Pity the Nation…That Needs Heroes

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Pity the nation…

Two mutilated bodies of Baloch political workers — Mehboob Wadela of the Baloch National Movement (BNM) and Rehman Arif of the Baloch Republican Party (BRP) — were found in Gwadar district on Wednesday. Mr Wadela went missing in April 2010 from Karachi while Mr Arif was abducted four months ago. On the one hand the number of disappeared Baloch keeps increasing with every passing day while on the other hand the bullet-riddled bodies of the ‘missing’ Baloch people keep appearing in every nook and corner of Balochistan. In its recent report on Balochistan, Amnesty International (AI) called on the government to “immediately provide accountability for the alarming number of killings and abductions in Balochistan attributed to government forces in recent months”. According to the information compiled by AI, “In the last four months, at least 90 Baloch activists, teachers, journalists and lawyers have disappeared or been murdered, many in ‘kill and dump’ operations…Their bullet-ridden bodies, most bearing torture marks, have been recovered across Balochistan.” This report should have raised alarm bells in the power corridors but as is usual in this province’s case, our ruling elite has chosen to stay quiet.

Balochistan may be the largest province of Pakistan but it is also the province that has suffered the most in the last six decades. The Baloch were alienated right from the beginning when Balochistan was forcefully annexed to Pakistan. The state could have made things better but it chose not to. The powerful military establishment, which is mostly dominated by Punjabis, created further trouble by conducting military operations in Balochistan on a number of occasions. During Musharraf’s regime, the woes of the Baloch increased manifold after he launched another military operation just to satisfy his ego when rockets were fired in protest at his arrival in Kohlu. He publicly vowed to take revenge and created a parallel government in the province by deploying the Frontier Corps (FC) there. Since then there has been no looking back. Nawab Akbar Bugti’s assassination by the military forces was ‘celebrated’ by General (retd) Musharraf. When the PPP government came to power in 2008 and Musharraf was later ousted as the president, the people of Balochistan thought that some relief might come their way but it was not to be. Despite the NFC Award and the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan Package, the condition of the Baloch still remains the same. Thousands of Baloch are missing and their families are still waiting for justice. Previously, only the Baloch separatists were targeted by the military establishment but now even moderate Baloch nationalists are not being spared. Targeting the moderate Baloch nationalists is a dangerous trend and could lead to grave consequences for the federation because it will increase extreme views and separatist sentiment. The democratically elected government remains powerless while the powerful establishment calls the shots.

The Baloch have only been asking for their rights all these years. Our state has failed to address their grievances. By refusing to give in to their just demands and killing the Baloch people left, right and centre, the state has not done any favour to either the federation or Balochistan. We must not forget what happened back in 1971 when West Pakistan refused to address the grievances of East Pakistan. It is hoped that we will not make the same mistake again. It is time that the government talks to all Baloch leaders, those in exile and those in Pakistan. Unless and until a political solution is reached, the Baloch will not give up armed insurgency. The Baloch have suffered enough. It is time to bring back peace in the lives of the people of Balochistan.


Egyptian and Other Revolutions Take Steam Out of Zawahiri’s Sails

[Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Zawahiri’s terror group have been at the center of all American “Islamist” terror groups since the beginning, before there was an “al-Qaeda” or the American Mujahedeen “base,” “al Q eidat.” The reality of an Egyptian revolution, taking place because of a bunch of kids and “moderate Muslims” may become too much for the old terrorist to bear.  If he were not an American puppet, the group we know as “al-Qaeda” would now be planning a massive awakening for the Egyptian masses.  But that would likely put the old murderer on the other side of America’s “red line” separating old “Islamist” paradigm from new moderate revolutionaries.  The days ahead for the Egyptians may prove to be even more chaotic than the ones seen so far.

Everyday is an adventure in “Zombieland.”]

Al-Qaida’s Embarrassment

Revolutions Mark Setback for Terror Group

By Yassin Musharbash

Pcitured here is Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. Another al-Qaida leader said: "It is true the revolution is not entirely what we had envisioned."


Pcitured here is Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. Another al-Qaida leader said: “It is true the revolution is not entirely what we had envisioned.”

