U.S. surge in Afghanistan launches reign of terror

U.S. surge in Afghanistan launches reign of terror

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

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

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

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

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 1st Muharram of 1400th Islamic year (20th 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 18th 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).