Pakistan - News and Discussion -7

[Guest]

Terrorists plan for BRITISH air flights - it's the <b>SOB Pakis again!</b>

[Guest]

A major, serious ploy to blow-up flights in mid-air, WTC style, was uncovered in the UK. According to the CNN, 'most arrests were in London, and intent was mass murder on an unimaginable scale." Arrests of 25 people so far (according to CNN). All major carriers into the UK and out of UK have been cancelled.

http://www.cnn.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

No prizes for guessing the origins of some of these terrorists.

[Guest]

Media is not saying anything other than they are Muslims.

[Guest]

TONY BLAIR A WEEK AGO:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council1 August 2006

The Prime Minister Tony Blair has delivered a major foreign policy speech on the Middle East to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

In the speech he called for a "complete renaissance" on foreign policy to combat "Reactionary Islam".

Overnight, the news came through that as well as continuing conflict in the Lebanon, Britain's Armed Forces suffered losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings home yet again the extraordinary courage and commitment of our armed forces who risk their lives and in some cases tragically lose them, defending our country's security and that of the wider world. These are people of whom we should be very proud.

I know the US has suffered heavy losses too in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We should never forget how much we owe these people, how great their bravery, and their sacrifice.

I planned the basis of this speech several weeks ago. The crisis in the Lebanon has not changed its thesis. It has brought it into sharp relief.

The purpose of the provocation that began the conflict was clear. It was to create chaos, division and bloodshed, to provoke retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed, not against those who started the aggression but against those who responded to it.

It is still possible even now to come out of this crisis with a better long-term prospect for the cause of moderation in the Middle East succeeding. But it would be absurd not to face up to the immediate damage to that cause which has been done.

We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once that has happened, we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us. There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

The point is this. This is war, but of a completely unconventional  kind.

9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria, what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just, more fair than the alternative. Doing this, however, requires us to change dramatically the focus of our policy.

Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win.

What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.

It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.

The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of this. Ever since September 11th, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in the Arab world. The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually "regime change" it was "values change".

What we have done therefore in intervening in this way, is far more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.

Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for years before September 11th. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had barely heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned.

We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works.

Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has an ideology, a world-view, it has deep convictions and the determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early revolutionary Communism. It doesn't always need structures and command centres or even explicit communication. It knows what it thinks.

Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims - being as decent and fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. They realised they had to create a completely different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

This is what September 11th did. Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11th predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it.

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values. We said we didn't want another Taleban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.

There is a host of analysis written about mistakes made in Iraq or Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but some of it with justification. But it all misses one vital point. The moment we decided not to change regime but to change the value system, we made both Iraq and Afghanistan into existential battles for Reactionary Islam. We posed a threat not to their activities simply: but to their values, to the roots of their existence.

We committed ourselves to supporting Moderate, Mainstream Islam. In almost pristine form, the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan became battles between the majority of Muslims in either country who wanted democracy and the minority who realise that this rings the death-knell of their ideology.

What is more, in doing this, we widened the definition of Reactionary Islam. It is not just Al-Qaeda who felt threatened by the prospect of two brutal dictatorships - one secular, one religious - becoming tolerant democracies. Any other country who could see that change in those countries might result in change in theirs, immediately also felt under threat. Syria and Iran, for example. No matter that previously, in what was effectively another political age, many of those under threat hated each other. Suddenly new alliances became formed under the impulsion of the common threat.

So in Iraq, Syria allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to cross the border. Iran has supported extremist Shia there. The purpose of the terrorism in Iraq is absolutely simple: carnage, causing sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.

However, there was one cause which, the world over, unites Islam, one issue that even the most westernised Muslims find unjust and, perhaps worse, humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed between its own inability to control the radical elements and the political stagnation of the peace process. When Prime Minister Sharon took the brave step of disengagement from Gaza, it could have been and should have been the opportunity to re-start the process. But the squeeze was too great and as ever because these processes never stay still, instead of moving forward, it fell back. Hamas won the election. Even then, had moderate elements in Hamas been able to show progress, the situation might have been saved. But they couldn't.

So the opportunity passed to Reactionary Islam and they seized it: first in Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the Moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.

For them, what is vital is that the struggle is defined in their terms: Islam versus the West; that instead of Muslims seeing this as about democracy versus dictatorship, they see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel.

In this way, they hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region, will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps Modern Islam wants to take into the future.

To turn all of this around requires us first to perceive the nature of the struggle we are fighting and secondly to have a realistic strategy to win it. At present we are challenged on both fronts.

As to the first, it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault. For a start, it is indeed global. No-one who ever half bothers to look at the spread and range of activity related to this terrorism can fail to see its presence in virtually every major nation in the world. It is directed at the United States and its allies, of course. But it is also directed at nations who could not conceivably be said to be allies of the West. It is also rubbish to suggest that it is the product of poverty. It is true it will use the cause of poverty. But its fanatics are hardly the champions of economic development. It is based on religious extremism. That is the fact. And not any religious extremism; but a specifically
Muslim version.

