Facebook IS Mass Surveillance

2011-12-07T07:52:00.001-08:00

When Money is No Longer Money

2011-12-07T07:46:00.001-08:00

It looks kind of ominous outside. As storm activity engulfs Sydney it seems fitting that the Day of Reckoning could finally be upon us.

Italian bond yields have just hit the point of no return. As you can see from the chart below yields on 10-year Italian bonds closed at 7.25 per cent overnight, after hitting a high of 7.48 per cent.

For an economy with a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 120 per cent and no economic growth in sight, this is a fearsome borrowing cost. Even worse, Italy could well be slipping into recession. Recessions hit government revenues and increase their expenses. In other words, that ratio is set to get worse as GDP contracts and debt grows.

Which is why Italian bond investors are bailing. Italy has the third largest government bond market in the world (behind the US and Japan) at €1.9 trillion. Around €300 billion is due for refinancing in the next year. And if the country does go into recession, it will need to access even more funds to keep its bloated welfare state afloat.

At these rates of interest, it won't be able to do it. But Italy's too big to bail. Greece, Portugal, Ireland are all sideshows compared to Italy. The European debt crisis is now moving into uncharted waters.

This is the slow death of the Western welfare state. It's not about the individuals. It doesn't matter whether it's Papandreou in Greece or the lunatic Berlusconi in Italy running the show. Their replacements will have no more idea about what to do to 'fix' things. This is about a corrupt and bankrupt system.

It's a system of socialism masquerading as capitalism. Where the supposed king capitalists - the bankers - are the worst kind of socialists. They expect others to bail them out when things go wrong. And their screwed up philosophy is supported by a coterie of advisers (economists) who have been brainwashed at government-funded universities.

For decades, European governments have been run by a bunch of crooks. To retain their hold on power they have promised their people cradle-to-the-grave care. These promises have been paid for by borrowing money...money created by central banks and commercial banks via the 'magic' of fractional reserve banking.

But now the game is up. The politicians, being greedy and stupid creatures, got in too deep without understanding the limitations of the debt-based system they were rigging to their benefit. While the focus is squarely on Europe, it's only a matter of time before this reality hits Japan and the US.

There are a few things to think about here.

Firstly, money is money until it's not. What does that mean?

Well, government bonds have for decades been considered risk free. Putting your 'money' in government bonds has been socially and financially acceptable. The market has therefore considered government bonds as good as money for years.

Even though they are vastly different things, the market place's perception is that government bonds were 'money like'.

No longer. Greek, Portuguese, Irish and now Italian government bonds are not considered to have anything like the qualities of 'money'. They are high risk.

The implications of this are huge because as the crisis moves into the centre - Spain is next, followed by France, Germany and eventually the US and Japan - government debt all over the world will have lost its risk-free status.

Trillions of dollars of assets (a government's debt is, unfortunately, someone else's asset) will no longer be perceived to have money-like qualities. When this perception takes hold, hundreds of billions of dollars of value will disappear.

This is what has just happened to the Italian bond market. That €1.9 trillion pile of debt just lost its perception of being safe and money-like. Now it's worth a lot less in the accounts of the banks and pension funds that own it. That's why global markets, led by the financials, tanked overnight.
The key take out here is that such a change in perceptions (which is really the market waking up to itself and catching up with reality) is hugely deflationary.

This is why the European Central Bank (ECB) is under so much pressure to buy up unlimited quantities of Italian debt. But will they? Can they?

The ECB already holds hundreds of billions of euros of peripheral nations' debt. It's pretty much insolvent itself. But central banks play by their own rules so that shouldn't stop it acting as a going concern.

But the ECB is hampered by its flawed and bureaucratic structure from making quick and forceful decisions. In addition, its belief system is German - that is, driven by a fear of hyperinflation. Large-scale debt monetisation will not come easy.

The pressure on the ECB to 'do something' will be huge. If it prints, Germany will object and likely leave the Eurozone (they have an inflationary get-out clause). If they don't the peripheral nations will be forced to leave.