Ben Ali has fled, Mubarak has been overthrown and Gadhafi is faltering, but al-Qaida is frustrated, because jihadists have played no role whatsoever in the great revolution in the Arab world. The terrorist organization has repeatedly tried to use propaganda to take credit for the revolts, but no one is listening.

One of the side effects of the Arab revolt is that the jihad bubble has burst, at least for now. The popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have impressively demonstrated how little jihadists have to say in Arab societies. Contrary to the propaganda they have been spreading for decades, their mobilization potential is virtually nonexistent.

Their original goal — the overthrow of the secular regimes in the Arab world — has been achieved by others, including groups that are among the declared enemies of al-Qaida and its allies: secularists, students with a Western orientation, politically active women, people who support democracy and moderate Islamists. It isn’t al-Qaida that has proven to be a vanguard, but the secular, Internet-savvy youth of the Arab world. And no one on the squares and streets, from Tunis to Benghazi, has called for a Taliban-esque theocracy, al-Qaida’s vision for the Islamic world.

What an embarrassing revelation!

But because those who live in the universe of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his associates refuse to accept this reality, an effort is already underway to reinterpret recent events in the Arab world. At first, it seemed as if the terrorist network hadn’t found any words to comment on the massive upheavals. But now al-Qaida’s spin on the events in the Middle East is gradually becoming clear.

Al-Qaida is serving up a mixture of currying favor and issuing dire warnings. On Thursday, the North African branch of the organization, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), declared its support for the revolt in Libya. Of course, that revolt is being portrayed as “jihad,” while al-Qaida insists that it makes sense for the Libyans to be rising up against dictator Moammar Gadhafi because he is an “enemy of God.” Besides, as AQIM claims with some audacity, “we have consistently fought solely for your defense.”

The Divide Between Real and Wannabe Revolutionaries

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s second-in-command and one of the Egyptian jihadists who has spent a lifetime fighting against the “godless” regime there, issued a statement on the situation in Egypt on Feb. 18. He too congratulated the revolutionaries, but the first thing he felt compelled to say about his native Egypt was that it is “secular and democratic,” and that this is what must change.

This is remarkable. While hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets precisely because the regime was only outwardly democratic, this is exactly the issue Zawahiri emphasizes as a reason for a revolt! The divide that is apparent here between the real and the wannabe revolutionaries is enormous and embarrassing, even for the occasional hardcore Islamist, especially when Zawahiri ups the ante and accuses Mubarak of having rigged elections. This isn’t exactly a coherent analysis.

Meanwhile, also on Thursday, the Libyan-born al-Qaida ideologue Attiyat Allah addressed the uprisings in North Africa and his native Libya. At least he was honest enough to admit that “it is true that this revolution is not entirely what we had envisioned.”

But he too had little more to offer than the warning not to ignore the Koran as a guideline for action. He suggested that the newly won freedoms in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya be used for missionary work and activism to help shape the future in a jihadist sense.

It is unlikely that this will transpire. It is far more likely that moderate Islamists will play this role, which, of course, would not mesh with al-Qaida’s goals, either.

But as humiliated as al-Qaida and its allies may be at the moment, this is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs. It is easier to fight democratic governments than despots, and chaos has always been a fertile breeding ground for jihadists. Jihadism hasn’t been defeated yet. Thanks to the revolts, it has only become recognizable for what it is: the ideology and bloody practice of a very small minority among Arabs and Muslims.

German News Reports Second Suspected Syrian Nuclear Facility Identified

Report: Second Suspected Syrian Nuclear Facility Identified

(RTTNews) – Western intelligence agencies have identified a second suspected nuclear site in Syria which, they believe, was set up to produce fuel for the country’s secret nuclear program, a German newspaper reported on Thursday.

Munich’s ‘Sueddeutsche Zeitung’ newspaper claimed in its report that photos taken from inside two buildings near Damascus, obtained by Western intelligence agencies, showed equipment characteristic for uranium conversion.

According to the report, experts have expressed doubts that facilities were used to make fuel for Syria’s suspected al-Kibar nuclear reactor, which was destroyed in an Israeli bombing in September 2007.