What it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about those countries' liberation from US occupation. It is actually the only reason for the continuing presence of our troops. And it is they not us who are doing the slaughter of the innocent and doing it deliberately.

Its purpose is explicitly to prevent those countries becoming democracies and not "Western style" democracies, any sort of democracy. It is to prevent Palestine living side by side with Israel; not to fight for the coming into being of a Palestinian State, but for the going out of being, of an Israeli State. It is not wanting Muslim countries to modernise but to retreat into governance by a semi-feudal religious oligarchy.

Yet despite all of this, which I consider virtually obvious, we look at the bloodshed in Iraq and say that's a reason for leaving; we listen to the propaganda that tells us its all because of our suppression of Muslims and have parts of our opinion seriously believing that if we only got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would all stop.

And most contemporaneously, and in some ways most perniciously, a very large and, I fear, growing part of our opinion looks at Israel, and thinks we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathises with Muslim opinion that condemns it. Absent from so much of the coverage, is any understanding of the Israeli predicament.

I, and any halfway sentient human being, regards the loss of civilian life in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that nation, is sickened by its plight and wants the war to stop now. But just for a moment, put yourself in Israel's place. It has a crisis in Gaza, sparked by the kidnap of a solider by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning, Hizbollah who have been continuing to operate in Southern Lebanon for two years in defiance of UN Resolution 1559, cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more. They then fire rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in Northern Israel.

Hizbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's President has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hizbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas.

It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security is it?

But the central point is this. In the end, even the issue of Israel is just part of the same, wider struggle for the soul of the region. If we recognised this struggle for what it truly is, we would be at least along the first steps of the path to winning it. But a vast part of the Western opinion is not remotely near this yet.

Whatever the outward manifestation at any one time - in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, in a host of other nations including now some in Africa - it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats theirs. Islamist extremism's whole strategy is based on a presumed sense of grievance that can motivate people to divide against each other. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with each other.

This is not just about security or military tactics. It is about hearts and minds about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for.

Just to state it in these terms, is to underline how much we have to do. Convincing our own opinion of the nature of the battle is hard enough. But we then have to empower Moderate, Mainstream Islam to defeat Reactionary Islam. And because so much focus is now, world-wide on this issue, it is becoming itself a kind of surrogate for all the other issues the rest of the world has with the West. In other words, fail on this and across the range, everything gets harder.

Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold enough, consistent enough, thorough enough, in fighting for the values we believe in.

We start this battle with some self-evident challenges. Iraq's political process has worked in an extraordinary way. But the continued sectarian bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its progress deeply. In Afghanistan, the Taleban are making a determined effort to return and using the drugs trade a front. Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American teaching and propaganda has left the Arab street often wildly divorced from the practical politics of their
governments. Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria are a constant source of de-stabilisation and reaction. The purpose of terrorism - whether in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine is never just the terrorist act itself. It is to use the act to trigger a chain reaction, to expunge any willingness to negotiate or compromise. Unfortunately it frequently works, as we know from our own experience in Northern Ireland, though thankfully the huge progress made in the last decade there, shows that it can also be overcome.

So, short-term, we can't say we are winning. But, there are many
reasons for long-term optimism. Across the Middle East, there is a
process of modernisation as well as reaction. It is unnoticed but it
is there: in the UAE; in Bahrain; in Kuwait; in Qatar. In Egypt, there
is debate about the speed of change but not about its direction. In
Libya and Algeria, there is both greater stability and a gradual but
significant opening up.

Most of all, there is one incontrovertible truth that should give us
hope. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in the Lebanon, any time
that people are permitted a chance to embrace democracy, they do so.
The lie - that democracy, the rule of law, human rights are Western
concepts, alien to Islam - has been exposed. In countries as disparate
as Turkey and Indonesia, there is an emerging strength in Moderate
Islam that should greatly encourage us.

So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we empower
the moderates to defeat the extremists?

First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances
with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernising path.

Secondly, we need, as President Bush said on Friday, to re-energise
the MEPP between Israel and Palestine; and we need to do it in a
dramatic and profound manner.

I want to explain why I think this issue is so utterly fundamental to all we are trying to do. I know it can be very irritating for Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region should always fall. I know also their fear that in our anxiety for wider reasons to secure a settlement, we sacrifice the vital interests of Israel.

Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel's security at risk.

Instead I want, what we all now acknowledge we need: a two state solution. The Palestinian State must be independent, viable but also democratic and not threaten Israel's safety.

This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.

Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East and for the
battle within Islam, is this. The real impact of a settlement is more
than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such a
settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the
region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths and
cultures, even those who have been in vehement opposition to each
other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection of the
case of Reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most effective
rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.

