+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism (/showthread.php?tid=807)
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 09-09-2005
Threat of agro-terrorism is real
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - ramana - 09-09-2005
B. Raman on the new TSP_Israel ties: http://www.saag.org/papers16/paper1530.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7. One could ask: Pakistan and Israel could have better achieved each other's objectives by continuing to keep the relationship clandestine. Why did they have to make it open, with its attendant risks for the personal security of Musharraf ? I would find it difficult to answer this question on the basis of available evidence. Â
8. While Musharraf should be able to withstand any open backlash on this issue from the Pakistani fundamentalist organisations, his action in openly courting Israel runs the risk of aggravating threats to his security from the Al Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist organisations as well as from fundamentalist elements in the Armed Forces. Â
9. Every country acts according to its national interests. So has Israel in moving closer to Pakistan . There is no point in India sulking over it. However, India would have strong grounds for unhappiness and unease, if Israel had not kept it informed in advance of its moves in this regard.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this a Mushy update version of Hudbaya. He is trying to deceive the Israelis to gain some strength.
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-03-2005
<b>DISCUSSIONS IN HERZLIYA </b> --By B. Raman
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-13-2005
Lee Kuan Yew in Forbes Magazine
Homegrown Islamic Terrorists
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the four suicide bombers who struck London's transit system on July 7, one was a Jamaican-born British citizen and three were of Pakistani descent but born and raised in Britain. One of them, Mohammad Sidique Khan, had recorded a chilling video message of more terror to come, which was aired on Al Jazeera in September. London's Guardian found the message "disturbing not only because of its content but also because of who was delivering it. We have become used to such grim messages delivered in Arabic. This was spoken in English, in a calm native Yorkshire accent, aimed specifically at British Muslims." More than likely Continental Europe, as well as Britain, has homegrown suicide bombers among its second-generation Muslims. British intelligence has found that most of these British terrorists have been radicalized by Islamist preachers in Britain.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new legislation giving the government powers to take preventive action, including expelling preachers of hate. These moves will help but will not eliminate the problem. In the 1960s Singapore had, by statute, set up the Islamic Religious Council. The council controls all sermons in mosques and teachings in madrassas. Yet in December 2001 Singapore and Malaysia arrested the first group of some 30 homegrown Jemaah Islamiah (JI) members as they were planning to detonate seven truck bombs at American, British, Australian and Israeli targets in Singapore. (Singapore arrested a second group of 21 Islamic militants in August 2002.) These terrorists had been indoctrinated by a charismatic preacher during religious classes in the privacy of JI members' homes, not in mosques or madrassas. These recruits had weak and vulnerable personalities and only a shallow understanding of Islam. Joining the jihadists gave them a sense of belonging to a secret group embarked on a mission from which they would gain redemption by sacrificing themselves to avenge the oppression of Muslims everywhere.
<b>Terrorist Tactics</b>
In a video aired on Al Jazeera in early August, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man in al Qaeda, warned of more bombings if British troops remained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would London have been spared if Britain had not supported the U.S. in Iraq? I doubt it. London--like other European and Asian cities, including Singapore--was on al Qaeda's target list. JI had been preparing to bomb Singapore in 2001, long before the Iraq invasion. When arrested, the jihadists said they wanted to kill Americans and their allies in Singapore.
If terrorists succeed in forcing the U.S. and its allies out of Iraq, the jihadists will be triumphant and terrorism will spread worldwide. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's objective is not to get Americans out of Iraq but to control Saudi Arabia and its oil--and after that, the world.
The insurgency in Iraq can and will be defeated by Iraqis, not by Americans. After a government is installed following the second election, American forces will be able to progressively step back. It's in the Sunni population's best interest to participate in the next elections, whether or not they approve the constitution. If they reject participating in the government, a nasty civil war could well result, with Iraqi Sunnis killing Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. But however many Iraqis are killed, the Shiites and Kurds will never yield their hold on power. They have the will and the numbers, as well as the wherewithal that the U.S. can provide, to prevail.
<b>Ideological Battle</b>
To stop the increase in terrorist recruits, the U.S. and Europe must discredit extremist ideology, which takes Koranic passages out of context, preaches hatred against non-Muslims and seeks to spread Islam through violence. Muslims who want to be a part of the modern world of science and technology must confront and stop these Islamists from preaching violence and hatred. They must get the ulamas (Muslim scholars) and ustaz (religious teachers) to preach that Islam is a religion of peace, not terror, and that it is tolerant of other peoples and their faiths, as Muslim scholars have proudly asserted.
In countries where Muslims are a minority, as in Britain, they must take a clear-cut stand against Islamist terrorists. Britons increasingly look upon Muslims with unease. Mosques have been vandalized and Muslims assaulted in the streets. Nearly 300 hate crimes were committed in London in the week after the July bombings. Muslim community leaders have advised Muslim women not to wear head scarves. As British Muslim MP Shahid Malik told his fellow Muslims, "It is not enough to condemn--you must confront. The extremism in our community is now our problem."
In Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iraq, Muslims will be forced to confront the Islamists or witness their governments being overthrown and their people dragged back into a feudal past, just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
This surge in Islamist terrorism will take years to tamp down. In the meantime the world is at risk of these terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Were that to happen, the slaughter would be horrendous. The nuclear programs of rogue states, therefore, must be stopped and their stockpiles of weapons and matériel confiscated.
<i>Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-13-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To stop the increase in terrorist recruits, the U.S. and Europe must discredit extremist ideology, <b>which takes Koranic passages out of context</b>, preaches hatred against non-Muslims and seeks to spread Islam through violence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kalavai Venkat starts with the foll in his latest article..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7 the West has invented the myth of radical Islam, thereby implying that there must be a benign version of Islam too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 10-20-2005
October 19, 2005
----------------------------------------
3 WAYS TO GROW RICHER IN A WORLD GONE MAD
----------------------------------------
Dear Investor,
HANG ON TO YOUR HATS! The market's sinking yet again...moving farther down each day. Don't look to Wall Street to tell you what's going on--they have NO IDEA what to do!
Now too many investors are left treading water and hoping for the best. The market's turned around before, so surely it'll happen again, right?
Well, it's a tempting thought. It wasn't long ago that America was at peace, oil was cheap, and gasoline was a mere $1.20 a gallon.
BUT now it's a whole new world - and frankly a world that has gone STARK, RAVING MAD!