A later inspection by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found traces of unnatural uranium at the site of the suspected reactor. Syria, however, maintains that the traces of uranium found were residue from missiles used to destroy the site by the Israelis.

The IAEA inspectors had collected samples from a suspected nuclear facility in June 2008 after the U.S. alleged that Syria had secretly built the nuclear reactor with North Korean help in the country’s remote eastern desert.

U.S. intelligence agencies claim the site resembled to Yongbyon reactor in North Korea and say that the facility could produce weapon-grade nuclear material if it was not destroyed in the Israeli air raid.

Syria rejected the U.S. allegations, saying that the building destroyed in the Israeli air strike was an unused military facility under construction. Damascus also insists that it is not pursuing a clandestine development program as alleged by Western countries.

The IAEA had said in an earlier report that the destroyed Syrian site had the characteristics of a nuclear reactor. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, however, did not rule out the possibility that the site was being used for non-nuclear purposes when it was destroyed in the bombing.

Although Syria had allowed IAEA inspectors to take samples from the site of the suspected nuclear reactor in 2008, it later blocked them from making follow-up visits to the site. The agency says that Syria is yet to answer some questions regarding the suspected nuclear facility.

Also, Damascus has since denied IAEA inspectors access to several buildings which it suspects to be associated with Syria’s secret nuclear program. Those buildings reportedly included the possible uranium conversion sites mentioned in the German newspaper report.

The IAEA refused to comment on the report but it had earlier made attempts to identify the source of fuel for the so-called al-Kibar nuclear reactor.

The latest developments come as the IAEA is preparing for a meeting of its governing board early next month to discuss several issues, including Syria’s continued refusal to allow its inspectors access to suspected nuclear facilities.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com


Kyrgyz Intelligence Agency Catch Another Member of Radical Islamist Group

Kyrgyz intelligence agency detain a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir

25/02-2011 09:09, Bishkek – 24.kg news agency

Kyrgyz intelligence agency reported about detainment of another active member of extremist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir.

According to Kyrgyzstan’s State National Security Committee (GKNB), during the operative investigation activities on reveal and suppression of the activities of outlawed religious extremist organizations Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the active members of the organization was detained in one of the residential areas of Bishkek city.

“Large amount of extremist literature was found and confiscated during the house-check,” reported in the GKNB.

Criminal proceedings were instituted on the elements of crime under Article 299 (Inciting national, racial, religious or inter-regional hostility) of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. The detainee was also charged with “organized activity towards inciting national, racial, religious or inter-regional hatred” and “possession, transportation and shipment of extremist materials for distribution or their manufacturing and distribution, as well as the deliberate use of symbols or paraphernalia of extremist organizations.”

OSS-Declassified–Simple Sabotage Field Manual

[“Citizen-Sabateur” equals “terrorist-lite,” one step above the “Gladio” type of terrorist being implanted all over Europe and Asia after WWII.  The frank discussions within this field manual on the science of anarchy are chilling in their implications, especially after being honed in secret for sixty years or more.]

OSS-Declassified–Simple Sabotage Field Manual

(excerpt below)






Gates on Libya: Not Making Sense

[Either Robert Gates is up to his usual spy doublespeak here, or CIA/military “mindfuck” agents are close to losing control of all their boiling cauldrons of treachery in the Middle East and Africa. (There really is no better way to describe the jobs of professional mind-twisters, or “mind-rapers” than this new word.)  In their wildest dreams they could not have imagined the ease with which the revolution has spread across Northern Africa.  In their worst nightmares, they should have foreseen what is about to happen in American-controlled countries like Iraq (and believe it or not, possibly even in Israel itself).

America’s puppets may be about to have their strings cut.  Gates knows.  He has been a CIA insider since American foreign policy first went off track and began to employ mercenaries and “Islamist” militants to do our dirty work for us.  At some point, it becomes necessary for the American side to disengage from this dirty war, especially if Islamist allies are exposed.  If the Iraq provisional govt. of Iraq falls, then the files in govt. offices that stretch all the way back to Iraq’s early days, will be laid bare.  If that really happens, then everyone will forget all about “Wikileaks.”

America’s intelligence war is about to blow-up in our faces.]

