December 23, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Religion / Islam

Arab Revolutions Choose Islam

December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment

First post-revolution elections in Arab countries turn out to be pro-Islamist. In Tunisia and Egypt, the majority of the people voted for Islamist parties.

The first round of Egypt’s elections is led by the Freedom and Justice Party (ex-Muslim Brotherhood which had been banned by Mubarak for decades). It was supported by 40 percent of the voters. Next comes Al-Nour, a radical Salafi party. None of the democratic movements except The Egyptian Bloc have made it into the coalition government. Although the final results will only be known on January 13, the general election trend is already quite clear.

Observers report a similar, pro-Islamist choice prevalent in Tunisia which was the firestarter of Arab revolutions. Tunisian Islamists won the elections but have to share the power with secular parties. Now, the victorious Islamists claim that they’re not radical at all and pledge to retain all the democratic values, including women’s rights, which is a serious issue in Islamic countries. Arab countries have two scenarios – a radical or a democratic one, depending on the country’s specific circumstances, an expert in Oriental Studies Sergei Demidenko believes:

“The domestic and foreign policies of Arab countries will depend on the historical circumstances in which they have found themselves. Turkey’s leading Justice and Development Party took the helm as a moderate Islamist movement and now it’s not Islamist at all. So we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.”

Professor of the Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations Veniamin Popov explains the success of Islamist parties:

“The Arab revolutions were secular but Islamists were active in the revolutions’ final stages, which is natural as they had been the most persecuted groups under the previous regimes and they were more organized than young rebels who were brought together by social networks only and had no parties or factions. That’s why the Islamists were more efficient.”

Popularity of radical movements is also inspired by external pressure, which can be seen in Syria. The country’s opposition, which is supported from abroad, rejects any dialogue and therefore, unrest continues, which creates a vicious circle.

Although experts find talks about total islamization premature, they nevertheless warn that the rise of political Islam could affect the whole of the Middle East, and mainly the Arab-Israeli conflict. 6 mln Jews in Israel are surrounded by about 400 mln Arabs and the latter may be tempted to attack the country, having gained support from other 1,5 mln Muslims from all over the world. Thus, the global community needs to encourage the settlement of the conflict right now, mainly in Palestine and Israel, as radical Islamic sentiments may be slowed down by the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the protection of Israel.

 

Source: https://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/02/61398611.html

Filed Under: Islam, Politics, Religion, Revolution Tagged With: ,

The Coming War With Pakistan (Video)

December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment

BBC rewrites 10 years of history and declares Pakistan the new enemy.

BBC are propagandists whose lies have killed people. Their documentaries are made upon request by special interest groups whose narratives are sewn verbatim into what would otherwise look like a “documentary.” With BBC’s name attached, it is hoped, these tissues of lies are then able to gain traction and begin rewriting reality.

Their recent hit on Pakistan is not the first time they have been caught peddling wholesale lies dressed up as “documentaries.” Earlier this year, they also cobbled together “This World: Thailand - Justice Under Fire,” where evidence drawn from paid lobbyists of Western-backed opposition leaders and US State Department cables and used to promote Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier interests in Thailand.

BBC’s two-part Secret Pakistan documentary attempts to frame the 10-year foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the lack of progress as the result of “Pakistani duplicity.” In reality, even upon watching BBC’s “documentary,” one can clearly see that the US, UK, and NATO have simply traded places with invading Soviets and now face the same fierce indigenous force fighting against occupation. Indeed, just as Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI supported Afghans during the Soviet invasion, they are very likely to be supporting Afghans now in their current bid for freedom.

However, BBC is entirely unable to establish this and instead, crutches its argument along on false pretenses, such as the Taliban “are” Al Qaeda, that the US, UK, and NATO have a right to be in Afghanistan in the first place, and that Pakistan has some sort of obligation to unconditionally cooperate with these foreign occupiers.

While it may be instructive for many to watch the lengthy, two-hour “documentary,” there are two quotes from prominent interviewees that give BBC’s game away while perfectly summing up the reality of the Afghanistan war.

BBC’s Secret Pakistan Summed Up in Two Quotes.

Sherard Cowper-Coles was a British diplomat who served as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009-2010, before that as ambassador to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and is now the international business development director of British defense contractor BAE Systems. He claims during the BBC documentary that (44:00), “the real military threat is the Taliban - a serious insurgency that’s got nothing to do with Bin Laden. Bin Laden, in operational terms, is utterly spectacularly irrelevant.” Quite clearly this contradicts the “war on terror” narrative and instead suggests that current US, British and NATO operation in Afghanistan has more to do with Western interests in the region than fighting the alleged perpetrators of 9/11.

The next important point is garnered nearly toward the very end of the documentary where former CIA officer Bruce Riedel (57:35) claims, “there is probably no worst nightmare for America, for Europe, for the world in the 21st century than a Pakistan that is out of control, under the influence of extremist Islamist forces armed with nuclear weapons.” This comment, however, is not as straightforward or as truthful as Cowper-Coles’. However, if one realizes that this destabilization Riedel is hinting at is actually the work of the US and NATO done as a pretext to invade Pakistan, then it becomes truly telling — and we see the BBC documentary as yet another corporate-media conjured casus belli.

Riedel’s “Pakistan out of control” is a long planned plot to invade Pakistan.

In a 2007 article from the London Guardian titled, “Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistan in an attempt to secure Pakistan’s nuclear warheads.

The report was written by Fredrick Kagan who sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI’s board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI’s “research staff” are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Kagan’s report regarding Pakistan’s partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern, one shared by Bruce Riedel; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan’s narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as “Soviet tanks” once did, a sentiment that echos Riedel’s words in the BBC’s “Secret Pakistan.”

Bruce Riedel is a former CIA officer and was a senior adviser to three US presidents, including President Obama. His area of focus is the Middle East and South Asia and he is currently a “Senior Fellow” at the corporate-financier-funded (page 19 .pdf) Brookings Institution. It was at Brookings that Ridel would help co-author the 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” a documented conspiracy to overthrow the government of Iran with foreign-backed color revolutions, covert military operations, sanctions, invasion, and even funding terrorists groups including the US State Department listed, French/Iraqi-based Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) and Baluchistani terrorists who straddle the Iranian-Pakistani border.