Look at what we're dealing with here: Oil prices are surging 500%, inflation is surging - up 300% in 36 months, the government announced a record deficit of nearly ONE-HALF TRILLION DOLLARS for 2005, consumer confidence is as low as it was just after 9/11
-- and perhaps WORST OF ALL
--the Dow, S&P 500 and NASDAQ are still stuck at the levels they
FIRST achieved six long years ago --and for that matter look as if they may crack and crash at virtually any moment.
No wonder THE MOST BURNING QUESTION ON WALL STREET has quickly become:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"How in the WORLD do you protect your wealth
- let alone GROW it - at a time like this?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
What's positively unbelievable and what makes me fighting mad, is that the SAME Wall Street flacks and talking heads who FAILED to warn you about any of this still have the unmitigated gall to shamelessly show their faces in public!
Not only that, they're steadfastly ignoring today's disturbing economic and investing realities and still urging you to buy JUNK that is sure to get you slaughtered as each of these trends continues to unfold in 2006 and beyond!
Just last weekend, I watched all the popular "investment" shows on TV - and I couldn't believe my eyes...
*One analyst recommended buying the stock of retail stores - virtually GUARANTEED to crash as the cost of gas and everything else you buy continues to soar...
*Another Pollyanna so out of touch with economic reality, she actually said that a hot new bull market was just over the horizon - and urged viewers to buy index funds that sentence you to mediocrity, or WORSE: Massive losses when the markets crater
...
*And one, believe it or not, actually said that the airlines - which are already dropping like flies because of soaring fuel prices -- are a good buy now because they're so "cheap."
UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!
------------------------------
Who ARE these drooling morons?
------------------------------
Every one of them either works for a major stock brokerage or owns a mutual fund of his or her own - and the ONLY way they get rich is to dupe YOU into buying the junk they sell!
That's why when you listen to them, you ask yourself, are these guys blind, deaf AND dumb? Don't they SEE what's happening?
Don't they UNDERSTAND that each one of the major trends now driving the economy is utterly unstoppable?
Don't they CARE that their idiotic advice is going to rob good people like you of their wealth - not to mention their financial security and independence?
To anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, watching what's going on in the economy and financial markets right now is like watching a train wreck in slow motion!
Thinking about the carnage that's going to be caused as millions of investors follow the kind of idiotic "free" advice Wall Street is handing out gives me nightmares. Worrying that YOUR life and dreams will be destroyed as these events unfold - unless you act immediately to insulate yourself -- keeps me up all night.
I absolutely REFUSE to stand by and watch everything you've worked for be swept away by the deadly combination of turbulent times and terrible advice.
------------------------
My Red-Hot B.S. Detector
------------------------
My mission is to help you keep your money while all around you are losing theirs.
MORE THAN THAT: My goal is to help you harness these disturbing new long-term trends to make a bundle as each one of them accelerates in 2006 and beyond!
That's why I'm writing you today. My name is Keith Fitz-Gerald. Unless you're a professional trader or institutional investor, you've probably never heard of me - but the world's richest and most successful institutional investors seek out and use my stock market research and advice.
AND UNTIL NOW, I have never made my research available to the general public.
The good folks at Phillips Investment Resources -- America's most respected source of investment analysis and advice -- asked me to try to help you, and I jumped at the chance!
Why me? Because in investment circles, I'm famous for my RED-HOT B.S. DETECTOR, and I love using it to expose the lies and lousy advice that cost you money.
My passion is to right Wall Street's wrongs for you - to help you both protect what you have and GET MORE - no matter what's going on in the world!
And let me tell you my detector is flashing loud and clear right now! Let me introduce you to:
-----------------------------------
The Great "Crude Awakening" of 2006
-----------------------------------
If you think the oil price hikes we've seen so far were brutal, better hang on to your hat!
In January 1999 - just six years ago -- oil was just $9.96 per barrel and gasoline was just $1.20 a gallon. As I write this, oil prices are 400% higher -- well over $50 -- and gasoline has soared to well over $3.00 a gallon.
Think it's a fluke? Think we'll awake from this nightmare to once again find oil selling for ten bucks a barrel and $1.20 gas at the pump?
HAH! Fat chance! This explosion in energy prices is driven by super-powerful LONG-TERM trends that no government on Earth can even hope to stop...
1. DEMAND IS EXPLODING WORLD-WIDE: Despite all the jawboning we've done about alternative energy sources and conservation, the U.S. and other Western nations are still demanding more and more energy with each passing year. That's not surprising: There are 80 million new people on the planet every year, so unless people stop having babies, demand is not likely to drop anytime soon!
And now, two new players - China and India -- are causing global energy demand to skyrocket.
Look: Right now, the world consumes more than 28 billion barrels of oil each year, or about 4.4 barrels per person, per year.
Right now though, China and India are still in the early stages of their economic development - and so the average Chinese only consumes 1.3 barrels per year, and the average Indian uses only 1 barrel per year.
But they're catching up quickly - and when the average Chinese consumer begins using just HALF as much oil as the average global consumer does now, they'll be taking an additional 11.7 billion barrels of oil off of the market each year...
...And when the average Indian begins consuming just half as much oil as the rest of us do now, they'll be taking an additional 12 billion barrels of oil off of the market.
Together, that's nearly 24 billion barrels of new demand - nearly DOUBLING world demand for oil - enough to push oil prices to well over DOUBLE today's levels!
Get this: if every Chinese citizen used as much oil as we Americans do, they'd soak up 100% of all the petroleum currently being produced world-wide!
In 1993, China had an estimated 700,000 cars to fuel. Now they have over seven million, and more than 100 million motorcycles on the road - and those numbers are growing exponentially. When China's car ownership levels match our own, there will be 650 million cars on the road in that country - more than all the cars in the world today!
And India is doing its darndest to catch up, too!
Could this exploding global demand for oil stop anytime soon? Not a chance! China is going after oil in 30 different countries around the world to find new reserves. It's also building its own strategic petroleum reserve.
And last year, Beijing raised interest rates and announced other reforms aimed at slowing its economic growth - and its GDP growth actually ACCELERATED!
And not to be outdone, India's Prime Minister is busy passing measures to RAMP UP that country's growth - and its demand for energy.
And if you STILL don't think this is serious, ask yourself why China and India - age old enemies - have now TEAMED UP TOGETHER on oil and natural gas exploration projects. The answer: They want the natural resources and are willing to do what it take to secure them - even if it means WE go without!
2. SUPPLIES ARE STRICTLY LIMITED: For more than four decades, the U.S. government has done everything in its power to block the opening of new oilfields ... halt the construction of new refineries ... and discourage the building of pipelines and tankers to transport petroleum.