Either way, the Eurozone as we know it is dead. It was inevitable. But you can thank political incompetence for speeding up the process.

How it all plays out from here depends on the ECB. If this thing escalates in the next few days, expect another weekend conference and Sunday night announcement about plans to 'contain' the crisis.

Whatever they come up with (again) will be useless. The Day of Reckoning for Europe's post-WWII socialist experiment just arrived. The judgment isn't looking too good.

The perception of money is changing very quickly. Italian debt just lost it. The debt of other countries will follow in its path. Soon, the only asset left with its perception of money intact will be gold. And by then it will be worth a lot more.

Make sure a portion of your wealth is stored in the yellow metal.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/when-money-is-no-longer-money/2011/11/10/

Crescent moon, waning West

2011-12-07T07:40:00.001-08:00

The decline of Western power in the Arab world is no bad thing

AFTER a slow summer, the Arab spring has turned into a turbulent autumn. The past few days have seen the gruesome end of Muammar Qaddafi, the more edifying spectacle of an orderly and open election in Tunisia (see article) and the death of Saudi Arabia’s ancient crown prince Sultan amid demands for the kingdom to modernise faster. Egypt, by far the most populous Arab country, is poised to hold its first proper election next month. Revolts and civil strife continue across the region, from Syria to Yemen and Bahrain.

For the West, whose ties to Arab dictators once gave it great clout in the Middle East, events in the region have spun way out of control. That fact was underlined this week by the Iraqis’ insistence that all American forces must quit the country by the end of the year. Yet the West should not regret this turn of events. The power that it has lost in the short term should, in the long run, be replaced by influence born of good relations with decent governments.

It’s still on course

On balance, the Arab world is in far better shape than it was less than a year ago. For sure, the economies of all the countries affected by the democratic upheavals have slumped. That is true even of Tunisia, which has the best education and skills in the region. But dictatorship and state control suffocated the Arab economies—even those awash with oil. Once Arab countries’ borders open up and their governments become accountable to their citizens, they are likely to grow faster. And that will not happen until they have put in place a system of government that gives a far wider degree of participation than before.

It is beginning to happen. Tunisia has led the way. Egypt promises to follow, though the generals in charge of its transition have been horribly inept of late, raising fears that the country may slip backwards to disorder or military control. But a parliament is due for election next month. It is to choose an assembly that may take a year or so to write a constitution providing for the election of a new Egyptian president. Libya, too, should have elections within a year. Everywhere risks lapsing into bouts of chaos and strife. But this trio of north African states looks set to give a democratic fillip to other Arab countries, including those such as Syria that seem destined for a time to be soaked in blood while they strive for liberation.

The rise of political Islam is not necessarily cause for alarm among democrats in the West and the Arab world. In Tunisia an Islamist party, Nahda (“Renaissance”), that was brutally banned for decades has won a stunning victory at the polls. Egypt’s Muslim Brothers are likely to do well too. In Libya the Islamists may also be gaining ground. This rattles secular-minded Arab liberals and many well-wishing Westerners. But a more open and tolerant brand of political Islam better suited to the modern world seems to be emerging, especially now that its proponents must compete for the favours of voters who admire the Islamists’ hostility to corruption, but dislike the sectarian and conservative attitudes that many of them expressed when they were underground.

No one can be certain that if Islamists gain power they will give it up at the ballot box, but secular rulers sometimes fail that test. And, on the whole, the threat of religious extremism with which strongmen used to justify repression has not materialised. Barring a few ungoverned pockets in Yemen and on the fringes of the Sahara, al-Qaeda has failed to benefit from the democratic wind.

It’s a local show these days

The strength of these revolutions is that they have been almost entirely home-grown. Those in Egypt and Tunisia had no outside help. Syria’s brave protesters are on their own and may, in time, triumph. Libya’s new rulers could not have succeeded without NATO’s bombers, but the absence of Western ground troops and of proconsuls telling the locals what to do has been in salutary contrast to what happened in Iraq eight years ago, where democracy was crudely imposed on an unprepared people (see Lexington).