And, for sure, it empowers Moderate, Mainstream Islam enormously. They
are able to point to progress as demonstration that their allies, ie
us, are even-handed not selective, do care about justice for Muslims
as much as Christians or Jews.

But, and it is a big 'but', this progress will not happen unless we
change radically our degree of focus, effort and engagement,
especially with the Palestinian side. In this the active leadership of
the US is essential but so also is the participation of Europe, of
Russia and of the UN. We need relentlessly, vigorously, to put a
viable Palestinian Government on its feet, to offer a vision of how
the Roadmap to final status negotiation can happen and then pursue it,
week in, week out, 'til its done. Nothing else will do. Nothing else
is more important to the success of our foreign policy.

Third, we need to see Iraq through its crisis and out to the place its
people want: a non-sectarian, democratic state. The Iraqi and Afghan
fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy. Victory for
them is victory for us all.

Fourth, we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a
choice: come in to the international community and play by the same
rules as the rest of us; or be confronted. Their support of terrorism,
their deliberate export of instability, their desire to see wrecked
the democratic prospect in Iraq, is utterly unjustifiable, dangerous
and wrong. If they keep raising the stakes, they will find they have
miscalculated.

From the above it is clear that from now on, we need a whole strategy
for the Middle East. If we are faced with an arc of extremism, we need
a corresponding arc of moderation and reconciliation. Each part is
linked. Progress between Israel and Palestine affects Iraq. Progress
in Iraq affects democracy in the region. Progress for Moderate,
Mainstream Islam anywhere puts Reactionary Islam on the defensive
everywhere. But none of it happens unless in each individual part the
necessary energy and commitment is displayed not fitfully, but
continuously.

I said at the outset that the result of this struggle had effects
wider than the region itself. Plainly that applies to our own
security. This Global Islamist terrorism began in the Middle East.
Sort the Middle East and it will inexorably decline. The read-across,
for example, from the region to the Muslim communities in Europe is
almost instant.

But there is a less obvious sense in which the outcome determines the
success of our wider world-view. For me, a victory for the moderates
means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation, open to working
with others of different faiths, open to alliances with other nations.

In this way, this struggle is in fact part of a far wider debate.

Though Left and Right still matter in politics, the increasing divide
today is between open and closed. Is the answer to globalisation,
protectionism or free trade?

Is the answer to the pressure of mass migration, managed immigration
or closed borders?

Is the answer to global security threats, isolationism or engagement?

Those are very big questions for US and for Europe.

Without hesitation, I am on the open side of the argument. The way for us to handle the challenge of globalisation, is to compete better, more intelligently, more flexibly. We have to give our people confidence we can compete. See competition as a threat and we are already on the way to losing.

Immigration is the toughest issue in Europe right now and you know something of it here in California. People get scared of it for understandable reasons. It needs to be controlled. There have to be rules. Many of the Conventions dealing with it post WWII are out of date. All that is true. But, properly managed, immigrants give a country dynamism, drive, new ideas as well as new blood.

And as for isolationism, that is a perennial risk in the US and EU policy. My point here is very simple: global terrorism means we can't opt-out even if we wanted to. The world is inter-dependent. To be engaged is only modern realpolitik.

But we only win people to these positions if our policy is not just about interests but about values, not just about what is necessary but about what is right.

Which brings me to my final reflection about US policy. My advice is: always be in the lead, always at the forefront, always engaged in building alliances, in reaching out, in showing that whereas unilateral action can never be ruled out, it is not the preference.

How we get a sensible, balanced but effective framework to tackle climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 should be an American priority.

America wants a low-carbon economy; it is investing heavily in clean technology; it needs China and India to grow substantially. The world is ready for a new start here. Lead it.

The same is true for the WTO talks, now precariously in the balance; or for Africa, whose poverty is shameful.

If we are championing the cause of development in Africa, it is right in itself but it is also sending the message of moral purpose, that reinforces our value system as credible in all other aspects of policy.

It serves one other objective. There is a risk that the world, after the Cold War, goes back to a global policy based on spheres of influence. Think ahead. Think China, within 20 or 30 years, surely the world's other super-power. Think Russia and its precious energy reserves. Think India. I believe all of these great emerging powers want a benign relationship with the West. But I also believe that the stronger and more appealing our world-view is, the more it is seen as based not just on power but on justice, the easier it will be for us to shape the future in which Europe and the US will no longer, economically or politically, be transcendant. Long before then, we want Moderate, Mainstream Islam to triumph over Reactionary Islam.

That is why I say this struggle is one about values. Our values are worth struggling for. They represent humanity's progress throughout the ages and at each point we have had to fight for them and defend them. As a new age beckons, it is time to fight for them again.

Read the Q and A Question:

Mr Prime Minister, can Britain take the lead in speaking to Iran and Syria directly?