For those that believe Riedel is nothing more than a paunchy, pencil-pushing “expert” used to pad out BBC documentaries, and that think-tanks like the Brookings Institution are merely dispensing advice and not corporate-approved policy, it should be noted that Riedel’s “Which Path to Persia?” has already long since gone operational. It is also noted within the BBC documentary itself, that Riedel was advising the US president regarding Pakistan.

Riedel is indeed right about the threat of a nuclear-armed Pakistan being destabilized and falling into the hands of extremists, but by now it should be clear by looking at Riedel’s background that these are extremists like those armed by US British and NATO forces in Libya, who were then provided air cover to commit sweeping genocide before handing the nation over to the West’s proxy rulers. And in Pakistan, the forces of destabilization are likewise being armed and backed by the West.

US backing terrorists to destabilize Pakistan.

One group amongst this “force,” are the Baluchi terrorists that straddle the Iranian-Pakistani border. In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. As already mentioned, in Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.

The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.”

This point in particular, regarding China, was described in exacting detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.

The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.

The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.

Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros-funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.

With the inclusion of fake human rights NGOs like Soros’ Open Society-funded Human Rights Watch, attempting to tie the hands of the Pakistani government in dealing with these admittedly foreign-armed and backed militants, we can see the trifecta of NGOs, covert military support, and political propaganda destabilizing yet another nation. We also see a clear, over-arching strategy not aimed at Afghanistan, not even aimed at Pakistan, but ultimately aimed at disrupting and ending Chinese interests on their own border. This “trifecta” could also be seen successfully at work in the Southeast Asian country of Myanmar where covert military operations, coupled with foreign-funded NGOs, and political propaganda supplied by fake “democracy icon” Aung San Suu Kyi, were successfully used to stop the construction of a joint Chinese-Myanmar mega-dam in the northern state of Kachin.

Conclusion

Quite clearly, then, Riedel’s fears regarding Pakistan are somewhat disingenuous. In reality, he knows that the US is willfully destabilizing the country and setting the pretense for wider US and NATO military aggression throughout the region, including the invasion of Pakistan and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal. He also knows that the grand strategy is aimed not at neutralizing themanufactured threat of terrorism, but at containing China; a policy that was openly declared by current US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton within her article titled, “America’s Pacific Century.”

That BBC produced a two-hour long “documentary” to shoehorn every aspect of the “War on Terror” into the new narrative of Secret Pakistan and elude that the war “has a life of its own,” is a horrific piece of propaganda aimed at perpetuating, even expanding an already catastrophic conflict. BBC willfully misleads its audience into believing that Pakistan has “betrayed” its Western allies and is partially responsible for the now thousands of US, British, and NATO troops that have died in the war.

In reality, Pakistan is doing what it must against a nation that invaded its neighbor under false pretenses and has conspired within the halls of its corporate-funded think-tanks to subvert, overthrow, and then invade Pakistan. BBC and the corporate media have by far helped send more US, British and NATO troops to their needless death with their lies than any Pakistani intelligence agency.

The words of Kagan, Reidel, and Harrison, who are documented to have conspired against the sovereignty and security of foreign nations, must be spread far and wide. If soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines want to continue fighting with full knowledge that they do so for a corporate-financier agenda to eliminate Wall Street and London’s global competitors, so be it. At least they have the right to know what they are really fighting for and for what they may potentially die for. Pakistan can likewise defend itself from this army of mercenaries without disingenuous liars like the BBC twisting reality around and portraying Pakistanis as “duplicitous.”

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/coming-war-with-pakistan-video.html

 

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Islam, NATO, USA, War

Islamist Muslim Brotherhood Leads Polls In Egypt

December 1, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Egypt’s Islamists claim they’re leading the polls in the country’s parliamentary election. The first poll of its kind in years there saw millions turn out to vote for their future, with results from the first round expected within hours.

 

Filed Under: Islam, Politics, Religion, Revolution Tagged With: , ,

Egypt ‘Virginity Test’ Victim Waits For Her Verdict

November 30, 2011 By Leave a Comment

CAIRO: Samira Ibrahim, one of the 13 Egyptian women who was forced to take a “virginity test” in the military prison in Hikestep after attending a protest in Cairo in March, has to wait till December 27 to hear her verdict.

“The prolongation of her case can be seen as another step by the military to bear down attempts of women to speak up and fight against the military’s misuse of power, especially with regard to human right violations,” Neveene Edeid, working at the New Woman Foundation (NWF), stated.

“A postponement of such an urgent case bears evidence that it is not taken seriously enough. It is a bad sign of trying to manipulate her case,” she continued.

“However, on the other hand,” Edeid added, “having time till December gives us the possibility to build up more pressure as at the moment everybody is so enthusiastic about the ongoing election process.

“We need human right groups, the youth and women activists for her case but at the moment their thoughts circle around the election.”

Ibrahim, who was electrocuted and forced to take a “virginity test” after attending a protest in Cairo in March in Tahrir Square, was the only out of 17 women who filed an official complaint with the military prosecution to pursue criminal action against her alleged abusers, and registered a case with the State Council Administrative Court to appeal the use of ‘virginity tests’ in all military facilities.

Her verdict, which was supposed to take place on Tuesday, November 30, was expected to be either a “monumental day for women’s rights in the Middle East, or if history repeats itself, […] a shameful day for women’s rights.”

With the postponement of her case to December 27, the latter might come true. “I know the odds are against me” but “I have to speak up about this and fight for justice,” Ibrahim said.

Human Rights Watch interviewed Ibrahim and another victim, Salwa al-Hosseini, and reviewed the testimony of two others obtained by doctors at the Nadim Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture.

All four concurred in their statements that on the morning of March 10, two officers went into the prison cell holding the 17 women and asked them who among them was married and who was not.

“Then they told the seven of us that they were going to examine us to see if we were really virgins. They took us out one by one. When it was my turn they took me to a bed in a passageway in front of the cell.”