Gates on Libya: Not Making Sense

I had a hard time getting past the first sentence of this:

Defense secretary Robert Gates says the United States has not had discussions with its NATO partners about how to handle the unfolding crisis in Libya, and he believes that the United States could not quickly enforce a no-fly zone in the country to keep military jets from shooting on the citizens they’re meant to protect.

Regarding the second clause of the sentence, I would say there are valid and understandable considerations, even if I would have put the matter in different terms.  More on that in a moment.

The first part of the statement cannot be accounted for in any positive way.  Libya sits 300-some miles across the water from NATO member Italy, which is already scrambling to deal with a massive influx of refugees from North Africa.  The rapidly failing state keeps ejecting random military weapon systems – pilots defecting with Mirage F-1 fighters, at least one warship – while its insane dictator, along with bombing his own people, is threatening to destroy the Libyan oilfields, whose output makes the nation OPEC’s tenth largest producer.  Crude futures have been climbing for days.  Egypt has now moved troops to her border with Libya.

Moreover, the alarming fact is that we have even less of an idea what might happen in Libya if Qaddafi is killed – or otherwise relieved of his duties – than we have of what the future holds for neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.  This is the very definition of a NATO security issue.

And yet we haven’t talked to NATO about how to respond to this situation?  Seriously?  It’s not like we don’t have constant contact with our NATO allies through the NATO Council in Belgium and multiple allied commands. I’m not sure I see how we could avoid talking to NATO about Libya.  It would have been cost-free for Secretary Gates to say we had done so, even if he had no specific conclusions or plans to report.  It simply makes no sense to convey to a group of opinion writers the truly bizarre message that there has been no consultation.

At any rate, regarding the second clause of the sentence, it’s true that establishing a no-fly zone (NFZ) would not be as easy as it sounds.  For one thing, it’s not clear that Italy would agree to host the air forces that would be required.  Italy – Libya’s last colonial master and closest European partner – has been cagey about condemning Qaddafi.  Italy has a key undersea natural gas line with Libya, and hasn’t wanted to provoke any action against it.  We could waste time deploring Italy for this, but it’s a fact on the ground, and could be an obstacle to setting up a no-fly zone.

Gates is right that the speed with which events are moving militates against comprehensive planning.  By the time we got an NFZ set up, we might not need it anymore.  I have thought the same thing in the last couple of days, as I imagine most people with experience of military air operations have.

That said, however, it wouldn’t have taken as long to set up an NFZ as Gates’ words imply.  NATO Europe is stuffed full of fighter and strike-fighter aircraft, and absolutely crawling with command and control centers.  The level of military activity Qaddafi could mount is overkill against unarmed civilians, but would hardly put a dent in a NATO force, however hastily assembled.  The French carrier Charles de Gaulle, with its air wing, is back from its deployment to the Indian Ocean; the USSEnterprise (CVN-65), with its four squadrons of strike-fighters, is in the Horn of Africa area and could have been back in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Libya, by now.  One or two aircraft carriers could not sustain a 24-hour NFZ presence for more than a couple of days, but NATO could have scrambled its more numerous land-based air forces as well.  If Italy declined to allow the use of its airfields, France, Greece, and even Tunisia might well have been more cooperative.  NATO could arrange for in-air refueling.

The point is not that we should have established an NFZ, it’s that we could have.  The deficit here is not in what NATO forces could have been assigned or assembled to do.  That much is a simple, unarguable fact.  The deficit appears to be in what the US leadership has considered appropriate or even thinkable.  I would understand if Gates had said, “We’ve looked at a no-fly zone, but it was becoming clear that by the time we got one in place, the situation would probably have changed again.  Our goal is to stay ahead of the problem.”

But he didn’t.  What he said instead was that we hadn’t discussed handling Libya with our NATO allies at all.  Nothing about that makes sense.

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative.  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

On Bullshit–Harry G. Frankfurt

On Bullshit

Harry G. Frankfurt


This groundbreaking work explores the philosophical meanings of bullshit, why there is so much around and how it differs from other sorts of untruths.

Frankfurt argues that bullshitting is not the same thing as lying, but both are an abuse of the truth. In his words,

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”