Prime Minister:

You know the thing that always surprises me about this is that people talk about this issue of engagement with Iran and Syria as if there was some doubt about what we were saying, or where we stood, or maybe the message hadn't been clear enough. Actually the message is absolutely clear, the message is if you stop supporting terrorism, if you stop trying to acquire nuclear weapons and breach your international obligations then we are willing to have a partnership with you, but if you export terrorism around the region and destabilise democracy in Iraq, we will confront you. Now I know there are all sorts of people who engage, and of course we do, we send messages the whole time to both governments, but I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that this is not an issue of communication, it is not that people can't read our handwriting, it is actually that they lack the will to do what they need to do and we need to make sure they have that will.

Question:

What is the United Nations capable of, and what is it not? Can all it do is pass meaningless resolutions?

Prime Minister:

Actually I would say to you that I think the United Nations can, in certain circumstances, be absolutely essential to solving the world's problems, and there are situations that have arisen in which the United Nations has come together and made a real difference, and indeed some of the things that we were talking about earlier in relation to some of the disputes in Africa and so on indicate that very, very clearly too. But there are two things that need to happen. The first is that we need to reform the institutions of the United Nations thoroughly because they are not as they should be; and the second thing is you can make any amount of institutional change, but the key thing is whether there is the right political alliance at the heart of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Now I think there is a case incidentally for broadening the Security Council and I favour that, but in a way whatever institutional framework you have, the basic point is we have to have political agreement between the leading powers. And that is why I say in particular I think the transatlantic alliance is really, really important. Europe and America, whatever their differences from time to time, they have the values system in common and they should be proud of their alliance and we should make sure that we use that as a basis for trying to engineer the right type of political alliance within the UN Security Council. So look, if the UN didn't exist we would be inventing it, that is for sure, at least some people would, but I think it could be so much more effective but it needs reform, it needs leadership and it needs the right political alliance to motivate it.

Question:

In what ways does our passion for western democracy get in the way of resolving global or regional conflicts?

Prime Minister:

Well that is a very interesting question and a very good question. You see I have come to the conclusion, and I really confess to you I have changed my view of this, that actually there are no stable relationships in the long term unless there is progress towards democracy and freedom, that in other words the idea that countries that are governed by either secular or religious dictatorships provide a solid basis for progress, I think is just wrong. And the interesting thing about Iraq and Afghanistan, and this was the fascinating thing, is that so many people told us that you just don't understand it, people in Iraq aren't interested in democracy. The turnout in Iraq, despite people being threatened and in some cases killed on the way to the polls, was higher than the last Presidential election or the last general election in Britain. So people do care about this and democracies by and large don't fight each other. So I actually think in the end, yes, short term sometimes the passion for democracy can be difficult because there are so many vested interests that don't want it. Long term I have come to the conclusion that actually it is only through the spread of liberty, and democracy, and the rule of law and basic respect for human rights that we will get peace and security.

Question:

Should NATO be used in Lebanon, as it is in Afghanistan and Bosnia?

Prime Minister:

I think it depends on what is most helpful for the situation there, because we will need both the support of the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon for the force to operate. And I think at this point in time it is not possible to be clear about it, although I would say to you that the majority of people probably would say that NATO shouldn't be involved. But whatever force is involved it has to have the capacity of making sure that the original reason for the conflict, which were the activities in breach of the United Nations resolutions down in the south of Lebanon by Hezbollah are curtailed, because unless the government of Lebanon is given proper authority over the whole of Lebanon this will erupt again. And in my view the purpose of any multi-national force has got to be able to provide a bridge between the position for the government of Lebanon now, and the position we need to get to, which is not a permanent multinational force on the ground, but is a Lebanese democracy that is capable of having its writ run in every single part of the country without armed militias taking over parts of the country and running them in the way that they want.

And that is why in Lebanon what is important is to support Lebanese democracy. They have done amazing things in that country, it is why it is so tragic what has been brought about, but the only way, whether it is NATO or anybody else, we are going to get an effective multinational force there is if it has at its heart one principle, which is that our purpose is to make sure that when the Lebanese people vote in their government in a democracy, they do so without outside interference from Syria or anyone else, and without inside interference by well armed militia.

Question:

To many Americans there seems to be a latent and growing anti-Semitism in Europe. How can this be stopped?

Prime Minister:

I think that there are really two parts to this. I think there are people who are anti-Semitic in Europe and there has been a growing rise of anti-Semitic attacks which are appalling and terrible in different parts of Europe. But I think there is another strain of opinion, and this is the reason I devoted some of my speech to doing this, that just doesn't see it from Israel's point of view at all, I mean just doesn't understand what it is like to be a country surrounded by a lot of people who basically want to deny your right to exist, and in a way I think that is part of the problem. And I also think it then gets run in with the issue to do with anti-Americanism because of America's support for Israel. And again I said this in a speech I made a couple of months ago, the only way you ever confront this is confronting the basic ideas.