“There were lots of soldiers around and they could see me. I asked if the soldiers could move away and the officer escorting me tasered me. The woman prison guard in plain clothes stood at my head and then a man in military uniform examined me with his hand for several minutes. It was painful. He took his time. It was clear he was doing it on purpose to humiliate me.”

“I was beaten, electrocuted, and forced to strip naked in front of male officers,” Ibrahim told Human Rights Watch.

The official complaint before the Administrative Court states that Ibrahim “was exposed to the ugliest forms of humiliation, torture and a violation of the sanctity of her body.”

In a court hearing on October 25, the State Council lawyer denied this allegation and called for the dismissal of the case based on lack of evidence.

At the moment, five human rights organizations are supporting her case, including the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Nadim Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, the New Woman Foundation, Nazra for Feminist Studies, and the No to Military Trials Group.

A verdict for Ibrahim could be a remarkable victory not only for Ibrahim, but also for all Egyptian women subjected to sexual assault as most of rape and sexual assault cases in Egypt go unreported.

This is not at least evident by the fact that while Ibrahim’s battle has received adequate attention in international press, local Egyptian media has given the 25-year-old little to no coverage.

“It breaks my heart that international outrage over my case is stronger than that of my fellow Egyptians,” Ibrahim says.

Violations against women are therefore hugely underreported in Egypt – one recent report from 2003 found that as many as 98 percent of rape and sexual assault cases are not reported to authorities.

 

Source: https://bikyamasr.com/49852/egypt-%E2%80%98virginity-test%E2%80%99-victim-waits-for-her-verdict/

Filed Under: Egypt, Islam, Military, Police, Prison, Protests, Religion, Revolution, Rights, Social Unrest, Women Tagged With:

Pakistan’s Ambassador Takes The Fall

November 28, 2011 By Leave a Comment

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan’s mighty military and intelligence establishment has eventually forced Hussain Haqqani, the country’s influential ambassador to the United States and a close aide of President Asif Zardari, to quit and face an inquiry on charges of seeking the help of the Americans. Haqqani did this through a memo to fend off a possible military coup against the Pakistan People’s Party government in Islamabad after the US Navy SEAL raid in May that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Haqqani announced his resignation following a high-level meeting held at the prime minister’s residence on November 22 of the civil-military top brass that included Zardari, Prime Minister Yousaf.

Raza Gillani, chief of army staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, and Haqqani.

“I have requested Prime Minister Gillani to accept my resignation,” Haqqani said in a Twitter post shortly after the meeting. However, his implicit claim of submitting a resignation voluntarily was promptly contradicted by the prime minister’s office in a statement saying “Hussain Haqqani was asked to submit his resignation in order to pave the way for a proper investigation at an appropriate level [into the allegations leveled against him].”

The statement, however, did not elaborate which forum would probe this matter. “All concerned would be afforded sufficient and fair opportunity to present their views,” the statement said. No timeframe was given regarding the investigations.

Despite saying he had submitted his resignation, Haqqani remained adamant that he had nothing to do with the controversial memo that cost him his ambassadorship.

“I have resigned to bring closure to this meaningless controversy threatening our fledgling democracy. I still maintain that I did not conceive, write or distribute the memo,” Haqqani said, adding that the resignation was “not about the memo … this is about bigger things”.

Haqqani’s close associates claim that he put up a strong fight during the Tuesday meeting when quizzed jointly by the civilian and military leadership. But he eventually agreed to quit to pave the way for holding a fair investigation amid rumors that he actually lost his job because of an ongoing power struggle between the military and civilian leadership for control over who manages relations with the United States.

Therefore, many in Pakistan believe the crisis has not ended with the resignation; rather, it is the beginning of the story.

Tensions between the civilian and military leadership have been simmering following the October 10 publication of an article by a Pakistani-American businessman, Mansoor Ijaz, in an op-ed piece for the Financial Times of London, claiming that he had helped deliver the controversial memo from Haqqani to Admiral Mike Mullen, then the US military chief, seeking American help to ward off a possible military coup.

In his article, Ijaz, who has a knack for finding himself at the center of controversies, claimed that in return for US help, Zardari had offered to replace the army and ISI chiefs.

Written on May 10, the alleged memo urges Mullen to convey a “strong, urgent and direct” message Kiani and Pasha to “end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus”.

Former US national security advisor James Jones has said that he delivered the memo to Mullen after receiving it from Ijaz.

The memo told Mullen that after the raid in Abbottabad that killed Bin Laden, there was a dangerous slide in Islamabad in which no controls appeared to be in place.

The memo warned that the military, unhappy with the covert US raid, could topple the civilian government and if that happened, Pakistan could become a sanctuary for Bin Laden’s legacy and potentially the platform for a far more rapid spread of al-Qaeda’s brand of fanaticism and terror. The memo told the Americans that an opportunity existed for civilians to gain the upper hand over the army and intelligence directorates due to their complicity in the Bin Laden matter.

According to Ijaz, the memo was from Zardari and dictated to him (Ijaz) by Haqqani almost a week after the Abbottabad raid.

The Pakistan government had flatly denied knowledge of the memo. Mullen, too, initially denied having dealt with Ijaz, but later acknowledged having seen the memo although he said he disregarded it as not being credible.

Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby, who had previously worked under Mullen, also issued a statement saying Mullen knew the emissary who had brought the memo to him but he did not believe it was from Zardari.

“Admiral Mike Mullen had no recollection of the memo and no relationship with Mansoor Ijaz. After the original article appeared, he felt it incumbent upon himself to check his memory.

He reached out to others who he believed might have had knowledge of such a memo and one of them was able to produce a copy of it. But the letter was not signed and he did not find the contents credible at all because nothing in it indicated that it was from President Asif Zardari. Also, neither the contents of the memo nor the proof of its existence altered or affected in any way the manner in which Mr Mullen conducted himself in his relationship with General Kayani [Kiani] and the Pakistan government.

Whatever the truth, the controversy - dubbed “Memogate” - has exacerbated tensions between the frail civilian government and the ever-powerful generals.