After the deaths of some 150,000-plus locals and around 5,000 Americans and other foreigners, Iraq has a freely elected government. But it has not developed the habits of tolerance between communities and the independent institutions that underlie all truly successful democracies. A decade of American hard power has been less effective than a few months of peaceful protest in setting countries on the road towards representative government.

Partly because of the Iraqi adventure, America—at least its foreign policy—remains heartily disliked by Arabs across the region. That is only slightly less true under Barack Obama than it was under George Bush. America’s unpopularity stems partly from its backing of Israel and the continuing humiliation of the Palestinians, partly from its willingness to use force to get its way and partly from its history of supporting useful Arab dictators. Prince Sultan’s death may make this last point particularly salient. If the reactionary Prince Nayef becomes the crown prince and de facto regent, America may struggle to maintain an alliance with him alongside friendships with the Arab world’s nascent democracies.

Yet in the decline of Western power lie the seeds of hope for healthier relations in the future. Although the Arab world’s revolutionaries in general, and the Islamists in particular, are unlikely to hail the West as a model, they seem to be moving towards open political and economic systems. Nobody in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya is arguing for a Saudi Arabian, Iranian or even Chinese model. Arab students, businessmen and tourists in their thousands still choose to go to the West for their studies, their deals and their fun.

The prospects for Western influence in the Arab world are good. But in the future it will be won through education, investment and, when requested, advice on building up institutions. Such levers do not work as quickly as those that were forged from deals with unpopular and unstable dictators. But, in the end, they are likely to prove more reliable.

http://www.economist.com/node/21534782

Pakistan has brought the mightiest countries to their knees!

2011-12-04T19:18:00.001-08:00

Alhamdolillah, Just one NO from Pakistan has brought the mightiest countries to their knees!

There is total and complete panic in US camp now. The US is now using all the military, diplomatic and economic pressures they can put on Pakistan to bring Pakistan army to back off. But it is not happening. NATO supplies are blocked for the last 10 days now and a major fuel and supplies crisis has begun to emerge in the Afghan theatre. US is now truly desperate but cannot go to war with a very angry nuclear armed Pakistan. Even the opinion within the US army and administration is fiercely divided on how to manage this crisis. The Zardari regime is more than willing to show the soft corner to the US but the regime is afraid of the army and the wrath of the people especially in an environment when PPP leadership has been caught in the memo scandal to the limits of treason.

Pakistan’s refusal to attend the Bonn conference has reduced the US sponsored conference to just a farce. The entire endgame of US for Afghanistan is now in crisis and jeopardy. Pakistan’s approval is necessary for future US designs for Afghanistan and now the entire exercise seems futile if Pakistan does not become a guarantor of the process. Complete meltdown of US’s military, diplomatic and economic plans for the region are now visible. The attack on Pakistan’s military post is the costliest and deadliest mistake US and NATO could make and had completely misjudged the emotions and anger in the Pakistani nation and army.

The issue has created a fatal crisis for the PPP regime as well. The treacherous regime was already at war with Pakistan army over the Memo scandal and was counting upon the US for support. But the ongoing crisis had brought the US government under pressure and instead of supporting the PPP regime; the US government is more desperate to save its own troops and supplies. PPP regime is constantly sending signals to the US that it is willing to offer all the support to the US of Washington helps it against Pak army and SC investigation into the memo. The desperation of both the US government and PPP regime is palpable.

The challenge and crisis for the US is now increasing by the day when regional powers also join in to support Pakistan. China, Russia and Iran have condemned the US strike and have demanded probe and punishment to the guilty. The regional block is now forming against the US presence in Afghanistan and this is making the Washington very nervous.

