Afghan Taliban Crying Like Babies Over Pres. Ghani’s Plans To Hang Convicted Taliban Terrorists

Taliban makes plea to international organizations as govt mulls hanging militants

Khaama

https://i2.wp.com/www.khaama.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Taliban-plea-to-international-organizations.jpg

The Taliban militants group in Afghanistan has made a plea to international organizations including the international human rights and International Committee of Red Cross to intervene as the Afghan government mulls hanging militants convicted to terrorist related activities.

Warning that the hanging of militants would have serious repercussions, the Taliban group said “The Islamic Emirate also calls upon international human right organizations, independent media outlets, ICRC and other free impartial committees to not remain indifferent in using their influence concerning matter of prisoner execution.”

Noting the announcement by President Ghani regarding the implementation of judiciary institutions verdicts regarding the terrorists, the group said it “will respond with everything within its power to defend its oppressed nation.”

Meanwhile, President Ghani has reportedly received a list of militants on death row, a day after deputy presidential spokesman Shah Hussain Murtazvi said the list will be provided to the President.

Murtazvi further added that the terrorists would be hanged to death once the cases have been reviewed in a bid to ensure fairness in the verdicts.

The decision to review and implement the judiciary institutions’ verdicts regarding the terror suspects was taken days after Kabul was hit by a deadly attack.

At least 64 people were killed and 347 others were wounded after a group of insurgents launched coordinated attack on VIP protection unit in Pul-e-Mahmood Khan area of the city on 19th April.

Iran supports ‘liberationist movements’ across ME

News ID: 3609760 – Wed 27 April 2016 – 16:54
TEHRAN, Apr. 27 (MNA) – Iran’s defense minister has addressed the 4th Moscow Conference on International Security.

Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan who was addressing the meeting in Moscow on Wednesday, expressed thanks to his Russian counterpart for inviting Iran for an international meeting on security; “I would like to thank Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu for hosting the conference,” he added.

“In the last year’s edition of the conference, I had warned about spread of terrorism and militancy in the Middle East, Caucasia, Central Asia, India, western China, and Europe. Now, we see that terrorism and extremism have improved themselves, reaching their culmination in virtually all regions with heinous crimes and mass killing of Muslims and non-Muslims alike; surprisingly and unfortunately, some governments of the region have continued their support in resources, logistics, and arms to these fundamentalists,” Dehghan told the meeting.

“We believe political despotism, poverty, destitution, and political vassalage to great powers outside the region who at the same time act as proxies of these powers contribute to the vicious circle of terrorism and social and political under-representation and denigration of nations; the confounding factors are ethnoreligious hatred and conflict of interests which invite foreign intervention,” he emphasized.

“Double-standards in dealing terrorism by the US and its allies and in justification of their interests in the region is another important contributor to this circle; these conducts, we believe, will precipitate the conditions very similar to those preceding world wars,” Dehghan added. “Realism however would provide some solutions to this question of looming global conflict and other questions; in a world of insecurity, instability, and rife with horrors of terrorists’ crimes, the US and Zionists have been seeking their own interests.”

“The Islamic Republic of Iran systematically opposes any militarization of the outer space as violating the principles of international peace and stability and of unrepairable damage for all nations,” he emphasized, voicing the same opposition to proliferation and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction across the globe. “We believe the Zionist regime is a threat to international peace and that the NPT members should be motivated enough to promote international peace and a world free of nuclear weapons,” he concluded.

The Return of Pakistan’s Military Dictatorship—goodbye democracy

[SEE:  Pakistan’s Multi-Front Wars and the Return of the Military Dictatorship]

Something’s got to give in Islamabad

The Hindu
THEN AND NOW: “The similarity, however, between 2016 and 1999 is that the real reason for the army’s need to remove the Prime Minister may not necessarily be corruption.”
AP   THEN AND NOW: “The similarity, however, between 2016 and 1999 is that the real reason for the army’s need to remove the Prime Minister may not necessarily be corruption.”

By removing 13 of his officers, the army chief has all but asked the Prime Minister to quit — and the oligarchic warfare in Pakistan has turned more complex than ever before

So is Pakistan’s military getting ready to take over the government for a fifth time in its 69 years of existence to play its self-acquired additional role of defending national integrity? The country’s all-powerful army chief seems to have implicitly asked the third-time elected prime minister to quit. After names of some members of Nawaz Sharif’s family appeared in the recent Panama Papers leak, General Raheel Sharif made a pitch asking the Prime Minister to offer himself for an above-the-board accountability, which basically means to resign. The general is now joined by the GHQ’s new political creations, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Mustafa Kamal’s Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP). Mr. Sharif snapped back by giving a televised speech in which he questioned the moral authority of the military to question him. Given excessive publicity since he took over as army chief, General Sharif seems to have greater moral authority to poke Mr. Sharif where it hurts. The television speech did not earn the political Sharif kudos, but it did indicate his intent to fight back.

