Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 9th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |
Can Obama use his diverse background to build a better world? Barack Obama wants us to execute "Change we believe in". However he is regurgitating the Neocon agenda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Carpet bombing Afghanistani civilians with Daisy Cutters did not eliminate the opposition to occupation, it fueled the resistance. The Obama rhetoric on Osama Bin Laden and against Pakistan displays a lack of understanding of the region. His Vice President knows Pakistan well and needs to be applauded for his visionary strategy of tripling the aid to Pakistan. Obama is whisper away from sanity. Even though he has the best advice in America, he keeps on spouting Neocon claptrap. Is Bush stealing Obama’s war on Pakistan?
America’s Secret war in Pakistan-MSNBC uncovers Marines with long beards and without uniforms
Obama’s Afghan Iraq mirror images policies contradict each other. Barack Obama wants to bring about "change that we believe in". However he is spouting rhetoric against reminiscent of George W. Bush's false accusations against Iraq. A cacophony of Republicans voices say the same thing. Obama's harranague on this subject simply mimics the "W" war mongering. Threats: Obama’s Kabul indoctrination: Venom against Pakistan.
War drums in the Gulf, Hindu Kush & the Khyber Pass. Today Barack Obama is crying at the tone and the decibel level of the rhetoric against him. However he is using the same type of rhetoric against the Pakistani--portraying them as bad, duplicitous and evil--charges that he himself faces. If Barack Obama had any vision, he needs to show it, not only about bipartisanship on Capital Hill. If Barack Obama is the statesmen and wants to talk with all those that disagree with America, then he cannot stop at the Hindu Kush. Barack Obama needs to learn from history and not repeat the Mossadagh episode that turned all Iranians against the Stars and Strips.
McCain,Obama Afghan bluster on Pakistan overtaken by events. The US, Taliban and the Karzai government are talking in Saudi Arabia facilitated by Nawaz Shairf, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. These antagonists are trying to sovle the problems facing Afghanistan and come up with a government of national unity to replace the Norhtern Alliance dominated non-Pakhtun government in Kabul. Karzai the biggest drug baron in Afghanistan
* Seven Years in Afghanistan by Gary Leupp
* The War Spreads to Pakistan by Gary Leupp
* UK Brig. Smith: “We’re not going to win this [Afghan] war”
* People hate Karzai support Taliban: Afghan Senator Ahmadzai
Its over before the lady sings! Impact of Obama on GWOT. One of the consequences of the the aerial drone bombing in Pakistan and the intrusion into Pakistani territory is the growing Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Iran is already Anti-American already and has been for several decades. Pakistanis have traditional been Pro-American. The elite and the urban areas are still Pro-American. The villages have been ambiguous or pro-American. Now at least two provinces are solidly Anti-American and even the elite has been pushed into positions that cannot be considered good for America. By humiliating the Pakistan Army, constantly bombing the territory and violating the airspace of Pakistan, huge sections of Pakistani society now share the Iranian point of view. If this drone bombing continues, the fire of Anti-Americanism now solidly encompasses the land between the Euphrates to the Indus. This is not good either for America or for Pakistan. Certainly it is not good for the world.
A Shift Toward the Center (of Fascism)? Obama's bluster has emboldened the current US machinery (which he opposes), to bomb Pakistan and send in the marines, some of them out-of-uniform. Is it McCain Guiliani, Lieberman vs Obama, Lugar & Biden? Barack Obama and John McCain have to stop demonizing the Pakistanis who have been allies of the USA for the past six decades--otherwise they are no better than the Neocons who own the media and regurgitate nonsensical Islamphobia on a routine basis. Bush & Obama both war mongers. Barack wants a different war?
Obama visited Pakistan: Didn’t learn anything! 30,000 FATA residents who fought with the CIA to defeat Russia are now dead. 300,000 of the same Pakhtuns who sacrificed 2 million for the sake of the Stars and Stripes are refugees in their own country. What is compelling them to shoot at the choppers that only a few years ago were considered birds of mercy during the earthquake. Risk of another war: How many more American Crusades?
Obama threats kills Pakistani stock market. Billions lost. Foreign capital leaves in respone to Obama claptrap. All this does not auger well for America and its policy in West Asia. Obama blows hot and cold on Pakistan again!
Pakistan-Iran ties: Shifting sands, tectonic shift or Anti-US axis? Pakistan and Iran are working on the Iran-Pakistan pipeline without India. Iran is also providing Pakistan with 1000 MW of electricity. Iran is also going to help Pakistan build power plants. Small steps that may grow into lasting relationship.
Pakistanis to USA: We want “Friends Not Masters”. Pakistan is moving towards Iran, and if this relationship is consecrated as an alliance, the US access to Central Asia will be blocked for generations.
as de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 9th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
My America wants to reconcile with Muslims-New report
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
We have been trying to educate the people about changing the approach towards Muslims for the best part of the decade. If Clinton, Albgith, Lugar and Weber can affect a change in the near future, perhaps we can all build a better world for our children.
AJMA Yahoo Group for interfaith dialogue The American Joint Multifaith Association (AJMA)has been working for years to develop better community relations amongs the physical and spiritual children of Abraham
Rebuilding the Abrahamic symbiosis in America
Moin Ansari's interview with Harold Channer 1
Wasim Khan and Moin Ansari's interview Prt 2
The new policy based on a bi-partisan panel of 34 US leaders (which included one third Muslims) reverses the brute force approach and is based on the following salient points:
Diplomacy as the “primary tool”
Promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
Help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and
Foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.
Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State; Principal, The Albright Group LLC
"Few challenges matter more than reducing distrust and misunderstanding between the United States and people living in Muslim majority states. This timely report is a groundbreaking, stereotype-shattering and thought-provoking contribution to that essential cause."
We’re not involved in a clash of civilizations or conflicting religious beliefs. There are policies and actions that are at the root of it, and in some cases they are our policies and in some cases theirs.” Ms. Madeleine K. Albright
General Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (ret.)
"This is an exceptional and important report that is a must read for all those Americans involved in policy development, operational planning, and understanding of this critical part of our global society."
Richard Land, President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
"This initiative is a serious, comprehensive, bi-partisan effort that seeks to address a critical and dangerous problem: The world Muslim community misunderstands Americans and Americans misunderstand them. This initiative lays out a detailed and comprehensive plan to vastly decrease that misunderstanding through a multi-faceted approach that will build constructive bridges of mutual understanding between Americans and the Muslim world."
Ingrid Mattson, President, The Islamic Society of North America; Professor of Islamic Studies, Director of Islamic Chaplaincy, and Director, Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Hartford Seminary
"It is a sign of great hope that the Leadership Group, despite having substantial differences over policies and politics, was able to come together to develop this report. This was made possible by a shared belief that the vital interests of the American people need not, and must not, conflict with core American values affirming the dignity of all people and their right to freedom and self-determination. This is a message that the mainstream majority in the Muslim world will surely welcome, and it will help them in their desire to improve relations between their people and the United States."
"People have told us they admire our democratic values, but there’s this gap between the values people admire and the perceived treatment of Muslims.” Ms. Mogahed
“ “The urgency is quite great” ..“The Bush administration is held in low regard in the Muslim world, and unfortunately that’s led to America being held in low regard.” Mr. Weber
The SFCG.org site lists the following goals for the group and why the bipartisan report was needed.
Overview
The United States urgently needs to develop a new approach to address tensions with Muslim countries and communities. Conflict, misunderstanding and distrust plague relations between the U.S. and Muslims around the world. The national intelligence community, many other experts and more than 70 percent of the U.S. public believe that the risk of future terrorist acts is high, and that our current strategy is not reducing widespread Muslim hostility toward the U.S. In response, the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is producing a new strategy that better meets the long-term national security interests of the U.S., by addressing the sources of tension between the U.S. and Muslims in key countries and regions. The project’s goals are to:
create a coherent, broad-based and bipartisan strategy and set of recommendations to improve relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world; and
communicate and advocate this strategy in ways that shift U.S. public opinion and contribute to changes in U.S. policies, and public and private action.
An eminent Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement has been working since January 2007 to reach consensus on comprehensive recommendations. In September 2008, the project will issue a report and launch an intensive education campaign to influence the views and actions of national officeholders, candidates for office, the new administration elected in November 2008, private institutions and the public at large.
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: September 23, 2008
After 18 months spent examining the deteriorating relations between the United States and the Muslim world during the Bush administration, a diverse group of American leaders will release a report in Washington on Wednesday calling for an overhaul of American strategy to reverse the spread of terrorism and extremism.