Now, those environmental chickens are coming home to roost. With massive new demand driving prices higher, the vast majority of the world's oil fields, refineries and transportation systems are running at full tilt.
And, since it takes up to seven long years to develop an oil field or build a new refinery, there is NO HOPE WHATSOEVER that supplies of oil, heating oil, gasoline or natural gas will rise anytime soon.
Even if we suddenly discovered an ocean of new oil tomorrow, it would be 2012 before that new oil could begin bringing prices down!
Meanwhile, for every ONE new barrel of oil discovered, the world consumes FOUR BARRELS! What's worse, geologists are telling us that 90% of all the oil in the world has already been discovered, and that 80% of all existing oil fields are now in their depletion phase!
BOTTOM LINE: There's not a snowball's chance in Hades that new discoveries will reduce oil prices - EVER!
3. SERIOUS INTERRUPTIONS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN EVER: Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have publicly sworn to destroy the huge oil fields in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and have already staged dozens of attacks on them over the past couple of years. To believe that these the terrorists will see the error of their ways and stop these attacks any time soon would be naive to say the least.
Plus, as we'll see in a moment, the increasingly wild weather patterns that spawned hurricanes Katrina and Rita - and scored direct hits on oil drilling and refining in the Gulf of Mexico - are likely to be with us for decades.
These facts have added a substantial "uncertainty premium" to oil prices - and will continue to do so for years to come!
BOTTOM LINE: if today's $50 oil and $3.00 gas prices worry you, just think how you'll feel in 2006 and beyond - when you're paying TWICE as much!
------------------------------
3 Best Ways to Grow Rich As Oil Prices Continue to Soar
------------------------------
I've designed one full volume in a special Crisis Investing Library (8 reports total) to guide you to the safest, surest ways to bag a bundle as the great oil crisis of 2006 continues to unfold.
In "Crude Awakening: How $120 oil and $6.00 gas will make you rich" -- I show you why rising oil prices are carved in stone for the next decade or so ... and I introduce you to the 3 investments I'm convinced will give you the GREATEST profits with the LEAST risk!
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-21-2005
The Invisible Bankers
Great article in Forbes by Mike Freedman
some side bar stuff:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Keeping Cash Clean </b>
1. An individual walks into a convenience store in the U.S. that also sends money overseas.
2. He hands over $200 to be sent to Pakistan.
3. The convenience store owner, also a hawaladar, takes a fee for maybe 1% for the service and calls his hawaladar cousin in Peshawar to give him details of the transaction.
4. The hawaladar in the U.S. puts the money in the cash register, mixing it with other funds from the day's sales.
5. Within 24 hours the cousin in Peshawar delivers, often by hand, an equal amount of cash to the recipient.
6. Later the Pakistani cousins settle up. One way: The convenience store owner ships his cousin $1,000 worth of goods but invoices for only $800.
7. The cousin sells the goods for $1,000 and wire-transfers back the $800, thus closing the cycle. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the Numbers
Homeland Security is attempting to clean up the informal remittance industry. But with at least 20,000 of these outfits, there's still a lot of work to be done.
155 The number of Homeland Security arrests of alleged unlicensed money remitters since November 2001.¹
92% The percentage of those arrests that have led to criminal indictments.
$25.8 million The amount of alleged illicit proceeds seized in the arrests.Â
0 The number of terror financiers convicted among those arrested.
¹As of mid-August 2005. Source: U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 12-08-2005
<b>TERRORISM, HUMAN RIGHTS AND COUNTER-TERRORISM (Some Reflections</b>)
Guest Column by Ninan Koshy
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 12-12-2005
<b>INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR----PAPER NO. 3 CONTINUING ECLIPSE OF BIN LADEN</b>
by B.Raman
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 12-14-2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version
VIEW: US imperialism in democracyâs name âYoginder Sikand
While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading. Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc
âThree years After: Next Steps in the War on Terrorâ, is RAND Corporationâs latest document detailing American policies in the Middle East and suggesting suitable changes. A right-wing research organisation allied with the US government and the American defence and intelligence departments, RAND is notorious for its advocacy of American imperialist interests. RAND is one of the most influential neo-conservative and pro-Zionist âthink tanksâ in America, and its publications both reflect and help mould US government policies on key issues, including Americaâs âwar on terrorâ.
For anyone interested in understanding how the US establishment sees its âwar on terrorâ, this document, which presents itself as drawing on what it calls âthe results of several cutting-edge studiesâ, is essential reading. It is based, as even a cursory glance would suggest, on a warped understanding of the causes of terrorism. Hence, the solutions that it offers, by ignoring the root causes of terrorism, threaten to make the situation more, not less, complicated and intractable.
The various contributors to this volume, mostly self-styled âexpertsâ at RAND closely linked to US government departments, appear to argue that the only sort of âterrorismâ that merits concern is what the media routinely describes as âIslamicâ or âIslamistâ âterrorismâ. Ignoring other forms of terrorism, not to speak of American state terrorism as brutally displayed in Iraq today, the âexpertsâ appear to see âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ as not just the sole form of terrorism but also as the principal challenge to American interests.
In their diagnosis of âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ, too, RANDâs âexpertsâ display an unpardonable ignorance, to be charitable, or, as is more likely, deceit. Ignoring the economic, cultural, and political causes of discontent in many Muslim communities, including the American-backed Israeli occupation of Palestine and Americaâs support of ruthless client regimes in Muslim countries, the âexpertsâ see Islamist militancy as simply an ideological phenomenon.
As David Aaron, editor of the document, former US government official and currently senior fellow at RAND, says, Americaâs âwar on terrorâ is an âideological warâ, in which Islamic militancy has assumed the role that communism once occupied in the American imagination. It is as if the ideology of Islamism operates in a vacuum, unrelated to the social reality that produces and sustains it. Not surprisingly, the role of the United States in backing Islamist groups during the Cold War to battle against anti-imperialist and leftist forces is conveniently forgotten now that former friends have turned foes.
Rather than address the root causes of Muslim discontent, of which Islamist militancy is, to an extent, a product, the solutions that the contributors to this book offer are tailor-made to preserve American hegemony and Israeli interests. They assume that American policy is fundamentally correct, and see no need whatsoever for America to reconsider its policies towards the Muslim world as well as Israel.
There is no mention in the book of Israeli brutalities, of the American-imposed embargo on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands, the American bombing of Afghanistan, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq and so on as possible factors for Muslim discontent. The latter is seen as simply an ideological perversion.