Just like 1999?

The situation is a reminder of the friction between the heads of government and army after the Kargil operation in 1999. Even then, the main charge for removing the Sharif government was corruption. The then army chief, Pervez Musharraf, seemingly made appropriate laws and organisation to fight corruption. The National Accountability Ordinance (NAO, 1999) was framed as a draconian law to pursue the corrupt, track looted money and bring it back where it belonged.

But available evidence suggests that he gave up his overzealous pursuit of corruption within months of taking over. He was advised against scaring men with money out of the country at a critical time for the economy. Moreover, he needed civilian partners to bolster his own political career, due to which he brought on board numerous tainted politicians. Instead of recovering looted money from the Sharifs, as was claimed, General Musharraf cut a deal and sent the family in exile. Later, he withdrew a critical case being pursued in Swiss courts against Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari as part of the NRO deal. The situation is not likely to be any different now despite General Sharif making a linkage between terrorism and corruption. He appears to have even got the endorsement for this linkage from the Americans. But it still seems he will wait for Mr. Sharif’s boat to capsize under the burden of excessive criticism.

The real similarity, however, between 2016 and 1999 is that the real reason for the army’s need to remove the Prime Minister may not necessarily be corruption. Many believe that the army chief’s source of anxiety is with Mr. Sharif’s desire to challenge the military’s power through a permanent regional policy change and buying into the senior officer cadre. Every time he is in power, Mr. Sharif tends to divide the echelons. The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a battle between oligarchs. The army is the most organised and powerful oligarch which is also responsible for creating other oligarchs. Starting from the late 1960s, the army midwifed most political leaders. But that does not mean that they will not evolve and try to come into their own. In fact, the problem is that the PML-N and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) have rebelled in their own way, especially when they signed the Charter of Democracy in 2006. Mr. Sharif also seems to have divided the judiciary, which was subservient to the GHQ for a long time. Though it is not entirely free of the military’s influence, there are members who have cosied up to Mr. Sharif as a way to gain freedom from the military. According to the British legal expert Martin Lau, traditionally Pakistan’s judiciary engaged in Islamic judicial activism in order to gain ascendency over the military. Now they have a partner. This leaves the army with its under-construction oligarchs such as the PTI and PSP or its older partners such as the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. Even the Jaish-e-Mohammed has become increasingly critical of Mr. Sharif’s ‘liberalism’ and ‘corruption’.

Uncertain consequences

Certainly, the oligarchic warfare in Pakistan has turned more complex and interesting than ever before. The consequences are not as predictable as they used to be. The generals continue to turn on the heat, which is very obvious from the manner in which news of the army chief removing 13 of his officers, including a lieutenant general, a major general and five brigadiers, was publicised. General Sharif can’t be bothered about creating the impression that he is on the same page as the government. In fact, such a notion has proved to be a total farce. We know that the military and civil leaderships were never on the same page. Even when it seemed to be the case, they were reading different lines. Now, the general wants to test his credibility to take on a prime minister. He is trying to convince the people and the world at large that he is more credible than the civilian dispensation. If he can sack his officers for corruption, then why can’t the political government go?

But it is not the first time that senior officers have been sacked. General Waheed Kakar also removed a couple of lieutenant generals. Nonetheless, it is the first time that the Director General (DG) of Inter Services Public Relations, Lt. General Asim Bajwa, leaked the news. This creates the impression that if the army, considered like Caesar’s wife — above questioning — can put itself through the accountability mechanism, then why not the civilians? Furthermore, there is systematic image-building of the chief. Thus far, General Sharif doesn’t seem to have any skeletons in his cupboard, but that itself does not say much about the accountability of his institution, which tends to manipulate laws to exploit state resources and label it as legal. After all, the general did make choices. He was instrumental in General Musharraf’s latest escape from accountability.