The report recommends more diplomatic engagement, even with Iran and other adversaries, and a major investment in economic development in Muslim countries to create jobs for alienated youth. It calls on the next president to use his Inaugural Address to signal a shift in approach, to immediately renounce the use of torture, and to appoint a special envoy within the first three months to jump-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The report, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,”; was produced by 34 leaders drawn from religious, business, military, foreign policy, academic, foundation and nonprofit circles. The group included Democrats like Madeleine K. Albright, who was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett.
It also included Thomas Dine, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. One-third of the group were Muslim Americans. The members were selected by the sponsoring organizations, Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute, which both promote nonviolent conflict resolution.
“I came into it somewhat skeptical we could come to agreement,” Mr. Weber, who is now chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, said in an interview. “I supported the invasion of Iraq, and that has clearly been a very negative thing for the perceptions of America in the Muslim world.”
As the group pored over polls of people in various Muslim countries, they concluded that the negative perceptions were generated more by American policies than by Muslim religious or cultural beliefs. If policies shift, perceptions are likely to change, too, the report says.
Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, said polls showed that people in Muslim countries feel “disrespected” by the United States, a sentiment that intensified with the invasion of Iraq and the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison showing detainees tortured and humiliated.
Ms. Mogahed said, “People have told us they admire our democratic values, but there’s this gap between the values people admire and the perceived treatment of Muslims.”
Ms. Albright said in an interview: “We’re not involved in a clash of civilizations or conflicting religious beliefs. There are policies and actions that are at the root of it, and in some cases they are our policies and in some cases theirs.”
The group’s four basic recommendations are to rely on diplomacy as the “primary tool,” promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.
“The urgency is quite great,” Mr. Weber said. “The Bush administration is held in low regard in the Muslim world, and unfortunately that’s led to America being held in low regard.”
The McCain and Obama campaigns have been briefed on the report’s recommendations, and both were receptive, said Mr. Weber and other members of the group. There is a briefing on Wednesday for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and members of Congress, and a public release at the National Press Club in Washington.
Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican leader of the Foreign Relations Committee, has sent the report to his colleagues with a letter saying it contains “constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/wa...ss&oref=slogin
Madeleine Albright Principal, The Albright Group; former U.S. Secretary of State
Richard Armitage President, Armitage International; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Ziad Asali President and Founder, American Task Force on Palestine
Steve Bartlett President and CEO, Financial Services Roundtable; former U.S. Representative; former Mayor of Dallas, Texas
Paul Brest President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Red Cavaney President and Chief Executive Officer, American Petroleum Institute
Daniel Christman Lt. General (ret.), U.S. Army; Senior Vice President for International Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Stephen Covey Co-Founder and Vice Chairman, FranklinCovey; writer, speaker, and academic
Thomas Dine Principal, The Dine Group; former Executive Director, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Marc Gopin James H. Laue Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution; Director, Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
Stephen Heintz President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Shamil Idriss Chairman of the Board, Soliya
Daisy Khan Executive Director, American Society for Muslim Advancement
Derek Kirkland Advisory Director, Investment Banking Division, Morgan Stanley
Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Robert Jay Lifton Lecturer on Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; author of Superpower Syndrome
Denis J. Madden Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore; former Associate Secretary General, Catholic Near East Welfare Association
John Marks President and Founder, Search for Common Ground
Susan Collin Marks Senior Vice President, Search for Common Ground; author of Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution during South Africa's Transition to Democracy
Ingrid Mattson President, The Islamic Society of North America; Professor of Islamic Studies and Director of Islamic Chaplaincy and Director, Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Hartford Seminary
Sayyeda Mirza-Jafri Strategic Philanthropy Consultant
Dalia Mogahed Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; coauthor with John Esposito of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think
Vali Nasr Professor of International Politics, The Fletcher School, Tufts University; Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Feisal Abdul Rauf Imam, Masjid al-Farah in New York City; Founder and Chairman, Cordoba Initiative; author of What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America
Rob Rehg President, Washington D.C. office, Edelman
Dennis Ross Consultant, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; former U.S. Special Middle East Envoy and Negotiator
S. Abdallah Schleifer Distinguished Professor of Journalism, American University in Cairo; former Washington Bureau Chief, Al-Arabiya news channel; former NBC News Cairo bureau chief
Jessica Stern Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Mustapha Tlili Director, Center for Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The West, New York University
William Ury Cofounder, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School; coauthor of Getting to Yes
Vin Weber Managing Partner, Clark and Weinstock; Chairman, National Endowment for Democracy; former U.S. Representative
Daniel Yankelovich Founder and Chairman, Public Agenda; author
Ahmed Younis Senior Analyst, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; former National Director, Muslim Public Affairs Committee
Dov S. Zakheim Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton; former U.S. Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
*Organizational affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
We have been trying to educate the people about changing the approach towards Muslims for the best part of the decade. If Clinton, Albgith, Lugar and Weber can affect a change in the near future, perhaps we can all build a better world for our children.
AJMA Yahoo Group for interfaith dialogue The American Joint Multifaith Association (AJMA)has been working for years to develop better community relations amongs the physical and spiritual children of Abraham
Rebuilding the Abrahamic symbiosis in America
Moin Ansari's interview with Harold Channer 1
Wasim Khan and Moin Ansari's interview Prt 2
The new policy based on a bi-partisan panel of 34 US leaders (which included one third Muslims) reverses the brute force approach and is based on the following salient points:
Diplomacy as the “primary tool”
Promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
Help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and
Foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.
Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State; Principal, The Albright Group LLC
"Few challenges matter more than reducing distrust and misunderstanding between the United States and people living in Muslim majority states. This timely report is a groundbreaking, stereotype-shattering and thought-provoking contribution to that essential cause."
We’re not involved in a clash of civilizations or conflicting religious beliefs. There are policies and actions that are at the root of it, and in some cases they are our policies and in some cases theirs.” Ms. Madeleine K. Albright
General Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (ret.)
"This is an exceptional and important report that is a must read for all those Americans involved in policy development, operational planning, and understanding of this critical part of our global society."
Richard Land, President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
"This initiative is a serious, comprehensive, bi-partisan effort that seeks to address a critical and dangerous problem: The world Muslim community misunderstands Americans and Americans misunderstand them. This initiative lays out a detailed and comprehensive plan to vastly decrease that misunderstanding through a multi-faceted approach that will build constructive bridges of mutual understanding between Americans and the Muslim world."
Ingrid Mattson, President, The Islamic Society of North America; Professor of Islamic Studies, Director of Islamic Chaplaincy, and Director, Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Hartford Seminary
"It is a sign of great hope that the Leadership Group, despite having substantial differences over policies and politics, was able to come together to develop this report. This was made possible by a shared belief that the vital interests of the American people need not, and must not, conflict with core American values affirming the dignity of all people and their right to freedom and self-determination. This is a message that the mainstream majority in the Muslim world will surely welcome, and it will help them in their desire to improve relations between their people and the United States."
"People have told us they admire our democratic values, but there’s this gap between the values people admire and the perceived treatment of Muslims.” Ms. Mogahed
“ “The urgency is quite great” ..“The Bush administration is held in low regard in the Muslim world, and unfortunately that’s led to America being held in low regard.” Mr. Weber
The SFCG.org site lists the following goals for the group and why the bipartisan report was needed.
Overview
The United States urgently needs to develop a new approach to address tensions with Muslim countries and communities. Conflict, misunderstanding and distrust plague relations between the U.S. and Muslims around the world. The national intelligence community, many other experts and more than 70 percent of the U.S. public believe that the risk of future terrorist acts is high, and that our current strategy is not reducing widespread Muslim hostility toward the U.S. In response, the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is producing a new strategy that better meets the long-term national security interests of the U.S., by addressing the sources of tension between the U.S. and Muslims in key countries and regions. The project’s goals are to:
create a coherent, broad-based and bipartisan strategy and set of recommendations to improve relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world; and
communicate and advocate this strategy in ways that shift U.S. public opinion and contribute to changes in U.S. policies, and public and private action.
An eminent Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement has been working since January 2007 to reach consensus on comprehensive recommendations. In September 2008, the project will issue a report and launch an intensive education campaign to influence the views and actions of national officeholders, candidates for office, the new administration elected in November 2008, private institutions and the public at large.
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: September 23, 2008
After 18 months spent examining the deteriorating relations between the United States and the Muslim world during the Bush administration, a diverse group of American leaders will release a report in Washington on Wednesday calling for an overhaul of American strategy to reverse the spread of terrorism and extremism.
The report recommends more diplomatic engagement, even with Iran and other adversaries, and a major investment in economic development in Muslim countries to create jobs for alienated youth. It calls on the next president to use his Inaugural Address to signal a shift in approach, to immediately renounce the use of torture, and to appoint a special envoy within the first three months to jump-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The report, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,”; was produced by 34 leaders drawn from religious, business, military, foreign policy, academic, foundation and nonprofit circles. The group included Democrats like Madeleine K. Albright, who was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett.