What I said in that speech, let me try and explain this, a lot of what
happens in the western debate, in the European debate very
specifically, but also in other countries too, less so in America but
still in parts I guess in the American system, is that everybody
abhors the terrorist method, people don't get up and support terrorism
but they kind of buy half way into some of the ideas that they are
putting forward in the sense that they say yes well you do have a real
sense of grievance against America and its allies, but you shouldn't
blow people up in pursuit of it. And my point the whole way through is
we are never going to defeat this until we say actually that is wrong,
you have no sense of grievance.

In Afghanistan and Iraq we have billions of dollars waiting there to
help reconstruct the country, the country is a democracy, where is the
suppression? You know the Taliban down in the south where British
troops have gone in to try and clear out the Taliban, they have
literally taken teachers out in front of their class and executed them
in front of class for teaching girls. Now where should the sense of
grievance be - against us who have actually helped those countries and
those people get democracy for the first time, or these absolutely
brutal murderous terrorists who want to send them back into some sort
of feudal time?

In other words unless we are prepared to stand up and say, 'No
actually what you think about America is nonsense', I mean I said this
to some people the other day and it was difficult, but you have got to
say it. I said look, as far as I am aware people in America are free
to practise their religion as Muslims, and they certainly are in
Britain, what is the sense of grievance?

Now we may disagree about this or that aspect of foreign policy, but
that is not the same as saying that our purpose in going to Iraq and
Afghanistan was something to do with the fact that those countries
were Muslim, it was to do with the fact that they were threatening our
security. That is where this is difficult.

So the answer to your question is yes, there are real worries about
anti-Semitism, but I think that the problem is slightly different from
that, if I am frank about it, it is that there is a world view there
that is very, very, well I would call it somewhat soggy and unable
just to see the realities of what is happening. And that is what you
have to confront, not just the activities of the terrorists, but their
ideas, because far too many of their ideas have some purchase on
opinion in the western world.

Question:

Will you continue your government's leadership on global climate
change now that you are no longer President of the G8?

Prime Minister:

I think, as I was saying yesterday with Governor Schwarzenegger - it
is great to be with him. I phoned my wife up and she said to me: "How
do you feel being with Arnie Schwarzenegger?" I said: "Actually I felt
acute body envy really." But anyway we were discussing climate change.
The important thing is this. I actually think that there is a real
chance for America to take leadership in this area because President
Bush made his State of the Union address, talking about the need for
America to move to a low carbon economy, we established at the G8 last
year a G8+5 dialogue, that is the G8 countries plus Brazil, Mexico,
South Africa and of course India and China, and the purpose of it was
to try to get the main countries together.

When we look at what is going to succeed Kyoto, instead of trying to
get 150 countries, or however many it is, round the table and
negotiate something, get the main people together, let's work out a
framework but the framework has to include not just America, but China
and India on the other side. And we should work out how we manage to
get the right binding framework in place with the right targets that
allow our economies to grow, and this was the importance of
yesterday's meeting, we had a wide range of business leaders there.

What business wants to know is the direction of policy, it wants some
regulatory certainty, it wants to know that if we are going to make
the investment in the research and the development which is necessary
for the science and technology to work, you know they are not suddenly
going to find policies move in a different direction.

And I think this is the time for us to work now on the successor to
the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, make sure it has all the
main players in it, and I think it is a fantastic thing if there are
places in the United States that are showing leadership now on this
issue because it hugely empowers and emboldens the rest of us. And I
want to see this issue back on the agenda for the German G8 next year,
I think that will happen, and I do honestly believe that the evidence
of climate change is clear and this is a major, major subject for us.

Question:

This gentleman says he is a Los Angeles County fire fighter who
responded to the 9/11 disaster in New York, and he would like to know
how the events of 9/11 changed you personally?

Prime Minister:

Well first of all I would like to pay tribute to the fire-fighters
from Los Angeles, from New York, from elsewhere who did such a
fantastic job, and the public servants everywhere. It did change me
personally because some of the things that I have said tonight I can
trace back to the speech I made actually in Chicago in 1999 at the
time of the Kosovo crisis. But I think what September 11 did for me,
quite apart from everything else obviously, the emotional impact such
a terrible thing makes, it showed me that the world is genuinely
interdependent. I always believed that it was not just an attack on
America but it was an attack on America because America was the most
powerful country espousing our values and therefore it was an attack
on all of us. And I from that moment became determined that we should
do everything we could, not just to defeat those that had committed
such murder and slaughter of innocent people, but to make sure that in
every single part of the world, given its interdependence, we should
give people the chance of hope and prosperity and that we should never
believe that people languishing in poverty or under extremist
governments were not our responsibility.