It is almost like watching the Turkish soap on the Ottoman empire that is very popular in Pakistan. There are incessant intrigues and conspiracies to protect individual power. Sadly, there is little hope for a positive outcome whichever way the battle turns. While General Sharif’s victory is bad for the country, the likelihood of great gains from Mr. Sharif’s would be equally dismal. The stakes are so high that it is not likely that they will learn the fundamental lesson that accountability and transparency are necessary for survival of both state and society.

Ayesha Siddiqa  Ayesha Siddiqa is an Islamabad-based columnist.

Afghan Govt Condemns Taliban Reception In Islamabad

[SEE:  Afghan Taliban say team in Pakistan not for peace talks ]

Kabul Questions Taliban Trip To Pakistan

TOLO NEWS

taliban-28-april-16

The Afghan government on Thursday raised questions over the recent trip by a Taliban delegation, from Qatar, to Pakistan.

A Taliban delegation reportedly arrived in Pakistan this week to allegedly address problems faced by Afghan refugees.

This comes close on the heels of President Ashraf Ghani’s speech earlier this week where he said peace talks between some factions of the Taliban were off the table.

“The Taliban delegation’s trip to Pakistan from our prospective is totally questionable. A terrorist group does not have the right to travel to countries. We expect Pakistan to have government-to-government relations with Afghanistan,” said Shahussain Murtazawi, the deputy spokesman for Ghani.

Kabul meanwhile urged Islamabad to honor its pledge and suppress the militants who are engaged in violence in Afghanistan.

“Action should be taken against the militants who are involved in terrorist activities from Pakistan’s soil in Afghanistan. This is the demand that our allies have as well,” said Tawab Ghorzang, spokesman for the National Security Council (NSC).

The National Unity Government (NUG) meanwhile threatened to take revenge on the Taliban and other militants.

“Afghan security forces’ aim is to defend Afghanistan, defend our values and defend the people of Afghanistan…. We will take revenge of the blood of our people on terrorists,” said Jawed Faisal, the deputy spokesman for Chief Executive Office Abdullah Abdullah.

It seems that following Ghani’s order, Afghan security forces have expanded their military operations to suppress militants.

“Besides ground achievements, we had good achievements in our night raids. Whenever the enemies have risen up, we have either eliminated them, or have arrested them,” said Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Ministry of Defense (MoD).

“We haven’t seen [results] in the battleground so far. However, we can say that they (security forces) are devising plans and should act in accordance with the newly devised plans,” said Mirza Mohammad Yarmand, the former Deputy Minister of Interior.

Currently, security forces are conducting 15 large-scale operations in 11 provinces.

USA, CIA Created Sunni Islamic Terrorism

big towers Twin Towers in Flame

USA, CIA Created Sunni Islamic Terrorism 

united copts of g b

By Lee Jay Walker
Tokyo Correspondent

 

The Sept. 11 attacks were a series of suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the US on Sept. 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 Islamist terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked 4 passenger jet airliners.The hijackers intentionally crashed 2 of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC. 2,974 people died in the attacks.

The United States of America is clearly responsible for the dire situation in modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the consequences of this is that global Sunni Islamic jihadists are still bent on causing more mayhem. So why did ex-President Jimmy Carter, and other leaders of America, develop such a pro-Sunni Islamic terrorist network? Also, why aren’t past leaders like Jimmy Carter and ex-National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, being made accountable for their failed policies?

Of course it is true that radical Islam is not a new concept and Sunni Islamic forces have used terror and war since the 7th century. After all, you will find very few traces of Christianity in modern day North Africa outside of Egypt and the same applies to Buddhism in modern day Afghanistan. Similar statements can be used about the defeat of Zoroastrianism by Islamic forces or the ongoing marginalization of Hinduism in modern day Pakistan.

Yes, “Islamic apologists” will point the finger at past Christian misdeeds in South America, and so forth, or they will make up a multitude of excuses. However, in the 21st century we are still witnessing the ongoing Islamic jihad movement and this movement desires to crush religious liberty, freedom, democracy, the rights of women, and the richness of diversity.

Yet the real tragedy is simple, because democratic forces, creeping secularism, moderate versions of Islam, and so forth, were springing up throughout the Middle East and much further afield where Muslims were a majority. Therefore, in nations like Indonesia the Christian faith was allowed to spread and Muslims and Christians had a united bond, this bond was humanity.

It appeared that the “notion of Islamic jihad” was on the wane, just like radical Christian forces had been challenged by new ideas in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, pan-Arabism, socialism, and other forces, alongside passive Islam, was changing the make-up of society.