It also included Thomas Dine, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. One-third of the group were Muslim Americans. The members were selected by the sponsoring organizations, Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute, which both promote nonviolent conflict resolution.
“I came into it somewhat skeptical we could come to agreement,” Mr. Weber, who is now chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, said in an interview. “I supported the invasion of Iraq, and that has clearly been a very negative thing for the perceptions of America in the Muslim world.”
As the group pored over polls of people in various Muslim countries, they concluded that the negative perceptions were generated more by American policies than by Muslim religious or cultural beliefs. If policies shift, perceptions are likely to change, too, the report says.
Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, said polls showed that people in Muslim countries feel “disrespected” by the United States, a sentiment that intensified with the invasion of Iraq and the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison showing detainees tortured and humiliated.
Ms. Mogahed said, “People have told us they admire our democratic values, but there’s this gap between the values people admire and the perceived treatment of Muslims.”
Ms. Albright said in an interview: “We’re not involved in a clash of civilizations or conflicting religious beliefs. There are policies and actions that are at the root of it, and in some cases they are our policies and in some cases theirs.”
The group’s four basic recommendations are to rely on diplomacy as the “primary tool,” promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.
“The urgency is quite great,” Mr. Weber said. “The Bush administration is held in low regard in the Muslim world, and unfortunately that’s led to America being held in low regard.”
The McCain and Obama campaigns have been briefed on the report’s recommendations, and both were receptive, said Mr. Weber and other members of the group. There is a briefing on Wednesday for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and members of Congress, and a public release at the National Press Club in Washington.
Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican leader of the Foreign Relations Committee, has sent the report to his colleagues with a letter saying it contains “constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/wa...ss&oref=slogin
Madeleine Albright Principal, The Albright Group; former U.S. Secretary of State
Richard Armitage President, Armitage International; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Ziad Asali President and Founder, American Task Force on Palestine
Steve Bartlett President and CEO, Financial Services Roundtable; former U.S. Representative; former Mayor of Dallas, Texas
Paul Brest President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Red Cavaney President and Chief Executive Officer, American Petroleum Institute
Daniel Christman Lt. General (ret.), U.S. Army; Senior Vice President for International Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Stephen Covey Co-Founder and Vice Chairman, FranklinCovey; writer, speaker, and academic
Thomas Dine Principal, The Dine Group; former Executive Director, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Marc Gopin James H. Laue Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution; Director, Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
Stephen Heintz President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Shamil Idriss Chairman of the Board, Soliya
Daisy Khan Executive Director, American Society for Muslim Advancement
Derek Kirkland Advisory Director, Investment Banking Division, Morgan Stanley
Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Robert Jay Lifton Lecturer on Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; author of Superpower Syndrome
Denis J. Madden Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore; former Associate Secretary General, Catholic Near East Welfare Association
John Marks President and Founder, Search for Common Ground
Susan Collin Marks Senior Vice President, Search for Common Ground; author of Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution during South Africa's Transition to Democracy
Ingrid Mattson President, The Islamic Society of North America; Professor of Islamic Studies and Director of Islamic Chaplaincy and Director, Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Hartford Seminary
Sayyeda Mirza-Jafri Strategic Philanthropy Consultant
Dalia Mogahed Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; coauthor with John Esposito of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think
Vali Nasr Professor of International Politics, The Fletcher School, Tufts University; Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Feisal Abdul Rauf Imam, Masjid al-Farah in New York City; Founder and Chairman, Cordoba Initiative; author of What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America
Rob Rehg President, Washington D.C. office, Edelman
Dennis Ross Consultant, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; former U.S. Special Middle East Envoy and Negotiator
S. Abdallah Schleifer Distinguished Professor of Journalism, American University in Cairo; former Washington Bureau Chief, Al-Arabiya news channel; former NBC News Cairo bureau chief
Jessica Stern Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Mustapha Tlili Director, Center for Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The West, New York University
William Ury Cofounder, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School; coauthor of Getting to Yes
Vin Weber Managing Partner, Clark and Weinstock; Chairman, National Endowment for Democracy; former U.S. Representative
Daniel Yankelovich Founder and Chairman, Public Agenda; author
Ahmed Younis Senior Analyst, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; former National Director, Muslim Public Affairs Committee
Dov S. Zakheim Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton; former U.S. Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
*Organizational affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
Whats in the hate mail from Jerusalme: DVDs
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
The Islamophobic DVDs were inserted this month into more than 70 newspapers and paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006. It has declined to identify board members or its funding.
The Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in "The Obsession Project" . Ari Morgenstern, is a spokesman for that group.
The Canadian producer of the film, Raphael Shore, is a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah International a Jerusalem-based group. The group is preparing to release another film, "Third Jihad,"
Muslim group seeks probe of 'radical Islam' DVD By ERIC GORSKI –
A U.S. Muslim advocacy group Tuesday asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether a nonprofit group that distributed a controversial DVD about Islam in newspapers nationwide is a "front" for an Israel-based group with a stealth goal of helping Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
The promoters of "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" denied trying to promote any presidential campaign. They said it's also incorrect to tie the DVD campaign to Jerusalem-based educational group Aish HaTorah International, although current and former employees are involved with the project.
The Council for American-Islamic Relations asked the FEC to investigate the DVD distribution, which targeted about 28 million households mostly in battleground election states.
The DVDs — which critics call anti-Muslim propaganda — were inserted this month into more than 70 newspapers and paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006. The group's focus is "the most urgent threat of radical Islam." It has declined to identify board members or its funding.
Never picked up for traditional distribution, "Obsession" features scenes of Muslim children being urged to become suicide bombers, 9/11 carnage and interviews with critics of Islam.
Another organization, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in "The Obsession Project," which will also include research publications and issue forums.
Ari Morgenstern, a spokesman for that group, said targeting swing states was designed to attract media attention, but is not meant to influence the election result. He said the film "makes a very clear and upfront distinction between the majority of peaceful followers of Islam and those people who subscribe to a radical Islamic ideology."
In its complaint, CAIR cites New York Secretary of State records showing that three people who incorporated Clarion Fund also are employees or have been employees of Aish HaTorah International, a Jerusalem-based Jewish educational organization that has offices around the world.
"American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multimillion-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election," Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, said in a statement.
As evidence of a McCain bias, CAIR cites a story in the Patriot News of Harrisburg, Pa., which reported that a Clarion Fund Web site ran a pro-McCain article before it attracted notice and was taken down.
"If you heighten the hysteria over national security or terrorism or do anything to make people more fearful, it's clear they would trend toward McCain because that's been his mantra throughout the campaign," said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman.
Under federal election law and the tax code, nonprofit groups are restricted from getting involved in candidate races and foreign nationals may not contribute to American campaigns. The DVD's distributors say their efforts are issue-based and don't break election laws.
The Canadian producer of the film, Raphael Shore, is a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah International, an educational group that avoids politics, said Ronn Torossian, a New York-based spokesman for the group. Shore's work on the DVD project was not done under the banner of Aish HaTorah, Torossian said.
"These are independent activities of individuals," he said.
Gregory Ross, spokesman for the New York-based Clarion Fund, declined to discuss the complaint's specifics. He pointed out that it's normal for nonprofits to keep donors' identities private. He said the group has "thousands of donors that span the political spectrum."
"We are not telling people who to vote for," said Ross, a former employee of Aish HaTorah International. "We're just saying no matter who gets in office, the American people should know radical Islam is a real threat to America. We don't feel radical Islam is getting its fair share of press."
The group is preparing to release another film, "Third Jihad," but has no plans for mass distribution, Ross said.
On the Net:
Council on American-Islamic Relations: http://www.cair.net
The Clarion Fund: http://clarionfund.org/
The Islamophobic DVDs were inserted this month into more than 70 newspapers and paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006. It has declined to identify board members or its funding.
The Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in "The Obsession Project" . Ari Morgenstern, is a spokesman for that group.
The Canadian producer of the film, Raphael Shore, is a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah International a Jerusalem-based group. The group is preparing to release another film, "Third Jihad,"
Muslim group seeks probe of 'radical Islam' DVD By ERIC GORSKI –
A U.S. Muslim advocacy group Tuesday asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether a nonprofit group that distributed a controversial DVD about Islam in newspapers nationwide is a "front" for an Israel-based group with a stealth goal of helping Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
The promoters of "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" denied trying to promote any presidential campaign. They said it's also incorrect to tie the DVD campaign to Jerusalem-based educational group Aish HaTorah International, although current and former employees are involved with the project.
The Council for American-Islamic Relations asked the FEC to investigate the DVD distribution, which targeted about 28 million households mostly in battleground election states.