The alleged memo offers a six-point plan on how Pakistan’s national security leadership could be altered in favor of American interests, with the formation of a new security team top on the list.

As per the memo, the new team, formed with US help, would hold an independent and accountable inquiry into the Bin Laden raid and would implement a policy of either handing over to the US or killing al-Qaeda leftovers and militants from the various groups operating from Pakistani soil. The team would also give the American military the “green light” to conduct operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil.

Furthermore, the new security team would develop an acceptable framework of discipline for Pakistan’s nuclear program. The team would also eliminate Section “S” of the ISI that is charged with maintaining relations with the Taliban and the Taliban-linked Haqqani network that operates in Afghanistan from Pakistan’s border areas

The memo offers to reshape Pakistan’s national security leadership, cleaning those elements within the military and intelligence agencies that have supported religious radicals and the Taliban. The memo further reminds the US administration:

… that its political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government that, while weak at the top echelon in terms of strategic direction and implementation (even though mandated by domestic political forces), in a wholesale manner replaces the national security adviser and other national security officials with trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favorably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities.

Haqqani, an ex-journalist who is clearly not the most liked person in the military establishment for having criticized it in his writings before being appointed ambassador, rejected Ijaz’s claims as “a bundle of lies”, saying, “I have been consistently vilified as being against the Pakistani military even though I have only opposed its intervention in political affairs.” He added that in Pakistan, a single person’s false claims could create a crisis and that the enemies of democracy were behind the scandal as they wanted to use it as an excuse to undo democracy.

Haqqani’s primary defense was that the memo was unsigned and unverified. He said Ijaz had given several interviews to the media that clearly showed that he only wanted to create misunderstanding between the civilian and military establishments, and strain Pakistan-US ties further.

Reminding that Ijaz was the same person who had branded the ISI a terrorist organization, Haqqani said: “Think about the objectives of Mansoor [Ijaz] before doubting me and my credibility. It is beyond comprehension why a person first delivered a memo and later made it public, and targeted a particular person.”

Haqqani said all technical proof was fabricated and he was ready for a probe into the reality through a Supreme Court judge:

I was defending the Pakistan army on American television channels after the May 2 Abbottabad raid, unlike Mansoor who had declared the ISI a terrorist organization. Remember, he is a US citizen; how could he defend the interests of Pakistan? I leave it to the president and the premier to decide how the story of a suspected person could be authentic.

Haqqani’s clarifications apart, Ijaz has already retracted his previous claim that there was some understanding between Zardari and Haqqani regarding the memo, saying that the president had no knowledge of any such document.

Speaking in a live talk show on a Pakistani television channel, Express News, on November 20, Ijaz said the president might have spoken to Haqqani after the May 2 raid about the pressure on him, hence asking the latter to help him out in this regard while leaving the mechanics to the ambassador on how to go about it.

Ijaz had earlier claimed in his Financial Times article that he had, on Zardari’s instructions and with the help of Haqqani, drafted and delivered the memo to Mullen.

Ijaz’s backtracking on the alleged involvement of Zardari has created a sense of respite for the government, besides creating doubts about the credibility of the accuser.

A former official of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Bruce Riedel, has dismissed the memo as a clumsy fake that threatens to further destabilize an already deeply divided Pakistan.

“The charge that Zardari wanted US help in controlling the military has been seized upon by enemies of the civilian government. Ambassador Haqqani’s accuser, Mansoor Ijaz, has a long track record of fabricating false information and self-promotion,” Riedel told The Washington Examiner in an interview reported on November 21. “The Pakistan army is using this invented scandal to oust a long-time critic and weaken the civilian government,” said Riedel, who once chaired US President Barack Obama’s Af-Pak strategy and is now affiliated with the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think-tank.

From the outset the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment suspected Haqqani and wanted the government to make him face an inquiry for working against the national interest. In view of the sensitive nature of the charges, it was decided at the highest level of the military leadership that the initial investigation must be carried out by the top spymaster himself.

Thus, ISI chief Pasha flew to London to meet with Ijaz on October 22, less than two weeks after Ijaz disclosed the existence of the memo in the Financial Times column.

According to Ijaz, the ISI chief conclusively authenticated the delivery of the memo to Mullen before raising the issue with the president and the prime minister.

The Ijaz-Pasha meeting took place at the Park Lane InterContinental hotel in London. Ijaz over a fairly large quantity of records, both copies and originals. These were subsequently put through a verification process following which the ISI chief briefed Kiani, who ultimately took up the matter with Zardari on November 15 in a one-on-one meeting at the presidency.

Kiani impressed on the president the inevitable necessity of Haqqani’s presence in the country to explain his alleged role in the controversy - which is what happened.

In fact, the military establishment had been gunning for Haqqani for a long time, especially after he wrote a controversial book in 2005, titled Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, in which he exposed the unholy historical nexus between the military and militants and how the military tried to win US support when needed, while at the same time strengthening ties with militants. He wrote:

Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support for Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government … In an effort to become an ideological state guided by a praetorian military, Pakistan has found itself accentuating its dysfunction, especially during the past two decades.

The alliance between mosque and military in Pakistan maintains, and sometimes exaggerates, these psycho-political fears and helps both the Islamists and the generals in their exercise of political power. Support for the Pakistani military by the United States makes it difficult for Pakistan’s weak, secular, civil society to assert itself and wean Pakistan from the rhetoric of Islamist ideology toward issues of real concern of Pakistan’s citizens.

Haqqani further wrote in his book:

Pakistan has become a major center of radical Islamist ideas and groups, largely because of its policies of support for Islamist militants fighting Indian rule in the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir as well as the Taliban in its pursuit of a client regime in Afghanistan.

Therefore, after he was appointed ambassador to Washington in April 2008 when Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Power came into power, he became an instant target of the khaki establishment. Being a political appointee and someone thought to be close to Zardari, he struggled for his survival for much of his three-year tenure.