This is an over-simplification because the topic is so vast, however, new laws were being implemented in nations like Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Syria, and a host of other mainly Muslim nations, whereby greater freedoms were being enforced. So just like Europe, which once had its brutal Catholic-Protestant inter-wars, a new era looked liked it was going to “dawn.”

However, this era was soon about to collapse but the reasons behind this collapse are galling because the hands of America and Saudi Arabia can be found everywhere. Therefore, let us now focus on the unleashing of Sunni Islamic “dark forces” via American and Saudi Arabian sponsorship of terrorism.

To place an exact date is complex because links between America and radical Sunni Islamic forces run deep but it is clear that democratic forces, nationalistic movements, pan-Arabism, socialism, and other more moderate forces were seen to be the enemy. For example, Egypt went from being secular under Nasser to adopting Islamic laws under the pro-American, Anwar Sadat.

The same scenario would happen in Pakistan because America welcomed General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq who took power in the late 1970s. Therefore, Pakistan was transformed into a more Islamized nation whereby laws and other institutions would be Islamized. In time the USA would strengthen their ties with Zia-ul-Haq in order to fund the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) implemented Operation Cyclone and this policy was aimed at supporting the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski began a new policy whereby America would support radical Islam in the full knowledge that this meant supporting terrorism and a movement which supported killing all apostates from Islam and persecuting women.

Just like Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the next leader of America, Ronald Reagan, would continue this policy. Jimmy Carter stated that “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War.” However, the greatest threat to global peace was America and the Sunni Islamic terrorist movement which was funded by the CIA and other important American operatives.

For unlike communism or pan-Arabism, or other political ideologies, these movements are temporary. Yet radical Islam had sprouted up throughout history after periods of relative decline and it is not a movement which can be switched on and off. After all, we are talking about a radical ideology which is fused with religion and this makes it more potent.

Therefore, both political parties in America were involved in the funding of radical Sunni Islam. People like Michael G. Vickers, a Special Forces NCO, was commissioned by the CIA to support radical Islamic forces. Of major importance was coordination and launching attacks against the Soviet Union which would prove to be successful. Given this, Vickers, and other covert operatives, would train terrorists and in time they would unleash a force that could not be contained.

The CIA’s regional head, Gustav Avrakotos, alongside people like Charlie Wilson, Gordan Humphrey, Fred Ikle, William Casey, Joanne Herring, and a host of others, were all responsible in spreading radical Islam in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Therefore, the “dark forces” of radical Sunni Islam were being unified via enormous funding and military training. So the CIA, political leaders, and the people mentioned above, would all play their role in the future destabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan and in making September 11th happen.

Of instrumental importance was Pakistan and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) unit which would work hand-in-hand with the CIA and other covert networks. Other nations were also involved, including the British, because MI6 and the SAS, would help to train Islamic terrorists and of course Saudi Arabia would provide ample funds in order to spread radical Sunni Islam.

Therefore, America, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, funded “the year zero Islamic jihadists” for different reasons. For China, it was based on hostile factors related to the Soviet Union. Yet it is clear that America and Saudi Arabia were instrumental in spreading radical Islam and of course the British “tail” also “wagged” in order to appease Washington.

Between 1981-1987 the USA provided over US$3.2 billion dollars and this was followed by a further $4.2 billion dollars. More important, the CIA, MI6, the SAS, and other covert agencies, were involved in training radical Islamists. The outcome being a multi-ethnic jihadist movement which would be armed and trained by America, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and others, but with America and Saudi Arabia being the cornerstone, and with Pakistan being the unifying factor because of geopolitical factors.

So major Sunni Islamic warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar would be funded and trained. Hekmatyar in turn would develop relations with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and the nucleus of this would come by helping Maktab al-Khadamat.

The late Benazir Bhutto stated that “You are creating a Frankenstein.” Benazir Bhutto stated this when she met President George H. W. Bush in the late 1980s. This “Frankenstein” would certainly come back to haunt America and Pakistan, and of course undermine Afghanistan to this day.

Given this, then it is abundantly clear that the killing of Christian converts from Islam, stoning women to death, flogging people, chopping hands and feet off because of Islamic Sharia punishments, were all tolerated by America and the people who supported radical Islam in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. So why no accountability, after all, America supports war crimes in the Balkans but why not try past America leaders or CIA operatives, and others, who have unleashed mayhem and disaster?

Even today, America is “turning a blind eye” towards Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are in crisis. Yet look at the people on the ground, it is women who now fear persecution in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is minorities, like Shia Muslims, Christians, Ahmadiyya’s, and others, who face death daily or the fear of persecution.