The DVDs — which critics call anti-Muslim propaganda — were inserted this month into more than 70 newspapers and paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006. The group's focus is "the most urgent threat of radical Islam." It has declined to identify board members or its funding.
Never picked up for traditional distribution, "Obsession" features scenes of Muslim children being urged to become suicide bombers, 9/11 carnage and interviews with critics of Islam.
Another organization, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in "The Obsession Project," which will also include research publications and issue forums.
Ari Morgenstern, a spokesman for that group, said targeting swing states was designed to attract media attention, but is not meant to influence the election result. He said the film "makes a very clear and upfront distinction between the majority of peaceful followers of Islam and those people who subscribe to a radical Islamic ideology."
In its complaint, CAIR cites New York Secretary of State records showing that three people who incorporated Clarion Fund also are employees or have been employees of Aish HaTorah International, a Jerusalem-based Jewish educational organization that has offices around the world.
"American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multimillion-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election," Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, said in a statement.
As evidence of a McCain bias, CAIR cites a story in the Patriot News of Harrisburg, Pa., which reported that a Clarion Fund Web site ran a pro-McCain article before it attracted notice and was taken down.
"If you heighten the hysteria over national security or terrorism or do anything to make people more fearful, it's clear they would trend toward McCain because that's been his mantra throughout the campaign," said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman.
Under federal election law and the tax code, nonprofit groups are restricted from getting involved in candidate races and foreign nationals may not contribute to American campaigns. The DVD's distributors say their efforts are issue-based and don't break election laws.
The Canadian producer of the film, Raphael Shore, is a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah International, an educational group that avoids politics, said Ronn Torossian, a New York-based spokesman for the group. Shore's work on the DVD project was not done under the banner of Aish HaTorah, Torossian said.
"These are independent activities of individuals," he said.
Gregory Ross, spokesman for the New York-based Clarion Fund, declined to discuss the complaint's specifics. He pointed out that it's normal for nonprofits to keep donors' identities private. He said the group has "thousands of donors that span the political spectrum."
"We are not telling people who to vote for," said Ross, a former employee of Aish HaTorah International. "We're just saying no matter who gets in office, the American people should know radical Islam is a real threat to America. We don't feel radical Islam is getting its fair share of press."
The group is preparing to release another film, "Third Jihad," but has no plans for mass distribution, Ross said.
On the Net:
Council on American-Islamic Relations: http://www.cair.net
The Clarion Fund: http://clarionfund.org/
Origins or Terror in Pakistan: Across the border
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
How to build a relationship with the Pakistanis
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities. Time Magazine September 23rd, 2008
Terror has raised its ugly head in Pakistan again. There are two kinds of thinking on this matter, "The blame Pakistan first crowd", and "Blame everything on America crowd". It is pedantic to execute an exegetical examination of of the terror data in order to try to list, define, and describe the roots of the origins of terror in Pakistan--then and now. Pakistan has faced terror in two time periods, during the 80s and in the post 911 era.
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008. The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
a) Terror against Pakistan in the 80s: The worst incidents of terror were during the 80s during the US sponsored war against the USSR that was carried on in Afghanistan. General (Retd) Hamid Gul lists many incidents of terror that were directly tied to RAW, KGB and Khad. The attacks on Pakistan were never carried out is a simple manner. There was much thought put into the location of the bombs so as to cause maximum harm in terms of blood and gore but also in terms of psychological and long term damage. The attacks carried on Pakistan were placed in Sunni and Shia places of worship. This had the dual affect of exacting blood, but also was an attempt to create religious strife among Pakistanis. Another RAW tactic was to create ethnic strife among the citizens of Pakistan. By using terror against one ethnic group, the Indians want to create racial divisions in Pakistan. This has worked for for them in many areas of the world. This is a favorite of the Indian terror tactics which they have perfected in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
b) Post 911 terror: After the Afghan war was over, there was a lull in the terror attacks. Listening to the purile cowering of Mr. Karzai, one wonders about his maturity level.His own record on managing his fiefdom is execrable The current spate of attacks against Pakistan became more severe when the tide of the Afghan war began turning against the occupation forces who went there to liberate the country. There is now an exponential increase in terror in Pakistan after the completion of and operation of the 4 Indian Consulates and 13 "Information Centers" in Afghanistan.
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Shireen Mazari is right when she says that terrorism in Pakistan has many different origins. It is pedagogical to note that most of the terror against Pakistan started after 911. She has criticized the PPPPs pusillanimous response to threats from across the border. We have expanded Dr. Mazari's list to six broad categories of the origins of terror in Pakistan.
1) Al-Qaeda: This ephemeral group is the "catch all" for all activities that are carried on against the US and its proxies. This group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. According to the CIA reports it attacks US targets. Many do not believe that the group exists as a cohesive unit and some conspiracy theorists believe that the groups persona has been manufactured and embellished to malign and discredit institutions and countries.
..a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 200
2) Balauch "Sub-Nationalists": This group of Pakistani malcontents had their hay day during the Cold War when it was funded, aided and abetted by the masters in the Soviet Union and India. It has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. Recently the BLA has been resurrected with different masters. The Government of Balauchistan has been established in Tel Aviv and many Balauch remnants are supported by New Delhi.
But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
3) Kabul miscreants and Northern Alliance and Pro-Indian Karzaiites: These groups have their origins outside Pakistan and is funded from sources outside Pakistan. This groups is meant to avenge the impotence and inefficiency of the government organs of Kabul. The US may tolerat these elements but Pakistan considers them sworn enemies.
4) Criminal elements and Drug Lords: There are criminal elements on both sides of the border that are taking advantage of the situation and often use the name of other groups. The hostage taking of the Pakistani ambassador to Kabul is a case in point. The Ambassador was taken hostage by thugs, and criminals and later sold to a different groups. He may have finally ended up with the Taliban.
5) The 38 groups fighting the US Occupation forces in Afghanistan: "Taliban, Hizb e Islami, Hizb ul Mujihideen and others. These groups are busy fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan and have not attacked Pakistan.
The [September 23rd, 2008: Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.]defense secretary acknowledged that the Pakistanis did not see all insurgent groups as enemies. Pakistan, he said, has had a long-term relationship with the group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb e-Islami party, and another by Jalaludin Haqqani, a former Taliban commander.
"I think in many respects they don't see the Taliban as their enemy," September 23rd, 2008: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee.
6) Tehrik e Taliban and Fidayeen: This terror group is purely a terror group with almost no agenda expect to destabilize Pakistan. Without a doubt this terror group has its origins outside Pakistan and is funded outside Pakistan. This group is a well funded and diabolically oiled machine that has mounted extremely satanically planned attacks on the Pakistan army as well as Pakistani hospitals and civilian targets of little value to any armed group. The ruthlessness of the group can be judged by the fact that it has taken hundreds of innocent lives.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
7) Domestic Malcontents: There is no doubt that there are some elements in Pakistan who want to make trouble for the Pakistani government which they see as a proxy of the US.However these miscreants neither have the wherewithal nor can they survive without the oxygen that is provided to them from outside sources.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution. Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
Pakistan may identify terrorists against Pakistan in countries outside Pakistan and request the US help. This is on a case by case basis.
8) US attacks on Pakistan: Ostensibly the attacks on Pakistan are made on the pretexts of hot pursuit.
"I will say to you, though, we will do what is necessary to protect our troops, but it is every important to engage the Pakistani government.
"And I think the threat that they are seeing, threats to themselves, creates the opportunity where we can work together and there is no necessity for us to take any actions to protect our troops along those lines," Gates at hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee
Most of the drone bombings have been against the innocent civilians. Even if the drone bombings were considered successful, the impact of the bombings has been negative. In killing a few terrorists the bombs have created more anti-Americanism than ever before. The US is losing the war in Afghanistan. So the policy of bombing targets in Pakistan has not worked. It has not only backfired, it has created a blowback for Pakistan as well as prop-Americans in Pakistan.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage! Shireen Mazari. The News Sept 24th, 2008
MILITANTS WITHIN PAKISTANI TERRITORY: Pakistan will deal with all militants within Pakistani territory. No help is required from the US.
APPENDIX A:
Pakistan: just so much collateral damage? By Shireen M Mazari 9/24/2008
The Marriott devastation has traumatised Islamabad as never before, despite having seen violence and terrorism with regularity over the last few years – especially since last year. Perhaps it was the widespread damage far beyond the Marriott, which in itself was as tragic as it was horrific, or perhaps it was the live television coverage that took the horror to everyone’s home. Anger, rage, condemnation, fear and helplessness are certainly some of the emotions that have been brought to the fore.