Simultaneously, frictions between Iran and NATO are also increasing by the day. This is the ultimate nightmare for the US and NATO to go to war with a combined force of Pakistan and Iran who are backed by China and Russia. Attacking Iranian and Pakistani nuclear and strategic sites is already part of the US plan but the consequences and fallouts of such reckless policy would then not be in the control of US and NATO

Within Afghanistan, while NATO scales down their operations due to fuel and supplies blockade, the Afghan resistance sees this as an opportunity to increase attacks on the trapped occupation forces. The Afghan resistance, Pakistan army and Iranian armed forces can join hands in case of a NATO attack on Pakistan or Iran and that would unleash a global war if not a regional nuclear one. The stakes are too high and deadly for the US and NATO also. InshAllah Khair for Muslims and there is zillat for the Kuffar!

https://www.facebook.com/syedzaidzamanhamid/posts/255476207840531

America's other 87 deficits

2011-11-04T06:20:00.000-07:00

Blaming China for big US trade deficits is misguided - instead, the United States should be looking squarely at itself.

The United States has a classic multilateral trade imbalance. While it runs a large trade deficit with China, it also runs deficits with 87 other countries. A multilateral deficit cannot be fixed by putting pressure on one of its bilateral components. But try telling that to the US' growing chorus of China bashers.

The US' massive trade deficit is a direct consequence of an unprecedented shortfall of domestic saving. The broadest and most meaningful measure of a country’s saving capacity is what economists call the “net national saving rate” - the combined saving of individuals, businesses and the government. It is measured in “net” terms to strip out the depreciation associated with ageing or obsolescent capacity. It provides a measure of the saving that is available to fund expansion of a country’s capital stock, and thus to sustain its economic growth.

In the US, there simply is no net saving any more. Since the fourth quarter of 2008, the US’ net national saving rate has been negative - in sharp contrast to the 6.4 per cent of GDP averaged over the last three decades of the twentieth century. Never before in modern history has the world’s leading economic power experienced a saving shortfall of such epic proportions.

Yet the US found a way to finesse this problem. Exploiting what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing called the “exorbitant privilege” of the world’s reserve currency, the US borrowed surplus savings from abroad on very attractive terms, running massive balance-of-payments, or current-account, deficits to attract foreign capital.

The US current account, which was last in balance in 1991, hit a record deficit of $801bn (6 per cent of GDP) in 2006. This gap has narrowed in the past couple of years, but much of the improvement probably reflects little more than the temporary impact of an unusually tough business cycle.

This is where the US' multilateral trade deficit enters the equation, for it has long accounted for the bulk of the balance-of-payments gap. Since 2000, the trade deficit has made up fully 96 per cent of the cumulative current-account shortfall.

And that is what ultimately makes the China-centric blame game so absurd. Without addressing the root of the problem - the US’ chronic saving shortfall - it is ludicrous to believe that there can be a bilateral solution for a multilateral problem.

Yet that is exactly what US officials, together with many prominent economists, believe the US needs. Since the trade deficit is widely thought to put pressure on US jobs and real wages, the US-China trade imbalance has come under special scrutiny in these days of great angst. Yes, China does account for the largest component of the US’ multilateral trade deficit - making up 42 per cent of the total trade gap in 2010. Conscious outsourcing and supply-chain management decisions by US multinationals play an important role in exaggerating China’s share. But that does little to let China off the hook in the eyes of Washington.

Long-standing charges of currency manipulation provide the proverbial smoking gun that US politicians - of both parties - believe justifies the imposition of steep tariffs on China’s exports to the US (which totalled $365bn in 2010). That was precisely the argument behind the US Senate’s recent overwhelming approval of a “currency bill” that took dead aim on China.

While it may be expedient to hold others accountable for the US' problems, this is bad economics driving bad politics. In an era of open-ended US government budget deficits and chronic shortfalls in personal saving, the US is doomed to suffer subpar savings and massive multilateral trade deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Closing down trade with China, while failing to address the saving shortfall, is like putting pressure on one end of a water balloon. The Chinese component of the US’ multilateral trade deficit will simply migrate somewhere else - most likely to a higher-cost producer. That would be the functional equivalent of a tax hike on beleaguered American families - hardly the solution that US politicians are promising.