And one of the things that I find most difficult about politics is
that everything really works through the media today, which is the way
it is, but sometimes I get frustrated when you can call any numbers of
people on to the street to protest against say military action in Iraq
or Afghanistan or wherever it might be, or against what Israel is
doing in Lebanon. There are no demonstrations about North Korea, there
is not a placard there, not as far as I know, maybe there is here but
not that I have ever seen, and these people live in complete and total
enslavement, and I think our job has got to be, if the world is
interdependent, that is something we can't help. We can't help
globalisation, globalisation is a fact, but the values that govern
globalisation are a choice and our choice should be, and this is what
came home to me as well as everything else after September 11, our
choice has got to be the values of liberty, and tolerance and justice,
it has got to be a world that is free but also a world that is fair,
and that is what I decided after that time to dedicate our foreign
policy to trying to do.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Attack on the idea of India

Tavleen Singh
Posted online: Sunday, August 06, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST

How ironic that Tony Blair should be the first major political leader
to point out that the nature of our Kashmir problem has changed. In a
speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council last week the British
PM said, ''Whatever the outward manifestation at any one time—in
Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in Kashmir,
in a host of other nations including now some in Africa—it is a global
fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and
outside of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be
sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats
theirs.''

This is more true of the Indian subcontinent than anywhere else since
it is home to the largest Muslim population in the world, but our
political leaders continue to behave as if our fight is merely against
a handful of radical Islamists. In her first major comment after the
Mumbai bomb blasts all that Sonia Gandhi could think to say was that
we must make sure that the Muslim community was not targeted. What
will not be lost in translation to our security forces is that this is
a message to continue to fight only a half-hearted, defensive war.

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Ayodhya, Varanasi and elsewhere are
proof that our problem with the Islamists, and with Pakistan, is no
longer about Kashmir. It is about whether we have the courage to
defend the value system of India. It is a value system that is the
exact opposite of our Muslim neighbours because it does not recognise
the right of any religion to dominate the public space and it does not
believe that religion is the glue that holds a nation together. It is
a value system we should be proud of and yet we are always on the
backfoot.

Last week Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri told an NDTV
reporter that ''the ball was in India's court'' and that there was
little his country could do about religious ''charities'' unless there
was proof of their involvement in acts of terrorism. (He was asked
about the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujahideen functioning in
Pakistan under the guise of religious charities.) No Indian foreign
minister would dare make such a statement. We have our own fanatics
but if the Bajrang Dal functioned from the Kanchipuram mutt the
Shankaracharya would be jailed.

Pakistan constantly flings Kashmir solutions in our face without
realising that the problem has changed so much it needs to be looked
at in a completely new context. As radical Islam has spread across the
world, Kashmir's problem has became subsumed by the larger jihad.
Ayman al-Zawahiri clarified recently that the targets of this larger
jihad are ''crusaders'', Jews and Hindus.

''Cross-border terrorism'' was yesterday's problem. Today we face the
far more serious problem of an attack on the very idea of India. I am
willing to put in writing that even if by some miracle a solution was
found in Kashmir tomorrow terrorist acts against India would continue.
A new grievance would be found.

<b>Liberal, ''secular'' Indian journalists would help find it just as some tried to link the train bombings in Mumbai to Gujarat. One national newspaper was insensitive enough to print names of dead Gujaratis on its front page to prove this point. Before Gujarat it was Babri Masjid that was regularly summoned up to explain the Indian Muslim's sense of grievance and before that there was the neglect of Urdu, Partition, poverty.</b>

In Blair's words, <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>''Islamist extremism's whole strategy is  ased on a presumed sense of grievance that can motivate people to divide against each other. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with each other.'' The difference between India's values and those of Pakistan, Bangladesh could not be better described.</span>
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/10018.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Reggie+Aug 10 2006, 12:53 PM-->QUOTE(Reggie @ Aug 10 2006, 12:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Terrorists plan for BRITISH air flights - it's the <b>SOB Pakis again!</b>
[right][snapback]55380[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

any records of how many pakistanis were arrested since 9/11 in terror attacks? i bet it is a very large no of.

[Guest]

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/r...e.php?id=272080
U.K.: The Thwarted Airline Bombing Plot
August 10, 2006 13 00 GMT
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The disruption of this plot, which British authorities have described as a "very significant" one that could have resulted in "mass murder," shows the United Kingdom continues to be a major staging ground for al Qaeda jihadists in their attempts to carry out strikes in the West, especially the United States. Given that Britain is home to a large Muslim community, which is predominantly of Pakistani origin, al Qaeda's global headquarters is based in northwest Pakistan, and that London is the largest hub of radical Islamism in the West, the United Kingdom will remain as the main point of vulnerability for jihadist attacks inside the West.
..........
What further fuels this type of militancy is growing anti-American sentiments within the West, especially in Muslim communities. Indigenous Muslim groups in Western countries promote such discourse and are facilitated by the general rise in public opinion against U.S. foreign policies toward the Arab/Muslim world, which in turn allow for the creation of a large pool of Islamist radicals for al Qaeda to tap into, and shape them into potential militants.