Anger and rage over the act itself and the timing – the month of Ramazan and just when Muslims were ending their fast; anger and rage also at those who have the gall to call themselves Muslims and then kill their fellow Muslims, indeed their fellow human beings, through such barbaric acts of violence; anger and rage at the total failure of the security apparatus of the state, despite the hotel being in the Red Zone of high security; anger and rage at the continuing disconnect within the government, with even the prime minister and interior adviser at cross purposes in their pronouncements – even now the disconnect continues with the interior minister declaring that the official Iftar party was initially to be held at the Marriot while the hotel staff has categorically stated that there was no such arrangement. And, there is anger over the inadequacy of emergency response equipment and procedures, despite the capital having gone through an earthquake and earlier acts of terror. Some of us had always critiqued the CDA’s elitist focus under Lashari and once again Islamabad has paid a heavy price for this.
There is condemnation for the state leaving its citizenry at the mercy of the terrorists – both from within and from outside. The total focus of the state on the ruling elite was evident in the immediate aftermath of the Marriott attack when representatives of the official party came on television and pronounced that the security arrangements had saved the lives of the ruling elite safely ensconced in the Prime Minister House – what insensitivity at the devastation of the rest of Pakistan and its citizenry. Moreover if we are to believe the national security adviser that the official iftar party venue was changed at the last minute, did this justify a security lapse in terms of protecting the Marriott since the government seemed to have known of an impending attack? Certainly no condemnation can be too strong for the state looking merely to its own and leaving the rest of the population as cannon fodder for the terrorists.
The fear and helplessness have been growing within ordinary Pakistanis since our state went into the US war in Afghanistan. Fear that this war, if fought on US terms would extol a heavy price from Pakistan and helplessness in the face of our state’s non-responsiveness to the voice of its own people. As the US war has drawn Pakistan into a deathly vortex of a new home-grown terror of suicide bombings and Iraq-imported Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs), more space is being created for extremists and terrorists from within us – as the state has yet to project credibility over its own war against terrorism.
If we in Islamabad feel all these intense emotions in the aftermath of the Marriott attack, can we not for one second step back and reflect on how the people of the FATA region have been feeling when confronted with death and destruction at the hands of foreign military power with their own state a seemingly helpless bystander? Is it any wonder that impressionable young youth have offered their lives in the face of the death and destruction of their families and homes – especially when they see their state do nothing? Can we not see that it takes little for the evil preachers of hate and nihilism to convert such people to taking their own lives along with many innocent others? Is there to be no rage, anger, condemnation, fear and helplessness amongst these local people when they see innocent families wiped out by US drones, missiles and now ground troops, as their own state does nothing? And, is it any wonder, that in the settled areas like Swat violence and militancy have flourished because the hapless locals are convinced the state offers no security against the hate teachings of the extremists?
The misguided and fearful people of these extremist-infested areas are the human shields for the terrorists and this phenomenon has now spread as the internally displaced people (IDPs) have moved far beyond their homes. Leaving aside our emotions, a reality check will show how our state has to create the space between itself and the US if it is to mobilise support for its own war against terrorists and extremists within the country. Yes, we do have a war on our hands but it is different from the US war which has its own agenda, and it has to be fought differently – within an overarching political strategy and economic and military tactical prongs. Effectiveness of such a war will depend on establishing credibility for it and that cannot come unless we create space from the US.
Over a year ago, in these columns I had written about strange American personnel going in the direction of Warsak and now we have a disturbing story of US marines with questionable baggage, which was not screened and one has to wonder why, on the fourth floor of the Marriott – where the fire first started. Were their some weapons or incendiary devices which the Marines had brought in? The time has come for the government to come clean on this and stop such covert US activities for the future. As for US "advisers" or "trainers" coming in, our people and leaders should recall that that is how the US began its military invasion in South Vietnam – advisers followed by troops!
If we can officially create space between the US and ourselves, and there can be no covert assent to US access in Pakistan as was the case with the previous government – something that was consistently criticised in these columns – at least the nation will rally around the state and allow it to make an effective beginning to a long term strategy to deal with extremism and violence. Such a strategy has to first recognise that terrorism in Pakistan has a number of differing origins: there is the most violent one that is rooted in distorted religious extremism and is linked to Al Qaeda and seeks indiscriminate destruction for impact. This is not about winning hearts and minds so much as creating fear in hearts and minds. But there is also the political sub-national violence and terrorism, such as in Balochistan, which is also abetted by external forces but has indigenous political roots, and discriminates in its targeting. This attempts to win hearts and minds and so targets are selective – security forces and strategic installations – and is susceptible to a political solution. Clearly an overarching strategy would need to make these distinctions.
In the context of FATA, any strategy would have to include, alongside a delinkage with the US, a genuine and immediate political and economic outreach to the people of FATA and other violence affected areas of Pakhtunkhwa, under the umbrella of military protection. People who do not support extremist militancy must be given protection and positive incentives to remain steadfast while the fence sitters must be shown benefits of coming over to the state’s side and costs for not doing so. Protect the locals so that they can shun the extremists without fear of retribution.
Beyond FATA, there is a need to seriously implement the much-touted but not enforced policy of madressah reform. In this context, all foreign funding for any form of educational or charitable project needs to be transparent and public. Similarly, local donations to schools and charities should be made public.
And, while we are seeking to fight our own terrorists, let us not forget that we also confront an equally menacing threat from the US which has already infiltrated our country at multiple levels. That is why winning over our own people and exposing the many-headed enemy has to be the starting point. Otherwise Pakistan is in danger of being reduced to just so much collateral damage!
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Marriot's mystery Marines with strange steel boxes in Islamabad Pakistan
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Islamabad Pakistan Marriot: What was the US Marine role?
(http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-pakistan-marriot-what-was-the-us-marine-role/)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the massive blast that caused 53 deaths at the Islamabad Marriott hotel in Pakistan was an operation conducted by India's foreign intelligence agency The Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] in an attempt to ‘decapitate’ Pakistan’s entire leadership. India had become ‘alarmed’ by the United States and Pakistan’s ISI plan...
Americans’ presence at Marriott not a secret: US embassy
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani authorities are trying to solve the riddle of US Marines and their mysterious steel cases, which were shifted to the Marriott Hotel four days before the hotel was reduced to ashes by the worst ever terrorist attack in the history of the federal capital.
These authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the Government of Pakistan.
The US embassy insists the activity witnessed was a team of support personnel that often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US officials. However, the government authorities probing the matter have already got most of the facts ascertained as mentioned in The News story on Sunday.
According to an official source, the authorities were told that mysterious activity of the US Marines took place around 12:00 midnight on 16 September. Already the government has got the information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage.
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, when approached denied that the Americans had any such presence in the hotel and said that like any such hotel in the world his guests included people of different nationalities. “Why focus on the Americans unnecessarily,” Hashwani wondered. He refuted that the US embassy had permanently hired several rooms in his hotel.
The US embassy spokesperson Lou Fintor, however, when asked if the US embassy had hired several rooms in the Marriott Hotel for years, said in his written reply that the US embassy has been a frequent customer of the Marriott Hotel for many years. On any given day, he said, there were employees of the American embassy and official American visitors staying at the hotel. “There is nothing unusual, secretive or ‘mysterious’ about this,” he said.
When asked if three of these permanently hired rooms were interconnected, Fintor said, “For our frequent visiting delegations, the embassy often rented adjoining rooms — as we often do in other hotels in Pakistan and in the world.”
Responding to unconfirmed reports that the US-rented rooms in the Marriott Hotel were being used by the CIA for espionage purposes, he said, “Unfortunately, far too many things have been ‘said’ that have absolutely no basis in fact. There is no truth whatsoever in allegations that covert activity was taking place on the part of the United States government.”
The spokesman said that these allegations are inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
About the Marines and the steel cases which were reported to have been shifted to the hotel between the night of 16 and 17 September and whether these Marines and the suitcases were in the hotel on the day of the blast or evacuated before, he said, “A team of support personnel often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US government officials. They often carry communication and office equipment required to support large delegations, such as high-level administration officials and members of the US Congress.”
He added that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would travel with communications equipment. “It is quite possible that some saw this communications equipment moved into the hotel. This equipment would leave with the CJCS. If the equipment was transported in full public view then obviously there was no attempt made to conceal its movement.”
Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy’s truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on September 16 midnight only after Mike Mullen, the US Admiral, had met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad and had already left. Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines was either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not being passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel’s lobby, and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.
The US embassy spokesman also confirmed that the Marriott rooms, which were in use of the US officials, had the communication and office equipment, which were transported for use by Admiral Mullen.
[contact-form]
A hotel employee, on condition of not being named, confided that the hotel management had been receiving threats from unknown persons for the last six months to get the US officials vacated from the hotel. However, Mr Hashwani when confronted said that there has been no threat received by the hotel management.
Islamabad Pakistan Marriot: What was the US Marine role?