This is not to ignore important US-China trade issues that need to be addressed. Market access should be high on the agenda - especially for a sluggish US economy that needs new sources of growth, like exports. With China now the US' third-largest - and by far its most rapidly growing - export market, the US should push hard to expand business opportunities in China, especially as the Chinese economy tilts increasingly toward internal demand. China should be viewed as an opportunity, not a threat.

At the same time, the US government should come clean with the American public about charges of Chinese currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. The renminbi has, in fact, appreciated by 30 per cent relative to the US dollar since mid-2005. In broad multilateral terms - a far more meaningful gauge because it measures a currency’s value against a broad cross-section of a country’s trading partners - the “real effective” renminbi currently stands about 8 per cent above its most recent 12-year average (1998-2010).

Yes, China continues to accumulate vast foreign-exchange reserves. But this is as much the result of speculators’ “hot money” plays as it is a conscious and perfectly reasonable effort by Chinese policymakers to remain focused on financial stability and manage currency appreciation in a gradual and orderly fashion.

China-bashing in the US speaks to a corrosive shift in the American psyche. It deflects attention away from those truly responsible for perpetuating the greatest saving shortfall in history. The US has been seduced by the political economy of false prosperity. That seduction has allowed the US to live beyond its means for nearly two decades. Now the game is up.

The ultimate test of any nation’s character is to look inside itself at moments of great challenge. Swept up in the blame game, the US is doing the opposite. And that could well be the greatest tragedy of all. After all, America’s 88 deficits did not arise of thin air.

http://aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111391627287175.html

Something’s Happening Here

2011-11-03T21:04:00.000-07:00

When you see spontaneous social protests erupting from Tunisia to Tel Aviv to Wall Street, it’s clear that something is happening globally that needs defining. There are two unified theories out there that intrigue me. One says this is the start of “The Great Disruption.” The other says that this is all part of “The Big Shift.” You decide.

Paul Gilding, the Australian environmentalist and author of the book “The Great Disruption,” argues that these demonstrations are a sign that the current growth-obsessed capitalist system is reaching its financial and ecological limits. “I look at the world as an integrated system, so I don’t see these protests, or the debt crisis, or inequality, or the economy, or the climate going weird, in isolation — I see our system in the painful process of breaking down,” which is what he means by the Great Disruption, said Gilding. “Our system of economic growth, of ineffective democracy, of overloading planet earth — our system — is eating itself alive. Occupy Wall Street is like the kid in the fairy story saying what everyone knows but is afraid to say: the emperor has no clothes. The system is broken. Think about the promise of global market capitalism. If we let the system work, if we let the rich get richer, if we let corporations focus on profit, if we let pollution go unpriced and unchecked, then we will all be better off. It may not be equally distributed, but the poor will get less poor, those who work hard will get jobs, those who study hard will get better jobs and we’ll have enough wealth to fix the environment.

“What we now have — most extremely in the U.S. but pretty much everywhere — is the mother of all broken promises,” Gilding adds. “Yes, the rich are getting richer and the corporations are making profits — with their executives richly rewarded. But, meanwhile, the people are getting worse off — drowning in housing debt and/or tuition debt — many who worked hard are unemployed; many who studied hard are unable to get good work; the environment is getting more and more damaged; and people are realizing their kids will be even worse off than they are. This particular round of protests may build or may not, but what will not go away is the broad coalition of those to whom the system lied and who have now woken up. It’s not just the environmentalists, or the poor, or the unemployed. It’s most people, including the highly educated middle class, who are feeling the results of a system that saw all the growth of the last three decades go to the top 1 percent.”