Shortly after Haqqani replaced Major General (retired) Mahmood Ahmed Durrani as ambassador to the US he was accused of acting against the national interest by manipulating the insertion of pro-democracy clauses in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation that committed US$7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years as a “strategic ally”.

This annoyed the generals, who perceived some of the legislation’s provisions as being disrespectful to the military and it became an open secret that they wanted him sacked.

“Memogate” highlights that the military establishment has directly or indirectly managed Pakistan’s affairs for more than half the years since independence from British colonial rule in 1947.

In the first decade after the creation of Pakistan, the army became a politicized force - the power behind the throne in politics and thus it soon seized political control by imposing military rule for protracted periods; the coups of president General Ayub Khan and president General Yahya Khan were followed by the pro-jihad regime of president General Zia ul-Haq that lasted for 12 years and the anti-jihad regime of president General Pervez Musharraf that ruled Pakistan for almost 10 years until he stepped down in August 2008.

In this vein, Kiani, despite his repeated pledges not to interfere either in politics or in governmental affairs, continues to assert his authority and meddle even though he was granted an unprecedented second three-year term as army chief in July this year by the Zardari government - something no elected government had done before.

Kiani’s right-hand man, ISI chief Pasha, has received two one-year extensions from the government since the expiry of his actual tenure on March 18, 2010.

And it was Zardari who came forward to defend Kiani and Pasha when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif sought stern action against them in the wake of the Abbottabad raid that was widely described as a grave intelligence and military failure.

At a press conference in Islamabad on June 23, Ali Khan Nisar, the opposition leader (from the Pakistan Muslim League) in the National Assembly, went as far as to say: “I congratulate the armed forces of Pakistan on having their new spokesman in the form of President Zardari.”

Since the May 2 American military raid in Abbottabad, Kiani has been trying to repair the wounded pride of his men. The incident strained Pakistan-US ties in a big way besides raising some serious questions about the army chief’s own standing. It also set off a nationalist backlash - the usually untouchable army was sharply criticized in the media, with people holding demonstrations and demanding the resignation of the top brass for their failure.

The broader lesson to be learned from “Memogate” is that the civil-military imbalance in Pakistan remains intensely tilted, with an elected civilian government on one side and hardline military men on the other who continue to believe that they alone know what is good and what is bad for Pakistan.

Source: https://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK24Df01.html

Filed Under: Corruption, Islam, Military, Pakistan Tagged With: ,

Bahrain: Shouting In The Dark

November 28, 2011 By 1 Comment

The story of the Arab revolution that was abandoned by the Arabs, forsaken by the West and forgotten by the world

Bahrain: An island kingdom in the Arabian Gulf where the Shia Muslim majority are ruled by a family from the Sunni minority. Where people fighting for democratic rights broke the barriers of fear, only to find themselves alone and crushed.

This is their story and Al Jazeera is their witness - the only TV journalists who remained to follow their journey of hope to the carnage that followed.

This is the Arab revolution that was abandoned by the Arabs, forsaken by the West and forgotten by the world.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2011/08/201184144547798162.html

 

Filed Under: Democracy, Islam, Martial Law, Media, Propaganda, Protests, Revolution, Rights, Royal Family, Social Unrest, Torture, Tyranny, USA, Weapons Tagged With: ,

Guantanamo is most expensive jail

November 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

This establishment, managed by the U.S., spends $800,000 for each of the 171 detainees, many of them held in custody without charges.

Data published in the Spanish daily, El País, and assigned to the Department of Defense of the United States, establishes Guantanamo prison as the world’s most expensive prison. The establishment, with 171 detainees in Cuba, are costing American taxpayers 137 million Euros (about 242 million dollars) per year, or 800,000 Euros each (1.4 million dollars). Meanwhile, the average spending per person in the prison system on American soil is 25,000 Euros (about 45,000 dollars) a year.

The Guantanamo prison, opened in 2002, months after the attacks of September 11, operates under the “logic of prevention.” Inmates sent to the site do not necessarily need formal charges. They can be kept in custody indefinitely, as long as the U.S. would consider them a risk.

The result of this controversial premise was exposed by Wikileaks in May 2011, with the leak of 759 secret records of 779 prisoners who have been through the establishment. According to the documents, at least 150 detainees were innocent people, including elderly people with dementia, psychiatric patients and teachers.

In an interview, Michael Strauss especially lays bare French violations and mistakes made by the U.S. government at Guantanamo Bay. Michael Strauss, a professor of International Relations at the Centre d’Etudes et Stratégique Diplomatique of Paris, explained to CartaCapital at the time of the leaks, that the prison was designed to shift the crime of terrorism from civilian to military and detain prisoners outside the USA.

“This scheme has created several new legal, political and moral issues. For the Americans, it became even more difficult to deal with terrorism with international partners.”

The documents showed that the most important aspects for the arrest of an individual were the amount of information known by the same and their degree of dangerousness in the future.

In prison, trying to escape the image of torture, the prisoners are checked every three minutes. The most dangerous, such as the alleged mastermind of the ideological attacks on Washington and New York in 2001, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, are monitored every 30 seconds. In addition, 1,300 local people work among soldiers, interpreters, cooks and psychiatrists.

Rights

The Guantanamo detainees captured in 2008 alone have the right to habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution. “This decision came only after several inmates spent six years detained without being charged with crimes, and after torture,” said Strauss. “The Court ruled that prisoners enjoy these rights, because the United States has a sort of de facto sovereignty in Guantanamo. Even if, officially, in fact, Cuba has sovereignty.”

The teacher pointed out the ambiguity of sovereignty as the main reason for the choice of prison, because it allows the special peculiar treatment of prisoners. “Where the Americans are, their sovereign legal system applies completely. And where they have jurisdiction, but are not sovereign, its legal system applies only partially. Thus, constitutional protections such as habeas corpus did not apply there,” he explains.

According to El País, about 20% of the detainees were arrested arbitrarily even according to military law. Moreover, the U.S. did not believe in the guilt of 60% of the prisoners.

President Barack Obama said he was making closing Guantanamo one of his main goals during the elections. In January 2009, the White House stipulated that in a period of one year the prison would be closed, but failed to stick to it.