(http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-pakistan-marriot-what-was-the-us-marine-role/)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the massive blast that caused 53 deaths at the Islamabad Marriott hotel in Pakistan was an operation conducted by India's foreign intelligence agency The Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] in an attempt to ‘decapitate’ Pakistan’s entire leadership. India had become ‘alarmed’ by the United States and Pakistan’s ISI plan...
Americans’ presence at Marriott not a secret: US embassy
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani authorities are trying to solve the riddle of US Marines and their mysterious steel cases, which were shifted to the Marriott Hotel four days before the hotel was reduced to ashes by the worst ever terrorist attack in the history of the federal capital.
These authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the Government of Pakistan.
The US embassy insists the activity witnessed was a team of support personnel that often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US officials. However, the government authorities probing the matter have already got most of the facts ascertained as mentioned in The News story on Sunday.
According to an official source, the authorities were told that mysterious activity of the US Marines took place around 12:00 midnight on 16 September. Already the government has got the information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage.
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, when approached denied that the Americans had any such presence in the hotel and said that like any such hotel in the world his guests included people of different nationalities. “Why focus on the Americans unnecessarily,” Hashwani wondered. He refuted that the US embassy had permanently hired several rooms in his hotel.
The US embassy spokesperson Lou Fintor, however, when asked if the US embassy had hired several rooms in the Marriott Hotel for years, said in his written reply that the US embassy has been a frequent customer of the Marriott Hotel for many years. On any given day, he said, there were employees of the American embassy and official American visitors staying at the hotel. “There is nothing unusual, secretive or ‘mysterious’ about this,” he said.
When asked if three of these permanently hired rooms were interconnected, Fintor said, “For our frequent visiting delegations, the embassy often rented adjoining rooms — as we often do in other hotels in Pakistan and in the world.”
Responding to unconfirmed reports that the US-rented rooms in the Marriott Hotel were being used by the CIA for espionage purposes, he said, “Unfortunately, far too many things have been ‘said’ that have absolutely no basis in fact. There is no truth whatsoever in allegations that covert activity was taking place on the part of the United States government.”
The spokesman said that these allegations are inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
About the Marines and the steel cases which were reported to have been shifted to the hotel between the night of 16 and 17 September and whether these Marines and the suitcases were in the hotel on the day of the blast or evacuated before, he said, “A team of support personnel often and routinely precede and/or accompany certain US government officials. They often carry communication and office equipment required to support large delegations, such as high-level administration officials and members of the US Congress.”
He added that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would travel with communications equipment. “It is quite possible that some saw this communications equipment moved into the hotel. This equipment would leave with the CJCS. If the equipment was transported in full public view then obviously there was no attempt made to conceal its movement.”
Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy’s truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on September 16 midnight only after Mike Mullen, the US Admiral, had met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad and had already left. Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines was either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not being passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel’s lobby, and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.
The US embassy spokesman also confirmed that the Marriott rooms, which were in use of the US officials, had the communication and office equipment, which were transported for use by Admiral Mullen.
[contact-form]
A hotel employee, on condition of not being named, confided that the hotel management had been receiving threats from unknown persons for the last six months to get the US officials vacated from the hotel. However, Mr Hashwani when confronted said that there has been no threat received by the hotel management.
US media: Open hunting season on Pakistan
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Pakistan faces many wars. She faces wars from India and her proxies in Afghanistan. She also faces a war of words from the US press under the influence of the Indian lobby
As Pakistan gets hammered by Taliban and Al Qaeda bombs in Islamabad (the Marriott to be precise), and by Hellfire missiles in FATA, the feeding frenzy in the US press builds to a crescendo. This week Newsweek published an article titled, "Pakistan's Double-Cross" by long-time Pakistan-sufferer, Sumit Ganguly. When Pakistanis read Ganguly's vicious hatchet job on Pakistan (and on history), they should take a deep breath and pause before they react. Despite his boring residual partition rage, Ganguly is not the one that has made Pakistan foreign policy target No 1 for US presidential candidates. It wasn't Ganguly who loathes ordinary Pakistanis so deeply that he thought it okay to reject their overwhelming will, and insist he knew what was good for Pakistan better. It wasn't Ganguly who signed the NRO, or fired the judges. Pakistanis need to learn very quickly that Pakistan's battles will be won and lost by its people, not by Cold War analysts trying to be relevant in Washington DC.
While English-speaking Pakistanis will either seethe with rage at Ganguly, or at the Pakistani "establishment", ordinary Pakistanis will have no reaction at all. It's not just that they can't read English, it's that they can't read period. That's why they don't know what the Magna Carta is. That's why they can't check the roznamcha for a record of their presence at the police station. That's why the FIR system favours the rural and industrial elite. That's why they have to depend on the feudal and industrial elite. That's why they vote for the PPP and the PML-Q. And that is why the rage of these English-speaking Pakistanis is heart-warming but without efficacy. The rage will not free ordinary Pakistanis from the clutches of their political and economic realities. The News: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 by Mosharraf Zaidi
However there was a silver lining from an unusual source-The New York Times
Help Pakistan government fight terrorism, NYT urges US
* Editorial says increasing civilian casualties driving more people into Taliban’s hands
NEW YORK: An influential United Stated newspaper on Monday cautioned the Bush administration against attacks inside Pakistani territory and called for devising a policy to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government while enlisting its full support in the fight against extremists.
“If an American raid captured or killed a top Al Qaeda or Taliban operative, the backlash might be worth it. But if there were any chance of permanently rooting out extremists from the Tribal Areas, that will have to be done by Pakistan’s military, backed up with sustained programmes for economic and political development,” the New York Times (NYT) said in an editorial that expressed dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s efforts to counter terrorism.
The editorial also noted that US President George W Bush’s decision to send troops across the border was made in desperation.
Civilian casualties: “We fear that a rising number of civilian casualties, on both sides of the border, is driving more people into the hands of the repressive Taliban and other extremist groups. These attacks are also making Pakistan’s new President Asif Ali Zardari look weak and irrelevant,” said the editorial, titled ‘Running Out of Time’.
“He (Zardari) deserves a chance, and American support, to fulfil his promises to bolster democracy, clean up Pakistan’s intelligence services and work with the US to defeat terrorism.
“Zardari made a start, inviting President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to his inauguration,” the NYT said, noting that in his speech to parliament on Saturday he had said his government would not allow terrorists to launch attacks on any neighbour from Pakistani soil, nor would it tolerate further American military incursions.
The NYT editorial said that US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen had made a ‘fence-mending trip’ to Pakistan last week, and that Pentagon officials say they are reviewing the overall strategy.
“Any revised plan must do a lot more to avoid civilian casualties and support, rather than undermine, Pakistan’s civilian leaders. Congress can do its part by approving a $7.5 billion aid package, intended to strengthen Pakistan’s democratic institutions and its counterinsurgency capabilities,” the editorial said. app
Pakistan faces many wars. She faces wars from India and her proxies in Afghanistan. She also faces a war of words from the US press under the influence of the Indian lobby
As Pakistan gets hammered by Taliban and Al Qaeda bombs in Islamabad (the Marriott to be precise), and by Hellfire missiles in FATA, the feeding frenzy in the US press builds to a crescendo. This week Newsweek published an article titled, "Pakistan's Double-Cross" by long-time Pakistan-sufferer, Sumit Ganguly. When Pakistanis read Ganguly's vicious hatchet job on Pakistan (and on history), they should take a deep breath and pause before they react. Despite his boring residual partition rage, Ganguly is not the one that has made Pakistan foreign policy target No 1 for US presidential candidates. It wasn't Ganguly who loathes ordinary Pakistanis so deeply that he thought it okay to reject their overwhelming will, and insist he knew what was good for Pakistan better. It wasn't Ganguly who signed the NRO, or fired the judges. Pakistanis need to learn very quickly that Pakistan's battles will be won and lost by its people, not by Cold War analysts trying to be relevant in Washington DC.
While English-speaking Pakistanis will either seethe with rage at Ganguly, or at the Pakistani "establishment", ordinary Pakistanis will have no reaction at all. It's not just that they can't read English, it's that they can't read period. That's why they don't know what the Magna Carta is. That's why they can't check the roznamcha for a record of their presence at the police station. That's why the FIR system favours the rural and industrial elite. That's why they have to depend on the feudal and industrial elite. That's why they vote for the PPP and the PML-Q. And that is why the rage of these English-speaking Pakistanis is heart-warming but without efficacy. The rage will not free ordinary Pakistanis from the clutches of their political and economic realities. The News: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 by Mosharraf Zaidi
However there was a silver lining from an unusual source-The New York Times
Help Pakistan government fight terrorism, NYT urges US
* Editorial says increasing civilian casualties driving more people into Taliban’s hands
NEW YORK: An influential United Stated newspaper on Monday cautioned the Bush administration against attacks inside Pakistani territory and called for devising a policy to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government while enlisting its full support in the fight against extremists.