With such a warped perspective, the contributors to this book can only come up with two solutions to the problem: to ideologically combat radical Islamism with a counter-Islamic discourse, and to use force to destroy radical Islamists.
The first solution is spelled out by RAND âexpertâ, Cheryl Benard, wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, American ambassador to Iraq, in her paper titled âDemocracy and Islam: The Struggle in the Islamic World-Strategy for the United Statesâ.
This paper also operates on the same assumption that American policies have nothing to do with Muslim discontent or Islamist opposition, and that the root causes of radical Islamism lies solely in a certain understanding of Islam, or what it calls âthe struggle within Islamâ. Accordingly, Benard begins her essay by approvingly quoting George Bush as saying, âWe actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be called the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, and who happen to use terror as a weaponâ.
Benard outlines an ambitious proposal, to promote a version of Islam that toes US dictates. She labels this sort of Islam âmodernistâ, by which she means an Islam that differs but little from Western Protestantism and is perfectly at ease with capitalism. Realising that, given their elitist moorings, the Islamic âmodernistsâ that she backs lack popular appeal and mass following, Benard urges that America should âbe prepared to subsidize the publication of their work in a variety of forms such as the Web, textbooks, pamphlets, and conferencesâ.
America should, she suggests, âpopularise modernists as role models and leaders, and provide venues and platforms to communicate their messageâ. Obviously, the âmodernistsâ Benard refers to would receive Western backing so long as their ire remains focused on the Islamists, but they would not be allowed to speak out against American brutality.
The second solution â military force â that the book advocates to deal with âterrorismâ is again based on the notion that American policies need no change, that America is perfectly innocent and that Islamist militancy is the result of warped or crazed religiosity. This is echoed in the presentation by Paul Wolfowtiz, former American deputy secretary of defence, and one of the chief architects of Americaâs invasion of Iraq. Blind to Americaâs brutal imperialist past, Wolfowitz piously proclaims that the âwar on terrorismâ and the invasion of Iraq is ânot for conquest, itâs not for imperial colonial plunderâ.
Rather, he says, it is for a principle that he claims has driven American history from the beginning of its history â âfreedom and democracyâ â for he says, âAmericans have always stood up to evilâ.
Refusing to recognise the obvious fact that American policies are, to a large extent, the cause of Muslim discontent, Wolfowitz predictably characterises the problem as one of âterrorist fanaticismâ. Accordingly, he blesses Americaâs invasion of Iraq and its âwar on terrorismâ in terms similar to those used by white Western colonialists to justify their invasion and subjugation of âprimitiveâ people â a sort of civilising mission. He calls it a project to build a âjust and peaceful worldâ, with America âoffer[ing] a vision of life and hope and freedom to counter the terroristsâ vision of tyranny, death and despairâ. He refers to Bushâs Iraq policy as âa story about the power of libertyâ.
Wolfowitz appears to insist that âdemocracyâ must be imposed on the Iraqis, and that, if they resist, they must be forced, on the pain of death, to accept it. He depicts the American invasion of Iraq as geared by an irrepressible zeal to spread âdemocracyâ, while remaining silent on Americaâs consistent support to the some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world.
Seeking to provide a âhuman faceâ to American occupying forces, he quotes an unnamed Iraqi woman, who allegedly met Bush at the White House while on a trip to see the functioning of a âdemocratic societyâ, as saying that âthere would have been no opportunity for Iraqi women to learn about democracy were it not for the sacrifice of American servicemen and womenâ. Wolfowitz waxes eloquent about the âgreatâ deeds of American soldiers in Iraq, whom he describes as setting up schools, getting people âback into their homesâ and even distributing bicycles worth âfive bucksâ each to Iraqi children. Not a single word is uttered about the thousands of Iraqis who have died and continue to die as a result of the American occupation.
It is not that the authors of the RAND report are as naïve and ignorant as they appear from their academic outpourings. Obviously, their diagnosis of the problem and the solutions that they suggest are carefully packaged to serve American and Zionist hegemonic designs and to counter any threat to American and Israeli interests. While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading.
Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc, in addition to Muslim, that spread hatred and terror in the name of religion. Likewise, state terrorism, which the RAND report appears to bless in the name of the âwar on terrorâ, must be seen as an equally grave threat that needs to be combated.
In addition, religious radicalism cannot be seen, as the RAND report does, simply in ideological terms. Its complex underlying causes and factors, economic, cultural and political, must also be taken into account in the context of imperialism and the Western-dominated capitalist system. Only then will we be able to ask the right questions and come up with the appropriate responses.
The writer has done his Phd at the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, Leiden. He also edits a web-magazine called Qalandar, which can be accessed at www.islaminterfaith.org
<img src='http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2005/12/14/20051214_yogi_sikand.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 12-15-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo</b>
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2005
Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.
Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?
Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.
But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United States.
Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.
<b>"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."</b>
So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."
So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.
"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."
<b>It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing.</b> Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.
According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah.<b> The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.</b>
<b>In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.</b>
<b>And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.</b>Â [good example, riots by muslims in India]
It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. <b>The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."</b>
<b>Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms,"</b> rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.
Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.
<b>"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."</b>
Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.
PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.
<b>"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."</b> <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <b>The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.
"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.</b>
It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...p?ID=20539<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 12-18-2005
The Impending Collapse of Arab Civilization
This is an interesting article. He makes a distinction between Arab civilization and an Islamic one. The premise behind such a distinction is somewhat suspect,but his resulting conclusions do not seem to be much different from current policy.
He proposes thefollowing course ofactions
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The grand strategic concept that provides the best chance of success is the one that served us so well in the Cold Warâcontainment. No matter what else we do we must position ourselves to contain the effects of the complete collapse of Arab civilization. Already 10 percent of the French population is from Muslim North Africa. Europe's ability to assimilate a larger flood of economic refugees is questionable. And mass migration is just one effect a total collapse will have. Containment will mean adopting and maintaining difficult policy choices, which include:
Working closely with the European nations to defend their southern border against the mass migration of tens of millions of destitute Arabs as well as armed confrontations with failing Arab states.
Renewing our close ties with Turkey and making that nation a bulwark against the effects of collapse.
Working to help modernize and integrate the Russian military into an enhanced European defense structure.
<b>Ensuring China is a partner in this containment effort.Â
Propping up weak border states that are already dealing with the spillover effects of Arab collapseâsuch as Pakistan and the new Caucasus states.</b>
Assisting the Iranian popular will to establish a government not based on a religious oligarchy. The Persian people may form an eastern bulwark against collapse.