September 11th, the destruction of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the spread of radical Islam to moderate nations like Indonesia, can all be blamed on past American leaders and names that I have mentioned already. So why aren’t these people facing the consequences of their actions?

For they have unleashed “a potent” and radical Sunni Islamic movement which is destroying the fabric of society in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just like the same Islamists caused mayhem and bloodshed in Algeria and other parts of the world. The road to September 11th and “year zero Islamic jihadists” was created by the forces of America and Saudi Arabia, alongside other important players like Pakistan. Yet what about real accountability and “the real story being told?”

Strange Admission From Pak Press–Taliban Delegation Negotiating W/Pakistan, But Not For Peace

ISLAMABAD: Afghan Tali­ban on Wednesday formally confirmed that a delegation from their political office in Qatar was visiting Pakistan and promised “fruitful results”, but rejected the impression that the group was there to discuss participation in peace talks with Kabul.

Muhammad Naeem, a Qatar-based spokesman for the Taliban, told journalists that Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour had instructed the group to visit Pakistan.

He said the visit “would be in the interest of both countries and would have fruitful results”.

This was first official confirmation by the Taliban of the visit of a three-member delegation from their Doha office, whose arrival was earlier reported by the media. The delegation includes Shahabuddin Dilawar, Jan Muhammad and Mullah Abbas.

The arrival of the group, which coincided with the visit of US Deputy Special Represen­tative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Jonathan Carpenter, led to speculations that the Taliban leaders had come to talk about the start of the peace dialogue.

The Taliban spokesman, however, said that the delegation was in Pakistan for talks on wide-ranging issues, including refugees’ matters, problems in Helmand, Nangarhar and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan, and seeking an end to restrictions on the movement of Taliban leader Mullah Baradar.

Talking to VoA about reconciliation being discussed during the trip, he said: “The delegation, which has gone [to Pakistan] from here [Qatar] is holding talks on the issues that I have stated already and has no other particular item on the agenda”.

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry, responding to a media question about the visit of Taliban leaders from their Qatar office, said he had no information about the trip.

Mr Chaudhry also rejected the possibility of expansion in Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG), which is working for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan.

He said the four-nation group’s attempts for opening direct talks between the Afghan government and Taliban did not bear fruit so far, but the group was continuing its efforts.

The foreign secretary’s remarks came against the backdrop of expression of interest by Russia to contribute to peace efforts in Afghanistan. Interfax news agency cited the Russian special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, as saying that Moscow could help in the peace process if interests of all parties taking part in it were respected.

Mr Kabulov was dismissive of the efforts of QCG, which includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US and China, and said Moscow was not interested in becoming part of the group.

He said Russia was ready to create a new format for peace talks.

NATO Building Black Sea Fleet

Romania Calls for Permanent NATO Black Sea Force

The Russian foreign Ministry reacted to the plans of NATO to create the black sea fleet

LNR latest news resource

The official representative of Russian foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova believes that the project of creation of the black sea fleet, NATO has seriously undermined security and stability in the region. This is stated in the document, published on Wednesday, April 27, at site Department. Zakharova said that the plans of the Alliance are forcing Moscow to take adequate steps to ensure their own security.

“It is obvious that the conversations on this topic, not to mention practical solutions, if they, of course, will be, will not promote the conservation of the Black sea as a region of peace and good neighborliness”, — said the representative office. Zakharov stressed that the bloc’s leadership, this project does not comment.

In April, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko said, that Kiev is ready to join the creation of the black sea fleet. In January, the media reported that the Ministry of defence of Romania start the negotiations with NATO on the issue of formation of such Alliance connections.

To be part of the new naval group that Bucharest wants to see in the region can, Navy ships, United States, Germany, Italy and Turkey. It is assumed that a new fleet may be similar in structure with the already existing ones that do not reside in the Black sea. The project is under control of Prime Minister of Romania, Dacian ciolos and the Minister of national defence of Mihnea Motoc.

In the Black sea regularly come warships of US, UK and other non-black sea countries-members of NATO. So, in October 2015 there was American missile destroyer “porter”, which conducted exercises with the Ukrainian Navy ships and coast guard of Georgia, visited Odessa and Batumi.

The residence time of ships nachimovsky States in the Black sea is limited to 21 days. This term is defined by the Montreux Convention, signed on 21 July 1936, USSR, Turkey, great Britain, France, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Yugoslavia, Australia and Japan.