“The recession would have a direct impact on a much larger number of people in the United States than anything that Washington did with respect to Guantanamo,” said Strauss. He says the economic crisis was one of the reasons Obama disregarded the promise.

Source: https://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/17-11-2011/119660-Guantanamo_is_most_expensive_jail-0/

Filed Under: Censorship, Corruption, Education, Guantanamo, Imperialism, Islam, Justice, Law, Martial Law, Media, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Politicians, Politics, Prison, Privacy, Propaganda, Protests, Religion, Revolution, Rights, Suicide, Surveillance, Terrorism, Torture, USA, War, Weapons

Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia

November 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Recently, the dictator Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (who for the traditional media remains as a democratic and righteous king) granted in an absolutely benevolent form the right to vote being passed for the women of his country.

The treatment of Abdullah goes together with the sympathy shown by the media to the dictator - or “president” - of Yemen, Ali Saleh, who has not fallen out of favor with the U.S., the parameter for media likes or dislikes. Treatment differs from that given to Bashar al Assad and Qaddafi, who quickly turned to bloody dictators for the media.

Palms and celebrations of the press, praise from allies and, of course, effusive congratulations from the U.S., who insist on bringing democracy to their enemies, but never to friends.

Is there indeed a difference in the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? Did it change or will anything change in … 2015, when will the elections come? As a matter of fact, which elections?

The country is a dictatorship where the “King,” is in charge, simple as that. Municipal elections take place soon, but of course this is not real benevolence that will now cost while the people must “be used” by the news. Read: it is necessary to cool enthusiasm and mask the inefficiency or inability to implement the decision broadly.

In addition to performing in local elections (half of whose members are elected and half appointed, but in the end have almost no power), women may also be part of the Shura, something like the national parliament. But this does not even come close to the popular vote, which is fully nominated by the “king.” That is, women can enter only if the king wants! They have to be a friend of the king, or the king’s woman …

It will be interesting in a country run by laws dictated by the mullahs that do not even allow women to drive. Women are dictated to by ruling mullahs, in a form hardly apparent, without effective powers.

It seems counter-intuitive. One sees how cosmetic the permission is from benevolent King Abdullah. Women can compete, but compete for what?

The issue goes even further. The king is not stupid, he doesn’t remain in power for decades without a modicum of intelligence (oil, wealth and being good friends with Yankees helps, of course). The idea is to give women a false power. Give them something that ultimately makes no difference outside of on paper.

Why, women can now vote. But they still need permission from their husbands to leave the house to go out and vote. They need permission from their husbands to apply!

If women cannot even leave the house unaccompanied, how and why the heck will they compete for any political office or even vote? Only with permission of their husbands (or parents, fathers, brothers, a “responsible” man). Something for the majority that is the same as nothing. Will they remain cloistered and void?

In Saudi Arabia - the most undemocratic and dictatorial country in the world, but a good friend of America - women have the same relevance as a cocoa bush, they exist only to give pleasure, to be consumed while they have some gas and cannot leave their place alone

Yes, the comparison is bad, but I think I understand. But well, as one expects how can women apply for and be elected if they cannot leave the house? If you cannot drive a car, or are not entitled to anything as human beings?

Imagine if, by some miracle, the king selects a woman for the Shura. She will legislate over her husband, over other men, but to even to go to parliament she needs the permission of these same men. To simply go out of the house! If the woman does not live in Riyadh, the capital, she needs permission to travel!

Abdullah gave women a right they can hardly enjoy, but still managed to deceive half the world (at least the half that takes pleasure in being deceived).

Celebrating this “victory” is the same as celebrating the “victory” of the mighty Libyan “rebels,” and that hypocrisy. A “victory” in which the side will not be able to enjoy the prize, given that they need permission to do so and they lack even a political system capable of allowing the effort to be valid, any change that makes a difference.

 

Source: https://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/27-10-2011/119448-Womens_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia-0/

Filed Under: Banks, Campaigning, Censorship, Corruption, Human Rights, Imperialism, Income Inequality, Islam, Justice, Law, Martial Law, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Oil, Politicians, Politics, Privacy, Propaganda, Protests, Religion, Revolution, Rights, Royal Family, Sexism, Surveillance, USA, Weapons, Women

A radical Jew repented

November 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

PALESTINE – Mikhail Chernovska was an Extremist Jew who had declared his Islam, as well as expressed his enthusiasm to see the establishment of the Khilafah Islamiyyah, with Al-Quds as its capital. “Indeed, I have received guidance. The reason is only one, because I wanted to find the truth,” Mikhail said. This was conveyed by the Harakatut Tauhid Al-Islamy website, Tuesday 8th November 2011.

Mikhail has Muhammad Al-Mahdi as his hijrah (migrated) name, similar to the name of an imam in the end times who was promised by Rasulullah SAW, who will bring justice by establishing Dienullah on earth. Mahdi is a Jew who came from Azerberijan and later migrated to Palestine after he embraced Islam.

Mahdi’s residence right now is in the West Bank city of Hebron. He was born in Baku, Azerbeijan 37 years ago. This man from Azerbeijan lived in the midst of an extreme family. He migrated to Israel in the early 90′s.

Hebron is the site of the massacre by a Jewish radical, Baruch Goldstein, in the cave of the ancestors. At that time, around 29 Muslims were affected from the massacre. Thus, in conformity with that, Mahdi decided to moved to the Kiryat Arba settlement, where he lived with his hero according to his view at that time, Goldstein, and joined the extremist settlers.

He added that a discussion on religion and philosophy with a Palestinian who owns a garage for car repairs in Hebron, made him review his view gradually, until he embraced Islam and return to Baku in order to marry a Muslimah. Mahdi told that he received a warm welcome from his neighbours in Hebron, although his blood is Jewish.

Muhammad Al-Mahdi told the AFP correspondent when visited at home, “I used to be an extremist settler and hostile to them, but they treat me like they are a brother to me and they always offer assistance.” The fact that points to Mahdi’s life in Kiryat Arba, is as if unimaginable, after he converted to Islam and married a Muslimah, Sabina, who now have given birth to 4 children after living with him. “The settlers attacked me several times, and threw stones at my house, and wrote slogans on the wall inviting me to leave the place,” said this 37-year old man.