Plan for the security of critical resources even during possible upheavals and regional turmoil.
Spillover effects such as terrorist groups already evident in places like Indonesia and the Philippines must be eradicated or reversed.
We need to be clear that this is not a failure of Islam. In this regard we must help Muslims outside of the Arab world find their own interpretations of their faith and not fall prey to those being espoused by the Arab worldâWahhabism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He concludes with the following
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"By accepting that we need to contain the effects of a failing Arab civilization we are then free to adopt one of three basic approaches:
Attempt to accelerate the collapse and pick up the pieces, akin to letting an alcoholic hit bottom.
To contain the effects, but not to interfere with the fall for good or bad.
Reverse the tide when and where we can.
For a number of ethical and practical reasons the third choice is the one that should and is most likely to be adopted, keeping in mind that resisting the macro-forces of historical change will not be easy.
By adopting the third option we can craft policies to improve economic conditions and help specific regions within the Arab world adapt to encroaching modernity.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the reference to Pakistan and China and the compete absence of India anywhere in the article
Note also their perception that the collapse of the Arab civilization is not only an undesirable outcome but an unethical one and also the need to prop up a failing Pakistate .
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 12-25-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Containing ideological violence </b>
Pioneer.com
KPS Gill
Another year has passed, and the sense of insecurity in large parts of India remains pervasive. Delhi itself has been shaken by two major terrorist events - the serial blasts in two cinema halls engineered by the Babbar Khalsa International on May 22, 2005, which killed one and injured at least another 60; and the pre-Diwali explosions at Sarojini Nagar, Pahar Ganj and Govind Puri, on October 29, 2005, executed by the Lashkar-e-Toiba, which killed 62 persons, and injured at least another 155.
These came after almost three years without incident - the last successful attack in Delhi was the December 13, 2001, attack on India's Parliament - though terrorist and subversive efforts have been continuous since then, as indicated by an uninterrupted stream of arrests and seizures of arms and explosives in and around the capital.
It has been an year of both improvement and decline. The most positive signs have come from India's Northeast, which witnessed a dramatic drop in violence and fatalities in all States, with the exception of Manipur (where fatalities rose from 218 in 2004 to 314, till December 12 in 2005). Manipur, regrettably, is a problem of our own making, and there has been a continuous stream of blunders on the part of both the State and the Centre, which have cumulatively fed the escalation.
The most significant recovery, however, has been in Tripura, where the State Government and the Police have rallied strongly in a focused counter-terrorism campaign. This campaign has decimated terrorist ranks, and demonstrated what clear will and vision can achieve, even in a State that is virtually enveloped on three sides by Bangladesh.
These successes, moreover, have been secured despite the fact that Bangladesh continues to serve as a safe haven and source of support for all terrorist groups operating in Tripura, as in the entire Northeast. In Assam, as in much of the region, it is now apparent that the community at large is tired of violence and has little patience with the political pretensions of the various terrorist groups, though the leadership and substantial cadres of these outfits continue to operate from Bangladesh.
<b>Jammu and Kashmir continued to witness the secular decline in violence and fatalities that commenced in 2001</b>, after the global environment and 'tolerance for terror' underwent a dramatic transformation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the US.
It is significant that this decline has been sustained, irrespective of the policies of the Indian and Pakistani Governments, or of the state of mutual relations between the two countries, and is related essentially to the pressures exerted on Pakistan by the international community, particularly the US, and to the intensity of the international media focus on Pakistan. <b>Violence in J&K dropped by just over seven per cent (from 1810 to 1681, data for 2005 till December 11), between 2004 and 2005, as against almost 29 per cent between 2003 and 2004, 16 per cent between 2002 and 2003, and almost 33 per cent between 2001 and 2002.</b>
This process now appears to be tapering out, and the jihadi leadership in Pakistan and its handlers within the state structure appear to believe that the current level of violence is sustainable under the cover of 'credible deniability' and is necessary to secure leverage on the negotiating table in the 'peace process' currently under way between the two countries.
Unfortunately, it has been possible for Pakistan to recover some space to keep its terrorist enterprise alive in both India and in Afghanistan, because of gradual shifts in international opinion and the focus of international attention, after the initial crystallisation of sentiments against terrorism in the post-9/11 phase.
Before this, of course, terrorism was widely countenanced by the West - and was justified by many countries that sought to explain the murder of innocents as 'freedom struggles'. However, <b>the US and UK have been relatively unambiguous in their condemnation of terrorism since then, and this has severely circumscribed the operational support flowing from sympathetic communities resident in these countries, in terms of moral, financial, material and manpower flows to the areas of strife</b>.
There is also, in these countries, an increasing awareness of linkages between various terrorist groups, and the realisation that the actions of the global coalition against terrorism in a few centres of Islamist extremist terror also have an impact on other terrorist groups. Moreover, increasing constraints are now being placed, not only on Islamist terrorist organisations, but against all terrorist organisations across the world.
The Sikh terrorist groups, which enjoyed almost total immunity in the past, are now being included in lists of terrorist organisations, and their attempts to revive their campaigns through human rights fronts have been visibly unsuccessful.
<b>Unfortunately, Canada and continental Europe, in substantial measure, continue to maintain an ambivalent stand on terrorism, in many cases because of the political leverage exercised by a significant émigré population drawn from communities that are engaged in violent - often terrorist - wars of secession in their home countries.</b>
But looking at the country as a whole, the containment of terrorist groups based on religious or ethnic separatist ideologies has gone side by side with an increase in Left Wing extremist violence, which has mostly been concentrated in areas that are not in the 'public eye' - or more accurately, which are neglected by he national media, for they are very much 'in the eye' of the locals in areas where these Naxalite groups dominate.
<b>These groups have sought to pass themselves off as a great ideological response to the woes of the tribals, the Dalits, the downtrodden and the dispossessed, but are essentially a mix of confused dogmas, caste conflict, the desire of marginalised political leaders to gain political space through violence, and a naked struggle for power.</b>
Nevertheless, these ideologies have swept across large areas of the country - the largest geographical area and population to be afflicted by any single insurgency in the country - and currently comprehend at least 165 districts under various intensities of activity, from high, through moderate, to targeted.
This trend in violence has been growing<b> (678 persons died in 2005, till December 21, as against 566 in 2004)</b> particularly because of the inability of the policy making community, both at national and State levels, to determine the exact responses that are necessary to contain this violence, and this political confusion has found unfortunate echoes in the law enforcement agencies as well.