“If an American raid captured or killed a top Al Qaeda or Taliban operative, the backlash might be worth it. But if there were any chance of permanently rooting out extremists from the Tribal Areas, that will have to be done by Pakistan’s military, backed up with sustained programmes for economic and political development,” the New York Times (NYT) said in an editorial that expressed dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s efforts to counter terrorism.
The editorial also noted that US President George W Bush’s decision to send troops across the border was made in desperation.
Civilian casualties: “We fear that a rising number of civilian casualties, on both sides of the border, is driving more people into the hands of the repressive Taliban and other extremist groups. These attacks are also making Pakistan’s new President Asif Ali Zardari look weak and irrelevant,” said the editorial, titled ‘Running Out of Time’.
“He (Zardari) deserves a chance, and American support, to fulfil his promises to bolster democracy, clean up Pakistan’s intelligence services and work with the US to defeat terrorism.
“Zardari made a start, inviting President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to his inauguration,” the NYT said, noting that in his speech to parliament on Saturday he had said his government would not allow terrorists to launch attacks on any neighbour from Pakistani soil, nor would it tolerate further American military incursions.
The NYT editorial said that US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen had made a ‘fence-mending trip’ to Pakistan last week, and that Pentagon officials say they are reviewing the overall strategy.
“Any revised plan must do a lot more to avoid civilian casualties and support, rather than undermine, Pakistan’s civilian leaders. Congress can do its part by approving a $7.5 billion aid package, intended to strengthen Pakistan’s democratic institutions and its counterinsurgency capabilities,” the editorial said. app
Will US drones defy flying pigs and stop bombing Pakistan?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 21, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Is the sway of the US drones over? Will US troops stop landing in Pakistan and shooting people, many of which turned out to be women and children. The US may stop the attacks. yes pigs can fly with our without lipstick.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
Recently -- and naively -- Donald Camp, the U.S.’s deputy assistant secretary of state, said there is no situation in which the U.S. and Pakistan will shoot at each other. That view ignores the role Islamic thinking plays in Pakistan’s military and among a sizable portion of the population. There are no guarantees that Pakistan will see things America’s way, and it is possible Islamabad could change course for our worse.
That’s why America’s new strategy regarding Pakistan must go beyond talk. It must deal with substantive issues that threaten to push the region into war, like the long-term tensions between Pakistan and India which have festered to near blows in the recent past. Human Events dot com
Zardari deplores U.S. intrusions in Pak soil Updated at: 0825 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
NEW YORK: Calling the fight against terrorists as Pakistan’s war, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American troops to stay away and leave the Pakistani forces to do the job. “Our orders are clear: not to allow any incursion of anybody in Pakistan.
American troops are coming, without letting us know, without Pakistan’s permission, they are violating the United Nations Charter,” he said in a television interview Monday.
The president said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
The president voiced the confidence that the country would be able to defeat the menace of terrorism with the cooperation of its anti-terrorism partners.
“Pakistan is capable (of fighting terrorism) with the help of the world, yes we are capable,” he told news channel in an interview.
Is the sway of the US drones over? Will US troops stop landing in Pakistan and shooting people, many of which turned out to be women and children. The US may stop the attacks. yes pigs can fly with our without lipstick.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
Recently -- and naively -- Donald Camp, the U.S.’s deputy assistant secretary of state, said there is no situation in which the U.S. and Pakistan will shoot at each other. That view ignores the role Islamic thinking plays in Pakistan’s military and among a sizable portion of the population. There are no guarantees that Pakistan will see things America’s way, and it is possible Islamabad could change course for our worse.
That’s why America’s new strategy regarding Pakistan must go beyond talk. It must deal with substantive issues that threaten to push the region into war, like the long-term tensions between Pakistan and India which have festered to near blows in the recent past. Human Events dot com
Zardari deplores U.S. intrusions in Pak soil Updated at: 0825 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
NEW YORK: Calling the fight against terrorists as Pakistan’s war, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American troops to stay away and leave the Pakistani forces to do the job. “Our orders are clear: not to allow any incursion of anybody in Pakistan.
American troops are coming, without letting us know, without Pakistan’s permission, they are violating the United Nations Charter,” he said in a television interview Monday.
The president said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
The president voiced the confidence that the country would be able to defeat the menace of terrorism with the cooperation of its anti-terrorism partners.
“Pakistan is capable (of fighting terrorism) with the help of the world, yes we are capable,” he told news channel in an interview.
Will US drone shooting change the Afghan war?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
On May 1st, 1960 an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union. Ironically the U2 took off from the Badabare US Airforce base near Peshawar. At first the US denied it. When it finally accepted that the existence of the plane , it was too late, Gary Powell, the spy plane's pilot had already spilled the beans."the incident was a great embarrassment to the United States and prompted a marked deterioration in its relations with the Soviet Union."
In July 1957, Pakistani Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was requested by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of his government's agreement for the U.S. to establish a secret U.S. intelligence facility in Pakistan and permission for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. A facility established in Badaber, 10 miles (16 km) from Peshawar, was a cover for a major communications intercept operation run by the American National Security Agency (NSA). Badaber was an excellent choice because of its proximity to Soviet Central Asia. This enabled monitoring of missile test sites and other communications. U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of the Peshawar airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation. Wikipedia
A lot of water has gone down the Potomac, the Indus and the Volga since those days when Pakistan was part of SEATO, CENTO and had two executive defense agreements with the USA.
Americans will selective amnesia have forgotten all that. Who cares if Pakistan assisted the US for 60 years and all through the cold war. Who cares if Pakistan risked nuclear annihilation. Ingrates don't remember favors. Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan and all of Afghanistan was simply a Soviet colony at the time. After a direct threat from Kruschev, and President Ayub Khan realized that he wanted "Friends no Masters" the Badabare Airforce base was closed. In 1965 the US imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan.
Precisely 14 years later when Pakistan needed help against India, the 7th fleet headed towards to the Bay of Bangal didn't quite have the warp power to reach Chittagong before December 16th 1971. That date and the whereabouts of the 7th fleet are etched in the minds of all Pakistanis who were alive on December 16th, 1971.
Ingrates don't remember favors. Richard Armitage on September 11th 2001 informed the then president that "he would bomb Pakistan to the stone age" if it did not agree to the seven demands that he had presented. When reminded of history of the US-Pakistan relations, he said "history begins today"-- letting Musharraf and the Pakistan nation know in no uncertain terms that this was a transactional relationship.
Fast forward to September 23rd, 2008. A US had been shot down in Pakistan. This one did not take off from Pakistani territory to spy on Russia. This one took off from Bagram Airforce base Afghanistan to spy on Pakistani territory. the purpose of the drone was not only to spy but also to bomb Paksitani territory.
NEW YORK: An influential United Stated newspaper on Monday cautioned the Bush administration against attacks inside Pakistani territory and called for devising a policy to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government while enlisting its full support in the fight against extremists.Pakistan News reporting on the New York Times article
The impact of this "crash" may be very profound. It may signal that the Pakistanis have developed the technology to shoot down drones. If so, the US war in Afghanistan will face new challenges. The tide shifted against the USSR after Charlie Wilson introduced the Stinger missiles in Afghanistan. After the introduction of the Stingers no Soviet chopper was safe in Afghan air.
The president [Zardari] said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
Is this drone shooting a seminal event. The events which will unfold in the next few weeks will inform the world if another drone "crashes". If so, GWOT is in real trouble and Pakistan's help in the war will become more important.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
US drone 'crashes in Pakistan'
A suspected US drone aircraft has crashed in northwest Pakistan's South Waziristan region, according to Pakistani security officials and media reports.
"A pilotless spy plane, we believe it is US, crashed in Pakistani territory but it did not disintegrate," a senior Pakistani security official said on Tuesday.
"Tribesmen picked it up and then Pakistani security forces retrieved it. No firing was heard in the area so there is no question of it being shot down."
Christian Patterson, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan, said officials were investigating the reports.
Wreckage found
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright, a US Pentagon spokesman, said the CIA had "no reports of any loss of DoD (Department of Defence) drones," on Tuesday.
Dawn News, one of several Pakistani channels reporting the incident, said security forces had found the wreckage of the drone 8km from Angor Adda, near the village of Jalal Khel, and 3km from the border with Afghanistan.
US commandos launched a ground assault on September 3 in Angor Adda, which Pakistani officials said killed 20 people, including women and children.
The incident is likely to add to tensions between Washington and Pakistan
following a spate of recent American cross-border incursions and drone attacks targeting suspected fighters.