Given the deep-rooted nature of the problem, U.S., British and other Western governments will likely effect tougher immigration and travel restrictions against even their own citizens who hail from Muslims backgrounds, with those of Pakistani heritage on the top of the list. Such policies will be difficult to out into operation, given the complexity of enacting such legislation. Hence, it will be a while before such laws make it into the books. In any case, U.S., Canadian and EU citizenship held by people of Arab and Muslim origin will continue to be a point of vulnerability for security in the West<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>Pakistani intelligence helped foil bombing plot</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pakistani intelligence agencies helped the British authorities foil the terror plot to blow up aircraft travelling between Britain and America, highly placed sources in Pakistan said today.
................
Today Pakistani security forces put Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, leader of the outlawed Islamic militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, (LeT) under house arrest.
................<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are linking revolving door with terror plot. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<b>U.S.: Airline terror plot 'close to execution'</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Information gathered after recent arrests in Pakistan convinced British investigators they had to act immediately to stop the plot, sources told CNN.

British police said they had arrested 21 suspects in the plot. Indications are that all of those arrested were British citizens and some were of Pakistani ethnicity, a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

.........
President Bush said <b>the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."</b>

<b>"It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America,"</b> Bush said in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not only US, but world is at war with Islamic fascists.
Some are Paki, rest must be from BDies and Indian origin, my guess.

[Guest]

Reminder for tomorrow.
Try to get Video or transcript on
Pakistan involvement in current Talban uprising and Mushy free hand to Islamist to win election.
excellent review by terrorist expert on Tucker ,MSNBC

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>French minister says plotters likely Pakistani </b>
Thursday, August 10, 2006

PARIS (Reuters) - The perpetrators of a foiled attempt to blow up airliners flying from Britain to the United States are likely to be of Pakistani origin, France's Interior Minister said on Thursday.

"In two to three days we'll have more concrete information on the modus operandi of this terrorist group, that appears to be of Pakistani origin," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters.

British police arrested 21 people in connection with the plot on Thursday.

Sarkozy also said that France would order full searches of all handluggage on flights to the United States, Britain and Israel as part of stepped up security after the foiled plot.

He said France would leave its current security alert level at red, the second highest, and that security on the Eurostar rail link between France and Britain would be increased.

"We have decided ... to conduct 100 percent searches of handluggage on all flights bound for the United States, Britain and Israel," Sarkozy said.

"We will also carry out random .............<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Five London Suspects Still at Large
August 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Brian Ross Reports:

Five of the suspected London terrorists are still at large and are being urgently hunted, according to U.S. sources who have been briefed on the airplane bombing plot.

Officials tell ABC News 24 people now have been taken into custody. <b>Twenty-two are believed to be of Pakistani descent. One is Bangladeshi, and another is of Iranian descent, according to the officials.</b>

One of the arrests was made in the northeastern London suburb of Walthamstow. Residents said police took away a man in his late 20s at 2 a.m. today. The neighbors said the man was British-born, with one parent who is Iranian and had recently become very religious<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>The Man Who Is Planning the Next Attack on America</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pakistani officials tell ABC News a new terrorist plan to attack the United States and Europe is being organized by a shadowy Pakistani, who is the keeper of the log of recruits who attended al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Pakistani police and military officials identify the man as <b>Matiur Rehman</b>, whose role as al Qaeda's planning director was first revealed by ABCNews.com earlier this year.

U.S. law enforcement sources tell ABC News Rehman is now the "leading suspect" in the attack earlier this year on the U.S. consulate in Karachi that killed a State Department Foreign Service officer, David Foy. Officials say the car bomb attack was planned by Rehman. 

The officials say Rehman was spotted within the last month in the slums of North Karachi but escaped capture. The Pakistani government has posted a reward of 10 million rupees for the capture of Rehman, <b>who also uses the aliases "Akeel Khan" and "Sadamd Sial."</b>

U.S. law enforcement officials tell ABC News there has been great concern since last March about a "Pakistani" network that could attempt multiple international attacks.

Rehman, along with his deputy, another Pakistani named Qari Hassan, are believed to be keepers of the "Directory of Jihad," which officials say contains "thousands of names" of young militants who trained at al Qaeda camps and have since dispersed around the world.

U.S. law enforcement officials confirm al Qaeda kept extensive recruitment records, many of which were recovered after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Rehman, now in his mid-30s, worked as an explosives instructor in the al Qaeda camps, according to Pakistani officials, who say he has been deeply involved in most of the major terror attacks in Pakistan in the last few years.

Officials say they disrupted yet another Rehman plot last month to assassinate Pakistani President Musharaff at a summer festival.

Pakistan intelligence officials tell ABC News that Rehman moves between between Karachi, Waziristan and South Punjab, where he was born. He is in "constant communication" with al Qaeda's top leaders, according to the officials.

