonymous with revolution. Democracy is a process, not an event, and protests are a part of any democratic process. An uprising must not be confused with revolution; revolution is the toppling of the existing political apparatus that leads to a complete change from one constitution to another (for instance, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran).
What remains an unanswered question is why South Asia, Pakistan in particular, which presently has all the ingredients needed for a true revolution, still lags behind despite the fact that it has been rocked by scandals such as the murder of a governor in broad daylight who dared to criticise man-made blasphemy laws, or the release of an American, purportedly protected by diplomatic immunity, after he had gunned down two Pakistani men in plain view of a crowd. Each of these incidents had the potential in them to spark off a tide of protest and precipitate an uprising, yet they lacked the leadership that would see it through. Do we even have those calibrated visionaries when the leftists stand divided?
Many analyse the present situation of the country as ripe for a ‘revolution’, seeing what has been going around in rest of the world. But comparing the socio-political liberties of Pakistanis with those of Arabs and Africans leads one to conclude that the former have a greater proportion of independence in most, if not all, aspects. Even though our media does not represent all classes of society, the limited segments it does represent do get their grievances ventilated. The western media has always been intense in its reaction to these uprisings and has always coined nomenclature that is fervent and sharp. Unfortunately, our local media instinctively follows what the western media propagates.
Long march, shutter down strikes, etc are all forms of protests indigenous to Pakistan, whereas, the gathering of mobs in large numbers was new to this generation of Middle Eastern and North African countries, regions that had always been suppressed by the autocrats. Public processions and head on collisions with government forces were just as unprecedented in their world of repression.
Another reason why the West cannot afford a revolution in Pakistan is the approaching Afghan endgame. The cost of interests and gains is high for the West. Any twitch internal to Pakistan will have a ripple effect as far as the Oval Office. The convolutions of poverty, psychological estrangements, governance issues, corruption allegations, social injustice and power deficits can never be overlooked, but at the same time, can never be catalysts for a revolution. Be it the killing of two Pakistani boys in broad daylight by a foreigner or Salmaan Taseer’s heroic killing, these correspond to post-traumatic stress symptoms of the ‘War on Terror’ proposed by Uncle Sam.
As put by Richard Nixon in 1980 look-ahead book The Real War, “Many of those who romanticise revolution prefer to view terrorism merely as one of the ills of modern society, or as an outraged response to intolerable social conditions. But ‘senseless’ terrorism is often not as senseless as it may seem … it is a calculated instrument of national policy.”

State Dept. Calls Subversive Stable of Activist Geeks, “an underground railroad of trust”

U.S. Funds Help Democracy Activists Evade Internet Crackdowns 

By Nicole Gaouette and Brendan Greeley

April 20 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc.

The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently described web restrictions by more than 40 governments as a “disturbing trend.” Governments can’t escape the impact of today’s social networks and the U.S. is committed to helping people worldwide connect, she said in an April 12 speech.

“We will stand with those who exercise their fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly in a peaceful way, whether in person, in print, or in pixels on the Internet,” she said.

Governments have curtailed Internet freedom in two ways.

First, they’ve blocked foreign news and social networking sites. Facebook, for example, is frequently unavailable in China and Vietnam. Activists use circumvention software to route around these blocks.

Second, governments track, harass and arrest activists who meet online. Tunisia, before President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s fall from power on Jan. 14, spoofed Facebook and Gmail login pages to steal passwords. Egypt, before President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, arrested opposition bloggers.

Competing Approaches

Republicans in Congress said the U.S. should focus on helping activists get around government firewalls, such as China’s. The State Department has taken a broader approach, making training and protecting activists “perhaps the most critical part” of its mission, Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said in a March 19 interview.

“There’s been one paradigm, that’s the Chinese firewall,” Posner said. “But there’s another piece of this, which has I think become more and more evident in the months since the Tunisian demonstrations began,” he said. “Governments are also effectively trying to attack people who are activists using the Internet.”

The State Department has built up a stable of technically able activists to help democracy movements in places including China and Iran. They have created firewall circumvention software and trained more than 5,000 people to avoid detection while using services such as San Francisco-based Twitter, Baer said.

‘Underground Railroad’

Training takes place through “an underground railroad of trust,” said Baer. “We’re opportunistic about going to places where people are, or taking them to places that are safe.”

By summer, Baer said, the department will have awarded grants of more than $50 million.

About $22 million already spent includes all funding from fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and some funding for fiscal year 2010. The $28 million in new grants, which the agency is soon expected to advise Congress about, is from fiscal year 2010.

One result has been creation of “panic button” technology for mobile phones, which activists can use to erase their address books if they are arrested, to avoid incriminating colleagues. Other programs help keep web sites running when governments attack them.

Posner said department officials are approaching funding of these projects “like venture capitalists,” doling out small amounts to a wide variety of companies in a competitive process through May, 2011.

Republican Criticism

Republicans including Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have criticized the administration for not focusing exclusively on firewall circumvention.

Baer argues the broader approach is needed. “If the objective is to empower people on the ground, you have to keep them out of jail. That means they have to be able to circumvent any blocks, get out their message, communicate with people and have the self-defense training,” said Baer.

To only teach people how to circumvent firewalls “would be tantamount to painting a target on activists’ backs,” said Courtney Austrian, director of the State Department’s office of policy planning and public diplomacy.

Lugar also released a report Feb. 15 that faulted Clinton’s agency for not spending the $30 million Congress allocated last year more quickly.

Budget Cut

Last week, the Republican-controlled House cut the agency’s budget for Internet freedom by one third to $20 million this year, part of the plan to cut the federal deficit in fiscal 2011.

“Twelve months elapsed before the State Department moved to disburse some $30 million in funds specifically appropriated for Internet freedom promotion, including the development of Internet censorship circumvention technology. Such technology should be given a much higher priority by the U.S. government,” Lugar wrote.

The cuts mean “we have less money than we had hoped to fund valuable programs,” said Posner in an e-mail. “But there is a great and growing interest in promoting Internet freedom and $20 million is no small amount of money these days. We’re going to use that money wisely to help embattled democracy and human rights activists. And we hope we’ll get more funds for this important work in 2012.”

Stable of Geeks

The delay in using the funding came because it took time to build up the stable of “geeks at the intersection of human rights and technology,” Baer said. Two and a half years ago, grant advertisements drew two applications. The latest advertisement drew 60, Baer said in a telephone interview.

“Money does matter in this space,” says Brett Solomon, executive director of Access Now, a private organization that supports Internet freedom. His organization does not accept money from governments because it can carry a stigma.

The wisdom of accepting government funds depends on where they are employed. “In Syria,” said Solomon, “how they frame the opposition as lackeys, a falsely generated movement, can actually put people at risk.” In Burma, by contrast, the regime does not rely on an anti-American narrative.

Republicans have pushed for more money for Internet circumvention to go to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees government media including Voice of America.

Last year the BBG funneled the $1.5 million it received for circumvention technology to the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, a group that provides anti-censorship software and is associated with the Falun Gong, a Buddhist spiritual sect banned in China.

Outside News Blocked

Posner described the work of the BBG and the State Department as “different, but complementary.” The BBG has a legitimate interest in tools that allow traffic to reach the Voice of America site and other Western news sources, he said.

A group of Internet activists, lawyers and academics, including senior researchers from MIT and Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, recently wrote to Congress to urge them not to redirect money to the BBG. The BBG’s “overemphasis” on firewall circumvention efforts doesn’t meet the needs of on-the-ground activists, the letter said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Nicole Gaouette in Washington atngaouette@bloomberg.net Brendan Greeley in Washington atbgreeley2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva atmsilva34@bloomberg.net