In addition to this broad sweep of terrorist violence is the endemic sense of insecurity as a result of the increasing activity of criminals, particularly of the criminal mafia that has found inroads into political power, and the general sense of collapse in many parts of the country, in the systems of law enforcement and justice administration.
The most fundamental problem is that almost no one expects efficient and impartial decisions to be meted out, within a rational time frame, by the justice system, and this is something that neither the judiciary nor the political establishment is willing to address. If this problem could be cleared up, terrorism - including the left wing extremist variety - would be taken care of.
The prevalence of a politics of violence across vast areas of the country is an abiding blot on the integrity of the system - and this blemish deepens every time anyone, irrespective of social status, is targeted or dies. Regrettably, this continues to happen with unfailing regularity and, if one were to operate on a rating system of a ten point 'internal security index', India would score a poor two for the year 2005 - probably no more or less than would be ascribed to it in the preceding year
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 01-15-2006
January 15, 2006 Page: 11/35
Home > 2006 Issues > January 15, 2006
<b>Islamabad deceiving on Osama</b>
By N.K. Pant
Hats off to Pakistanâs external publicity machine for churning out wierd information. One wonders how it was not in conformity with the Islamic nationâs the military establishmentâs media department. At the time when Islamabad is in the utter need of funds from the international community for quake relief, it seems foreign ministryâs media mandarins tried to invent a ludicruously odd news story. They had the temerity to inform the world that Pakistani army has recently missed Osama bin Laden by whiskers. The troops missed capturing al Qaeda chief by just half an hour. Surprisingly, the free world seemed to be believing the make believe man bites the dog piece. Of course, there could have been no better place than London to project the image of a sincere ally of the western world now deeply involved in getting rid of global terrorism not threatening it with occasional bomb blasts but also actually carrying out the threats. That perhaps explains why this startling piece of news appeared in a British newspaper, The News of the World. According to the last November 13 issue of the publication, the Pakistan High Commission confirmed the information which was quoted it as saying, âWe think we missed him (bin Osama Laden) by 30 minutes. It was the closest we have been since 2001.â Was not it something like beating about the bush. The outright lie has been nailed as there seems to be a yawning gap in coordination between the external publicity on the one hand and the Inter Services Public Relations on the other. When the newspaper Dawn contacted the Director General ISPR, Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan subsequently by phone, it was told that the incident happened not this year but last year.
The wicked right hand obviously did not know was the left one was up to. Can one believe that well trained, lethaly modernised and highly mobile Pakistani army equipped with latest weapons, tanks, helicopters, communication equipment and backed by an efficient Air force capable of challenging Indiaâs armed might is incapable to capture the worldâs most wanted terror fugitive freely roaming within its territory? Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI is so well entrenched in the mountainous region of the countryâs north west frontier province that it is impossible for a fly to escape. It remains a mystery how Osama bin Laden who moves with his entourage escaped the net. The operationally crack troops if they had really tried to zero in on to the al Qaeda leader, they could have easily nabbed him. The news item also reportedly memtioned President Musharraf telling an American journalist details of the operation, but the DG, ISPR Maj Gen Sultan denied the president had talked to any US journalist recently. However, he did give an interview some time ago and told the journalist about the operation which took place last year. According to Ahmed Rashid, an author and Pakistan-based journalist, it has been difficult for correspondents to get into the area to confirm what is happening there. âClearly, this is a very heavily censored operation that is going on,â he said. âThe journalists are not being allowed to report it [from the ground] and whatever is coming is coming out of the public relations side of the [Pakistani] military. And there are very conflicting reports about how many they are chasing, how many they have arrested, how many they want to arrest. And itâs not even clear exactly who they are after. Are they after just locals? Is it Al-Qaeda? Is it Taliban? Are these Afghans or Arabs?â Musharraf during his visit to the US in 2004 had claimed that his army had broken Al Qaedaâs back in Pakistan, but the US security agencies were reluctant to believe him. Islamabad keeps getting American dollars and military assistance in the expectation that Pakistan would help the US in capturing bin Laden and his criminal gang. Pakistani military and foreign ministry in turn from times issue pre-planned handouts informing the world that sincere efforts are on to nab the prised terrorist hiding in the difficult terrain. Once the soldiers rounded up many poor Arabs living in Pakistan who had become a social pest. It is understood that only four Al Qaeda leaders of real consequence have been caught and handed over to the US. And that too, only after the US intelligence came to know of their sanctuaries in Pakistan and its army had no other option but to arrest them. In March 2005, also President Pervez Musharraf according to the BBC had revealed that Pakistani troops had their best chance of capturing Bin Laden from May-July 2004, after the army launched an offensive along the border with Afghanistan. Pakistanâs former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had, perhaps in lighter vein, once told the journalists that Osama bin Laden sometimes could be staying as an honoured guest in the comfortable basements of Presidential mansion. It is also possible that Bin laden is dead but his ghost is still being kept alive by willy Musharraf for the sake of getting continued US assistance.
(The writer can be contacted at 22 A, Vanasthali, Ballupur, Dehra Dun-248001.)