He added, “wherever we go we are being abused, as my wife wears jilbab, and she is repeatedly questioned by the security forces, but all I care is that my kids today are Muslims, and following the religion that I have chosen.” He is very excited to see the Khilafah Islamiyyah established with Al-Quds as its capital.

He asserted: “I realized that there are many contradictions in the Jewish religion, and that Islam is a religion of wisdom and truth, I have received guidance because I was seeking for the truth, that’s the only cause of me becoming Muslim,” said Al-Mahdi, while acknowledging the kindness of his friend Zalloum, the garage owner, who had become the reason he received hidayah.

Zalloum admitted that from the beginning he knew Mikhail, what appeared in his perception was that Mikhail is a good person, unlike most of the settlers in Kiryat Arba. He often had a dialogue with Mikhail on issues of religion and philosophy, until one day he said to Mikhail: “If it’s not me who becomes a Jew through you, you’ll be the one who embraces Islam through me, after six months of discussion, finally he received the hidayah to embrace Islam,” revealed Zalloum.

Zalloum added: “It’s true that Mikhail has become Muhammad al-Mahdi, but he could not let go of all the Jewish culture, the Star of David Fusm on one of his hands would always remind him that he is a Jew, although he carries on the day with demonstrated achievements, from punctual obligatory prayers to reading Al-Qur’an.”

 

Source: https://www.thosepeoples.tk/2011/11/radical-jew-repented.html

Filed Under: Corruption, Islam, Israel, Palestine, Politics, Religion, Rights, Spirituality, War

Big Media’s double standards on Iran

November 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment
The mainstream U.S. press corps is again pounding the propaganda war drums, this time over dubious accusations of Iran’s secret work on a nuclear bomb. It is a pattern of bias that Robert Parry calls the U.S. media’s worst — and most dangerous – ethical violation.

Arguably, the most serious ethical crisis in U.S. journalism is the deep-seated bias about the Middle East that is displayed by major American news outlets, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times.

When it comes to reporting on “designated enemies” in the Muslim world, the Post and the Times routinely jettison all sense of objectivity even when the stakes are as serious as war and peace, life and death. Propaganda wins out over balanced journalism.

We have seen this pattern with Iraq and its non-existent stockpiles of WMD; with the rush to judgment about Syria’s supposed guilt in the killing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri; with the false certainty about Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing; and many other examples of what everyone just “knows to be true” but often turns out isn’t. [For more on these cases, click here.]

The latest example of this ethical failing relates to reporting about Iran on such topics as the buffoonish plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and a new set of dubious allegations about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In these cases, U.S. mainstream news media happily marshals sources with histories of credibility problems; treats implausible scenarios with utmost respect; jettisons crucial context; and transforms the grays of ambiguity into black-and-white morality tales of good versus evil.

Then, behind these war drums of the U.S. press corps, the American people are marched toward confrontation and violence, while anyone who dares question the perceived wisdom of the Post, the Times and many other esteemed outlets is fair game for marginalization and ridicule.

An example of this propaganda passing as journalism has been the recent writings of Joby Warrick of the Washington Post about a vague but alarmist report produced by the new leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On Monday, the Post put on its front page a story about Russian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, a leading expert in the formation of nanodiamonds who spent several years assisting Iranians develop a domestic industry in these micro-diamonds that have many commercial uses.

But Warrick’s story is fraught with spooky shadows and scary music that suggest Danilenko is really part of an ongoing drive by Iranian authorities to overcome technological obstacles for a nuclear bomb. Just like in that spy thriller “Sum of All Fears,” a greedy ex-Soviet nuclear scientist is helping to build a rogue nuclear bomb.

Warrick wrote: “When the Cold War abruptly ended in 1991, Vyacheslav Danilenko was a Soviet weapons scientist in need of a new line of work. At 57, he … struggled to become a businessman, traveling through Europe and even to the United States to promote an idea for using explosives to create synthetic diamonds. Finally, he turned to Iran, a country that could fully appreciate the bombmaker’s special mix of experience and talents.”

Now, Warrick continued, Danilenko has been identified by Western diplomats as the unnamed scientist cited in the IAEA report as advising Iran on the explosive techniques to detonate a nuclear bomb. Warrick’s story continues.

“No bomb was built, the diplomats say. But help from foreign scientists such as Danilenko enabled Iran to leapfrog over technical hurdles that otherwise could have taken years to overcome, according to former and current U.N. officials, Western diplomats and weapons experts.”

Slanted Tale

However, Warrick crafts the story in a very misleading way, leaving out key facts that would create a less ominous picture. For instance, the article fails to mention that the U.S. intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 that Iran had stopped its work on a nuclear bomb in late 2003.

Danilenko, who has insisted that his work was limited to advising Iranians on the explosions used to manufacture nanodiamonds, last worked in Iran in 2002 and the explosive test that the IAEA associates with Danilenko – and which supposedly might have nuclear implications – was conducted in 2003.

In other words – even if one accepts that Danilenko is lying about his work in Iran – nothing in the Danilenko story undercuts the U.S. intelligence community’s NIE. To leave out this crucial context in the Post’s article suggests an intention to frighten rather than to inform.

Indeed, what is notable about the curious IAEA report is how much of it predates late 2003. [For a contrasting view of the Danilenko evidence, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Iran’s Soviet Bomb-Maker Who Wasn’t.”]

Warrick also relies heavily on the expertise of discredited arms control analyst David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright was a prominent voice in promoting President George W. Bush’s pre-invasion case that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

Yet, from reading Warrick’s article, you would have no idea of Albright’s checkered history. You would simply assume that Albright is an unbiased expert who is bringing his analytical skills to bear to help us untangle difficult questions about Iran’s nuclear research.