Pakistani sovereignty
George Bush, the US president, said in New York on Tuesday that Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president visiting the country, had spoken strongly about protecting Pakistani sovereignty.
"Your words have been very strong about Pakistan's sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country, and the United States wants to help," Bush said before meeting Zardari.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Tuesday that Washington would continue to take military action in Pakistan and called for co-operation from the government in Islamabad.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," Gates said, expressing hope for "an even stronger partnership" with Zardari.
Pakistan's support is regarded as crucial to the success of US-led forces trying to stabilise Afghanistan and fight al-Qaeda in the region.
Mounting anger
But Pakistanis have become increasing angered over the heightened use of drones and ground units in the area bordering Afghanistan.
Pakistanis were outraged by the US September 3 raid - the first known ground assault by US troops into Pakistan - and the six-month-old civilian government issued a diplomatic protest.
General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's army chief, said foreign troops would not be allowed on Pakistani soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs.
Residents and some security officers said Pakistani troops fired on two US helicopters that crossed the border near Angor Adda a week ago, forcing them to turn back.
Pakistan and the United States denied the reports.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The 3 factors inhibiting Afghan peace
Calling the Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" is an attempt to shift the blame on Pakistan. Calling all the Afghan insurgents "Taliban" is a brazen attempt to nullify a popular uprising against foreign occupation. As an analogy it is like calling the Cherokee, Lakota, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickashe, Choctow etc as "Indians".
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Friday, April 4, 2008
US Civil Rights movement unware of Gandhi racism
Undoubtedly, Martin Luther King was one of the greatest heros of our time. He accomplished more than any of his contemporaries. Martin Luther King lived during troubled times. He was in search of turth and find a mentor in Thoreau. He was a Christian minister so he did believe in Jesus Christ.
Martin wanted to keep up the family tradition, so he decided to become a minister. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 and then went to Crozer Seminary to become a minister. It was at Crozer that Martin learned about the Disneyland version of Gandhi. He must have learned that Gandhi was an important leader in India. It is very doubtful if Dr. King did any depth study of Gandhi’s action in South Africa.
It is doubtful if The Reverend Martin Luther ever heard about Gandhi’s support for all the British wars, and that Gandhi was the self-proclaimed “Recruiter in Chief” for the Empire sending thousands to be used as connon fodder.
GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS (Zulus and Kaffirs were African tribes in South Africa)
“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)
“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” - Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
The Durban Post Office: One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
Sergeant Major Gandhi: Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi and South African Blacks: Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives
If Dr. King had known about about the Zulus (African tribe) and the Kaffirs (African tribe), he surely would have voiced his concern.Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
Dr. King may not have read Time Magazine and the explosive stories about Mr. Gandhi’s personal life. The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
Dr. King probably knew only about the propoganda clips of Mr. Gandhi and never really new the man. The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
Dr. King on moral high ground condemned wars. He would have been shocked to find out that Gandhi supported the British wars extending the British empire.Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
Dr. King was probably unaware about Gandhi’s open racism.Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Dr. King did not know that Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
Dr. King would have been appalled if he knew that Gandhi insisted on calling Hitler his “friend” and that his advice to the Jews was horribe piece of Anti-SemitismGandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Dr. King would have been horrified if he had known about Mr. Gandhi’s personal fetishes.Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
Martin Luther probably would be appaleed if he knew about what Gandhi said about Africans and blacks in South Africa.
The halo is rusted, tilted and falling down-under the sunlight of truth. Mohandas Gandhi’s admirers do not confront embarrassing facts about their favorite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi’s silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany’s dictator of the value of not attacking more countries. Gandhi was absolutely content with Nitler keeping the territories that he had already conquered. His advice to the Jews was the most horrible example of anti-Semitism in this century.
The American author Henry David Thoreau pioneered the modern theory behind this practice in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled “Resistance to Civil Government”. The driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and how one is in morally good standing as long as one can “get off another man’s back”; so one doesn’t have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it). This essay has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War.
Early uses of the term
Thoreau did not coin the term “civil disobedience,” nor did he ever use it. However, after his landmark 1848 lectures were published in 1849, the term “civil disobedience” began to appear in numerous sermons and lectures relating to slavery in the United States. Early examples of these include:
The Gospel Applied to the Fugitive Slave Law [1850]: A Sermon, by Oliver Stearns (1851);
“The Higher Law,” in Its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill:… by John Newell and John Chase Lord (1851);
The Limits of Civil Disobedience: A Sermon…, by Nathaniel Hall (1851);
The Duty and Limitations of Civil Disobedience: A Discourse, by Samuel Colcord Bartlett (1853).
Thus, by the time Thoreau’s lectures were first published under the title “Civil Disobedience,” in 1866, four years after his death, the term had achieved fairly widespread usage.
Some articles on Gandhi
http:/rupeenews..com/wp-admin/edit.php?s=gandhis+racism&post_status=0&author=0&m=0&cat=0
Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity
By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh
“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth - apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke - by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors - the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism - have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.
The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god - “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,” proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”
The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order - the essence of Hinduism?
Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India - slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”
He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage - the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.
He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.
He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.
The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”
On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London - who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”
In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.
It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture - Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!
The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.
The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” - by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India - a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations - exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”
Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.
G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.
http://www.sikhsundesh.net/gandhi.htm
Martin wanted to keep up the family tradition, so he decided to become a minister. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 and then went to Crozer Seminary to become a minister. It was at Crozer that Martin learned about the Disneyland version of Gandhi. He must have learned that Gandhi was an important leader in India. It is very doubtful if Dr. King did any depth study of Gandhi’s action in South Africa.
It is doubtful if The Reverend Martin Luther ever heard about Gandhi’s support for all the British wars, and that Gandhi was the self-proclaimed “Recruiter in Chief” for the Empire sending thousands to be used as connon fodder.
GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS (Zulus and Kaffirs were African tribes in South Africa)
“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)
“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” - Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
The Durban Post Office: One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
Sergeant Major Gandhi: Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi and South African Blacks: Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives
If Dr. King had known about about the Zulus (African tribe) and the Kaffirs (African tribe), he surely would have voiced his concern.Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
Dr. King may not have read Time Magazine and the explosive stories about Mr. Gandhi’s personal life. The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
Dr. King probably knew only about the propoganda clips of Mr. Gandhi and never really new the man. The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
Dr. King on moral high ground condemned wars. He would have been shocked to find out that Gandhi supported the British wars extending the British empire.Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
Dr. King was probably unaware about Gandhi’s open racism.Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Dr. King did not know that Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
Dr. King would have been appalled if he knew that Gandhi insisted on calling Hitler his “friend” and that his advice to the Jews was horribe piece of Anti-SemitismGandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Dr. King would have been horrified if he had known about Mr. Gandhi’s personal fetishes.Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
Martin Luther probably would be appaleed if he knew about what Gandhi said about Africans and blacks in South Africa.
The halo is rusted, tilted and falling down-under the sunlight of truth. Mohandas Gandhi’s admirers do not confront embarrassing facts about their favorite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi’s silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany’s dictator of the value of not attacking more countries. Gandhi was absolutely content with Nitler keeping the territories that he had already conquered. His advice to the Jews was the most horrible example of anti-Semitism in this century.
The American author Henry David Thoreau pioneered the modern theory behind this practice in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled “Resistance to Civil Government”. The driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and how one is in morally good standing as long as one can “get off another man’s back”; so one doesn’t have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it). This essay has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War.
Early uses of the term
Thoreau did not coin the term “civil disobedience,” nor did he ever use it. However, after his landmark 1848 lectures were published in 1849, the term “civil disobedience” began to appear in numerous sermons and lectures relating to slavery in the United States. Early examples of these include:
The Gospel Applied to the Fugitive Slave Law [1850]: A Sermon, by Oliver Stearns (1851);
“The Higher Law,” in Its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill:… by John Newell and John Chase Lord (1851);
The Limits of Civil Disobedience: A Sermon…, by Nathaniel Hall (1851);
The Duty and Limitations of Civil Disobedience: A Discourse, by Samuel Colcord Bartlett (1853).
Thus, by the time Thoreau’s lectures were first published under the title “Civil Disobedience,” in 1866, four years after his death, the term had achieved fairly widespread usage.
Some articles on Gandhi
http:/rupeenews..com/wp-admin/edit.php?s=gandhis+racism&post_status=0&author=0&m=0&cat=0
Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity
By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh
“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth - apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke - by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors - the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism - have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.
The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god - “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,” proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”
The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order - the essence of Hinduism?
Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India - slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”
He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage - the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.
He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.
He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.
The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”
On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London - who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”
In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.
It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture - Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!
The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.
The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” - by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India - a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations - exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”
Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.
G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.
http://www.sikhsundesh.net/gandhi.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