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 02-26-2006
<b>INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR: PAPER NO.26 PORT SECURITY IN US</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->9. While the UAE Government might be viewed by the US Government as a sincere ally in the war against terrorism, the following worrisome factors have not received the attention they deserve in the debate in the US on this subject:
<b>Dubai is an important hub of hawala money transactions in the Gulf area</b>. The informal money transfers through the hawala method without leaving any paper trail are used by heroin smugglers and other international criminal mafia groups for money-laundering and terrorist groups for funding their operations.Â
<b>Dubai has always been a safe haven for the trans-national criminal mafia gangs of South Asia, which invest their ill-gotten wealth in the real estate and other business activities in the UAE.</b> For many years, the trans-national criminal gang of Dawood Ibrahim used to operate from Dubai, without the UAE authorities taking any action against him and his gang members.Â
The explosions in Mumbai (Bombay) in March 1993, organised by Dawood Ibrahim and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which killed about 250 innocent civilians, were orchestrated by Dawood and the ISI from Dubai. <b>The terrorists, who participated in the operations at Mumbai, were first taken to Dubai and from there to Pakistan on the basis of plain paper visas issued by the ISI officer posted in the Pakistani Consulate in Dubai.</b> The ISI got them trained in the training camps of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), a founding member of bin Laden's IIF, and then sent them back to Mumbai via Dubai. The HUM was designated by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation under a 1996 law in October 1997. The explosives used in the Mumbai terrorist strikes were sent by the ISI to Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai, who had them clandestinely sent to Mumbai in his boats. The investigation by the Mumbai Police into the explosions brought out the details of the use of Dubai by the ISI and Dawood Ibrahim for organising the terrorist strikes. The airport authorities of Dubai had helped the terrorists to travel to Pakistan for clandestine training with plain paper visas without any entry in their Indian passports regarding their clandestine travel to and from Pakistan. The UAE authorities never alerted India to the activities of this gang directed against India from the UAE territory. After the explosions, they pressurised Dawood Ibrahim to leave Dubai, but did not arrest him and hand him over to India for facing trial. He shifted to Karachi, from where he has been operating now. He and his cohorts frequently visit Dubai from Karachi in connection with their smuggling and other operations, but they have not been arrested by the UAE authorities despite the existence of red corner notices repeatedly issued by the INTERPOL since 1993 for arresting them and handing them over to India. The intelligence and security agencies of the UAE and Pakistan have been colluding with each other in protecting Dawood Ibrahim from the legal consequences of his involvement in trans-national crime and international terrorism. In October 2003, the US Treasury designated Dawood Ibrahim as an international terrorist following evidence of his links with Al Qaeda, but even then no action has been taken against him and his business empire in the UAE and Pakistan by either the UAE or Pakistan.Â
<b>In December 1999, some Pakistani terrorists belonging to the HUM hijacked an aircraft of the Indian Airlines and took it to Dubai. Instead of terminating the hijacking, arresting the hijackers and handing them over to India, the UAE authorities allowed the aircraft to fly to Kandahar, the then headquarters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. </b>During the negotiations conducted from Kandahar, the hijackers forced the Government of India to release Omar Sheikh, who subsequently masterminded the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, and Maulana Masood Azhar, who subsequently formed the Jaish-e-Mohammad, which has joined the IIF.Â
<b>In December 2001, a group of terrorists attacked the security guards posted outside the US Consulate in Kolkata. After the commission of the offence, the leader of this group fled to Dubai, where he was arrested by the local authorities and handed over to the Indian Police</b>. During the investigation, it came out that in the past he had been frequently traveling to Pakistan via Dubai for meeting officials of the ISI and terrorist leaders based in Pakistan.Â
<b>In August 2004, Qari Saifullah Akhtar, the Amir of the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), one of the members of bin Laden's IIF, was found to be operating from Dubai. He was arrested by the UAE authorities and handed over to the Pakistani police</b>. He was a close adviser to Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban. Before 9/11, the HUJI was running a number of training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan for training terrorists from India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, southern Thailand, the Central Asian Republics, the Xinjiang region of China and Chechnya in Russia.Â
The Lashkar-e-Toiba of Pakistan has active branches in the UAE and Saudi Arabia for co-ordinating its activities in India, South-East Asia and Australia and for transmitting money through the hawala channel. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 03-14-2006
China, Russia Reject Iran Nuke Statement
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the
U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding that
Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday.
The dispute raises the threat of an impasse in the Security Council and means that the U.S., Britain and France may not get their wish for strong action by the powerful U.N. body. They believe such a text could further isolate Iran and help compel it to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a civilian nuclear reactor or fissile material for an atomic bomb.
But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Monday that Britain also wants the Security Council to go one step at a time, leaving the door open to restart negotiations with Tehran if it reverses course and expresses a willingness to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
"If the Iranian regime chooses not to heed the concerns of the international community, it's going to damage the interests of the Iranian people," he said, speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.
Iran, meanwhile, sent more mixed signals about its intentions. Its president said Iran's very existence depended on nuclear development, but Russia reported that Iranian diplomats had asked for more consultations.
Only a day earlier, talks on Russia's Western-backed offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program collapsed when Tehran rejected Moscow's demand to suspend enrichment activities at home.
"Contradictory signals are coming from Tehran," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Monday of Iran's response to the proposal. "One day they reject it, the other day they don't."
The board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, voted last month to report Iran to the Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei accused Iran of withholding information about its nuclear program, possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons, and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment.
In the last week, council diplomats have weighed how to respond. Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding nations all said publicly that discussions continued on several proposals, including one from the British and French that would urge Iran to stop enriching uranium.
But a U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the discussions, said Russia and China want the council to do one thing only: acknowledge the primary role of the IAEA in handling the Iran issue.
The diplomat said that after three meetings, the Russians and Chinese showed little indication they would change their positions.
At the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach toward Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only for peaceful purposes such as energy.
Russia and China, allies of Iran, believe council action â such as a challenging statement or economic sanctions â risks angering Tehran further, possibly causing the regime to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out IAEA inspectors.
"I think that we want a constructive statement," China's Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press on Monday morning. "I think they want to be too tough."
Britain also wants
Israel to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but it is far more urgent that Iran shut down its enrichment activities since it poses the greater threat, Straw said in London.
"If you want a nuclear-free Middle East, the next stop is Iran," he said. "Nothing would set back the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East and a non-nuclear Israel further than if Iran were to flout its international commitments and acquire a nuclear weapons capability."
In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi indicated that his government would wait for the outcome of the Security Council meeting to decide whether to start enrichment on the scale required to provide fuel for its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, to go online later this year.
"It shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the Iranians would love to talk further," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "They've loved talking for the last four years and they'll talk for as long as they can as they master the technical difficulties they've encountered in the uranium enrichment process."
Finance Minister Davood Danesh-Jafari told reporters Monday that Iran could survive any U.N. penalties.
"If sanctions are imposed, we are capable of managing the country according to our past experiences. We could run the country with no dollars in oil revenue as we did in the 1990s."
The United States and its allies could opt to bypass the Security Council entirely in confronting Iran. Last week, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said a coalition of countries supporting tough action might consider targeted sanctions if the council was not firm enough
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 03-24-2006
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/brainwashing.html
http://www.crossroad.to/glossary/church/na_terms.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/charts/1-Index.html
Take a look at the envisioned world of the 21st century:
The masses would be controlled through the Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process by globalist leaders who would view the world through the new filter of globalism. Polls, propaganda, simple slogans, and continual conflicts would be essential to its success. In fact, the greater the perceived crisis, the faster the leader can assume the coveted political powers that true freedom forbids. President Clinton has already mastered these totalitarian strategies, as Mikhail Gorbachev suggested in a 1993 editorial:
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 03-24-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Polls, propaganda, simple slogans, and continual conflicts would be essential to its success.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seen in India and actively used by US when they want to change masses according to their own agenda.