A former militant of the Pakistani terrorist groups Harakat ul Jihad ul Islami and Lashkar e Jhangvi, Rehman rose to prominence in the late 1990s by setting up elaborate networks in Pakistan through which he recruited young men to be trained in al Qaeda's camps.

Pakistani intelligence officials tell ABC News that between 10,000 and 50,000 militants received basic training in these camps, where the best recruits were directly "hired" by al Qaeda. The rest was used by Pakistan's most violent terrorist groups such as Lashkar e Jhangvi, Harakat ul
Mujahideen and Jaish e Muhammad, either to fight in Kashmir or India, or conduct sectarian attacks within Pakistan.

U.S. officials say there is no information that any attack on the United States is imminent
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Naresh]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Aug 11 2006, 01:58 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Aug 11 2006, 01:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Five London Suspects Still at Large
August 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Brian Ross Reports:

[right][snapback]55413[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Mudy Ji :</b>

Link Please.

TIA

Cheers / Naresh

[Guest]

Nareshji,
can't locate now, it was from blog.

[Guest]

Is it a coincidence that India requested for Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, who was directly involved in number of terrorist attack in J&K. Today Pakistan decided to leak terrorist plan information to UK.
End result, Mushy will remain blued eyed boy for west and devil for India. He can keep jihadi tap running against India and Afghanistan.

[Guest]

Post 113:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...london_sus.html<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Five London Suspects Still at Large
August 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Brian Ross Reports:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>WARNING:</b>

In a new development, the US embassy in India have warned their citizens in India to be careful. According to intelligence reports, terrorists are expected to strike various Indian facilities (airports, public buildings, etc) in New Delhi and Mumbai in the coming days. Both BBC and CNN have reported this information as a breaking news.

[Naresh]

<b>Here is the First List of the Devout and Exemplary Practitioners of the Peaceful Religion :</b> <!--emo&tupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[center]<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>'Air plot' suspects : Names released</span></b>[/center]

<b><span style='color:red'>The assets of 19 people held on suspicion of plotting to blow up passenger planes have been frozen. Their details appeared on the Bank of England's website as:

ALI, Abdula, Ahmed</span></b>
Date of birth (DOB): 10/10/1980
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17

<b>ALI, Cossor</b>
DOB: 04/12/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17

<b>ALI, Shazad, Khuram</b>
DOB: 11/06/1979
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

<b>HUSSAIN, Nabeel</b>
DOB: 10/03/1984
Address: London, E4

<b>HUSSAIN, Tanvir</b>
DOB: 21/02/1981
Address: Leyton, London, E10

<b>HUSSAIN, Umair</b>
DOB: 09/10/1981
Address: London, E14

<b>ISLAM, Umar</b>
DOB: 23/04/1978
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

<b>KAYANI, Waseem</b>
DOB: 28/04/1977
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

<b>KHAN, Assan, Abdullah</b>
DOB: 24/10/1984
Address: London, E17

<b>KHAN, Waheed, Arafat</b>
DOB: 18/05/1981
Address: London, E17

<b>KHATIB, Osman, Adam</b>
DOB: 07/12/1986
Address: London, E17

<b>PATEL, Abdul, Muneem</b>
DOB: 17/04/1989
Address: London, E5

<b>RAUF, Tayib</b>
DOB: 26/04/1984
Address: Birmingham

<b>SADDIQUE, Muhammed, Usman</b>
DOB: 23/04/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17

<b>SARWAR, Assad</b>
DOB: 24/05/1980
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

<b>SAVANT, Ibrahim</b>
DOB: 19/12/1980
Address: London, E17

<b>TARIQ, Amin, Asmin</b>
DOB: 07/06/1983
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17

<b>UDDIN, Shamin, Mohammed</b>
DOB: 22/11/1970
Address: Stoke Newington, London

<b>ZAMAN, Waheed</b>
DOB: 27/05/1984
Address: London, E17

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<b>Manmohan better PM than Atal: Pak poll </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pakistanis rate Manmohan Singh as a better Prime Minister than Atal Bihari Vajpayee with regard to Indo-Pak relations.

"Sixty per cent (in Pakistan) think Indo-Pak relations are better under Manmohan Singh than it was under his predecessor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee," according to the findings of Gallup-Outlook opinion poll in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Now spineless can easily go back to Pakistan for Good.
When terrorist state like your policy, something is wrong. It only confirms spineless policy is for Pakistan and against India.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Naresh+Aug 11 2006, 03:43 AM-->QUOTE(Naresh @ Aug 11 2006, 03:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Here is the First List of the Devout and Exemplary Practitioners of the Peaceful Religion :</b> <!--emo&tupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]55464[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

A cursory reading of the list makes me wonder if this is global plot to discredit a certain section of society - where the hell is Seema Mustafa? <!--emo&:blow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I mean most are born after 80!! Plot against kids and youth by Gen Xers I say <!--emo&:whistle--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whistle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='whistle.gif' /><!--endemo-->