But Albright and his ISIS actually have a pattern of imbalanced work on nuclear proliferation and the spread of other dangerous weapons. For instance, ISIS has essentially ignored Israel’s real nuclear arsenal – with only a few brief items over the past decade – while obsessing over a non-existent nuclear arsenal in Iran with scores and scores of reports.

Albright has continued this disproportional emphasis despite the fact that Israel is arguably the world’s most notorious rogue nuclear state. It has built up its undeclared nuclear arsenal after refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and keeping IAEA inspectors away from its nuclear facilities.

By contrast, Iran signed the NPT, has renounced nuclear weapons, and has allowed IAEA inspectors to monitor its nuclear energy program. Granted, Iran’s cooperation has been less than stellar but its record is far superior to Israel’s. Yet, Albright and his ISIS have largely turned a blind eye to Israel’s nukes and focused instead on Iran’s theoretical bomb-making.

(On Sunday, when non-mainstream journalists confronted Albright about the disparity between ISIS’s concentration on Iran and neglect of Israel, he angrily responded that he was currently working on a report about Israel. If so, it would be Albright’s first substantive study solely on Israel’s nuclear program since ISIS was founded in 1993, according to an examination of its Web site.)

Conned on Iraq

Albright also has not been above harnessing his selective outrage over Middle East weapons in the cause of U.S. war propaganda.

At the end of summer 2002, as Bush was beginning his advertising roll-out for the Iraq invasion and dispatching his top aides to the Sunday talk shows to warn about “smoking guns” and “mushroom clouds,” Albright co-authored a Sept. 10, 2002, article – entitled “Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?” – which declared:

“High-resolution commercial satellite imagery shows an apparently operational facility at the site of Iraq’s al Qaim phosphate plant and uranium extraction facility … This site was where Iraq extracted uranium for its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. … This image raises questions about whether Iraq has rebuilt a uranium extraction facility at the site, possibly even underground. … The uranium could be used in a clandestine nuclear weapons effort.”

Albright’s alarming allegations fit neatly with Bush’s propaganda barrage, although as the months wore on – with Bush’s warnings about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa growing more outlandish – Albright did display more skepticism about the existence of a revived Iraqi nuclear program.

Still, he remained a “go-to” expert on other Iraqi purported WMD, such as chemical and biological weapons. In a typical quote on Oct. 5, 2002, Albright told CNN: “In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now.”

After Bush launched the Iraq invasion in March 2003 and Iraq’s secret WMD caches didn’t materialize, Albright admitted that he had been conned, explaining to the Los Angeles Times: “If there are no weapons of mass destruction, I’ll be mad as hell.

“I certainly accepted the administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured they were telling the truth. If there is no [unconventional weapons program], I will feel taken, because they asserted these things with such assurance.” [See FAIR’s “The Great WMD Hunt,”]

Given the horrendous costs in blood and treasure resulting from the Iraq fiasco, an objective journalist might feel compelled to mention Albright’s track record of bias and errors. But the Post’s Warrick doesn’t.

A Troubling Trend

While Albright may stand out as a troubling example of how biased analysis works, he surely is not alone. Nor is Warrick’s selective journalism atypical of what regularly appears in the U.S. mainstream news media.

For instance, also on Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy article, entitled “Israel Lobbies Discreetly for More Sanctions After U.N. Report on Iran,” that discussed how Israeli leaders are working behind the scenes with threats and sabotage to stop Iran from advancing toward a nuclear bomb.

While a journalist perhaps doesn’t need to mention Israel’s nuclear arsenal each time allegations are lodged against Iran, it would seem quite appropriate for this article by Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem to take note of the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials complaining about Iran’s hypothetical bomb when they have many real ones.

Yet Kershner’s article ignores the Israeli nuclear arsenal even as it raises concerns about how an Iranian bomb could touch off a regional nuclear arms race.

Netanyahu is quoted as saying: “The international community must stop Iran’s race to arm itself with nuclear weapons, a race that endangers the peace of the entire world.” The article then adds:

“While Israel regards nuclear-armed Iran as potentially an existential threat, it also threatens moderate Arab states and could set off a destabilizing regional arms race. … The [IAEA] report did not speculate on the time it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, but Israelis say it shows Iran is moving ever closer to the nuclear threshold while Western powers have been dragging their feet on action to stop it.”

Given these observations, one might think the New York Times would have inserted somewhere that Israel is itself a rogue nuclear state, possessing an undeclared nuclear arsenal that is regarded by experts as one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated.

Also, if Iran does move ahead toward building a nuclear bomb, one of the obvious factors would be that nuclear-armed Israel is constantly threatening to attack – and Iran suspects that Israel might be joined by the United States, the world’s preeminent nuclear and military power.

After witnessing the outcomes in Iraq and Libya – where leaders dismantled their nuclear programs – compared with North Korea, which pressed ahead to build a nuclear bomb, Iranian leaders might regard possession of a nuclear bomb as an existential necessity.

Forgoing a nuclear bomb didn’t save Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from dangling at the end of a rope or Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi from having a bullet shot into his brain. However, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il is still alive and holding power.

But the harsh necessities of geopolitics aside, journalistic ethics require presenting relevant details and nuances to the reader. To leave them out – especially to do so repeatedly with a predictable bias – is where the Post, the Times and much of the U.S. mainstream news media fall down.

For many years, one set of rules has applied to “designated enemies” in the Muslim world and another to Israel and various Arab “friends.” There is an unspoken bias or “group think” – and it is as undeniable as it is unacknowledged.

This hypocrisy has become so deeply engrained in the U.S. news media that the double standards are regarded as the natural order of things. Since Iran is perceived as unpopular in the United States and Israel is generally popular, Iran gets pummeled while Israel gets pampered.

But just because all the important U.S. media outlets violate the ethical rules of journalism on this front doesn’t make the behavior good journalism.

America’s double standard on Middle East reporting is a fundamental violation of journalistic ethics – and it has contributed over the past decade to getting many innocent people killed.

Source: https://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27697

Filed Under: Banks, Censorship, Corporations, Corruption, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Israel, Justice, Law, Media, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Oil, Politicians, Politics, Propaganda, Rights, Surveillance, USA, War, Weapons
« Older Posts