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 03-25-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-"Arun_S"+-->QUOTE("Arun_S")<!--QuoteEBegin-->March 23, 2006
OPINION - SRINAGAR TO VARANASI
Overriding Need To Move Towards National Consensus
JAGMOHAN
It has happened, and it goes on happening, and will happen again. These were opening lines of my book, My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir, published in 1990-91. I had penned them because I had come to the conclusion that India had acquired political and administrative ethos which were terrorism-conducive and not terrorism-repelling. The state had become too soft and its institutions too soulless. Disruption and demagogy had penetrated too deep into the texture of its democracy. And narrow ends of personal and political power had attained total ascendancy.
<b>Spiritual capital</b>
In this environment, I was left with no doubt in my mind that terrorism-related incidents will continue, be they in the form of kidnapping of a Union home minister's daughter, Dr Rubaiya Sayeed, as happened at Srinagar in December 1989, or in the form of bomb blasts that subsequently occurred in the administrative capital of India, Delhi; the financial capital Mumbai; and the technological capital, Bangalore. And if any further confirmation of my proposition was needed, it was provided, on 7 March, by the terrorist attack on Varanasi, the spiritual capital of the country, where the Trinity the Ganges, Siva and Kashi have ever been watchful.
Having seen the past through the spectacle of history, I knew that no one could escape the tragic consequences of being blind to the negative forces that determined the mind and motivation of those who held the levers of power-structure of the state in their hands.
Contrast the terrorism-related situation in India with that arising from the pro-democracy movement centred around Tiananmen Square, in China. Once the Chinese state came to believe that what was happening would imperil the stability of the country, cause large-scale public disorder and divert the attention and resources of the nation from development to internal conflicts, which could be further fanned by external forces, it moved with great clarity and vision, keeping at bay the cacophony of the human rights bodies and armchair intellectuals and hand wringers. After a few days, China was wholly out of the woods. Today, it is a powerful and peaceful state, attaining unprecedented pace in economic development, earning applause and prestige all around the world.
On the other hand, India remains engulfed not only in bloody terrorism but also in a number of internal and external fallouts. The inherent disinclination of the state and its governing machinery to take the bull by the horns and adopt a strong, sustained and focused approach, has cost the nation dearly.
<b>China's consistency</b>
What I am commending here, I must clarify, is not the Chinese methodology of dealing with the problem but the clarity and consistency of its approach and the overwhelming importance it accords to the need for maintaining national integrity and stability. Incidentally, even if figures of fatal casualties of demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, between 1000 and 5000, as given by Europa World Year Book, are accepted, they look insignificant when compared to about 100,000 killings that have occurred in India in the wake of terrorism that has been menacing the country since the 1980s.
In fact, terrorism has been with us in one form or the other for the last five decades or so. Soon after Independence, Telengana became red hot, and insurgency started showing its bloody fangs in the north-east. The Naxalite's spring thunder over West Bengal and Bihar was not far behind. In the late sixties, the horizon of these two states remained clouded by those who sought power through the barrel of the gun. Assam, Punjab and Kashmir had also their long dates with one of the most savage and ruthless forms of terrorism. Its bullets and bombs consumed two of our Prime Ministers, a chief minister and a retired Chief of Army Staff. Even those leaders who were not occupying any position in the government, like Sant Harchand Singh Longowal were not spared.
In Kashmir, about 44,000 persons fell victims to terrorism. A number of eminent leaders of the Pandit community were gunned down in broad daylight. A dreadful atmosphere was created, forcing virtually the entire community to flee the valley. Even Charar-e-Sharief, the famous 550-year old Dargah of Kashmir's patron-saint, Sheikh Nuruddin Noorani, was burnt down. The Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the Indian Parliament, too, were attacked. In the meanwhile, about 40 per cent of the geographical area, involving about 200 districts in 13 states, came to be menaced by Naxal terrorism. On account of this brand of terrorism, 892 persons lost their lives in 2005.
Despite the spread of terrorism, in different hues and colours, over a large part of the country and also over a long span of time, the Bourbons of the political establishment are refusing to rise above petty considerations of politics and power. On the other hand, negative and nihilist forces are getting stronger. The recent happenings in connection with the Danish cartoons issue provide a striking example of the extent to which exploitative attitudes could be adopted to secure petty political gains. The adverse effect of fanning the forces of fanaticism and fundamentalism were totally ignored. Similarly, those political elements who resorted to bellicosity in the wake of the Varanasi bomb blasts showed little understanding of the overriding need to move towards a national consensus and put up a united front against the forces of disruption.
<b>Gradual drift</b>
It should be clear to all of us that for too long the nation has been bled by terrorists; for too long the Indian state has exposed its soft under-belly to saboteurs; for too long political parties have resorted to petty manipulation; and for too long the overall ethos of governance has been allowed to deteriorate.
It is time that the leadership of the political parties scans the past with the seriousness and sensitivity that is required, draws the right kind of lessons from it and works out a unified strategy to reorient the country's polity to revitalise its institutions, to invest its democracy with a new meaning and purpose and to combat subversion and terrorism with unwavering determination. A foreign hand is undoubtedly there; but it is our disjointed approach that helps it to extend its reach far and wide.
If correctives are not applied immediately, terrorism will continue to bedevil us, and the country will soon be sucked into the cockpit of democratic anarchy, notwithstanding its current encouraging rate of economic growth , its strides in science and technology, its high status as a knowledge power and its recent nuclear deal with the United States.
<i>
The writer is a former Governor of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in India.
Courtesy : The Statesman</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - acharya - 03-27-2006
http://www.worldnews24.com/politics/46037.php
The Protocols of Sion #1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'In effect, the Communists were directing both sides of the war.' wrote author Griffin. What past conspiracy authors failed to consider was the evidence that Communist Russia was financed and controlled from the beginning by the inner circle of America's modern secret societies.
The war finally settled into a stalemate which ended with an armistice signed on July 27, 1953, six months after General Dwight Eisenhower had become president of the U.S.
{It is a MUST that all people read his exit speech and warnings about the armaments manufacturing complex. It is shown in part on the scroll leading in the Oliver Stone's movie! Then you should read Reagan's exit speech to see what he refers to as the 'Iron Triangle' and the comparison he makes with the Soviet Politburo etc.}
Macarthur, noting that for the first time in its military history, the United States had failed to achieve victory, {Not true if you look to Osceola and the Seminoles. My father credited Osceola as one of the greatest military minds the world ever saw. My father was a member of the 'black market' under Vanier and the U.S. 'black market' was run [in the field] by Eisenhower
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->