Not so fast, says John Hagel III, who is the co-chairman of the Center for the Edge at Deloitte, along with John Seely Brown. In their recent book, “The Power of Pull,” they suggest that we’re in the early stages of a “Big Shift,” precipitated by the merging of globalization and the Information Technology Revolution. In the early stages, we experience this Big Shift as mounting pressure, deteriorating performance and growing stress because we continue to operate with institutions and practices that are increasingly dysfunctional — so the eruption of protest movements is no surprise.

Yet, the Big Shift also unleashes a huge global flow of ideas, innovations, new collaborative possibilities and new market opportunities. This flow is constantly getting richer and faster. Today, they argue, tapping the global flow becomes the key to productivity, growth and prosperity. But to tap this flow effectively, every country, company and individual needs to be constantly growing their talents.

“We are living in a world where flow will prevail and topple any obstacles in its way,” says Hagel. “As flow gains momentum, it undermines the precious knowledge stocks that in the past gave us security and wealth. It calls on us to learn faster by working together and to pull out of ourselves more of our true potential, both individually and collectively. It excites us with the possibilities that can only be realized by participating in a broader range of flows. That is the essence of the Big Shift.”

Yes, corporations now have access to more cheap software, robots, automation, labor and genius than ever. So holding a job takes more talent. But the flip side is that individuals — individuals — anywhere can now access the flow to take online courses at Stanford from a village in Africa, to start a new company with customers everywhere or to collaborate with people anywhere. We have more big problems than ever and more problem-solvers than ever.

So there you have it: Two master narratives — one threat-based, one opportunity-based, but both involving seismic changes. Gilding is actually an optimist at heart. He believes that while the Great Disruption is inevitable, humanity is best in a crisis, and, once it all hits, we will rise to the occasion and produce transformational economic and social change (using tools of the Big Shift). Hagel is also an optimist. He knows the Great Disruption may be barreling down on us, but he believes that the Big Shift has also created a world where more people than ever have the tools, talents and potential to head it off. My heart is with Hagel, but my head says that you ignore Gilding at your peril.

You decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html?_r=1

Libya and Syria: The Neocon Plan to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years

2011-09-02T18:20:00.000-07:00

9/11 Building 7 - Martin Noakes

2011-09-02T17:36:00.000-07:00

Very Important Video: The Real Source of the British Riots

2011-08-30T07:38:00.000-07:00

French want Total control of Libyan oil

2011-08-24T10:04:00.000-07:00

One of the first members of the French team in Bengazhi in March was a representative of Total, the French oil company (AFP Photo / Patrick Kovarik)

French oil companies are likely to be among those hoping for lucrative oil contracts with a new government in Libya. But the cost of the intervention and the unknown agenda of the rebels could mean more losses than gains.

France feels like a winner as the first power to recognize Libya's rebels, the first to bomb the country and now the first in talks with rebel leaders. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe says victory gives him “great satisfaction.”

Opposition MP Jack Lang adds that “everyone can be thankful that France inspired action at the United Nations.” Corporations in states that voted for the UN intervention in Libya are certainly now rubbing their hands.

“One of the first members of the French team in Bengazhi in March was a representative of Total, the French oil company, and Total is not very far from all this of course,” says Rony Braumann, president of Doctors without Borders (1982-1994).

French oil giant Total has been named as this war's big winner. Rebel oil firm AGOCO has threatened to block Brazil, Russia and China for “political issues”. They are three states who refused strong sanctions against Gaddafi.

Those nations had vast contracts with the former regime. One Russian official says “we've lost Libya completely.”

“It's well known it's a war for oil, the so-called opposition government has promised to give the oil to France,” investigative journalist Michel Collon told RT.

France officially claims its war mission is over. But analysts tip it to secretly stay on in Libya, and make sure it profits.

France and the UK are maintaining their military presence in Libya, even though it's not part of the resolution,” Pierre Guerlain of Paris West University has said.

But keeping troops in the country means heavy costs drag on. Latest polls say most French people now oppose the military intervention. French MP and vice president of the National Front, Wallerand de Saint-Just, sees further bloodshed and a hefty price tag to deal with it.

“The war is far from over,” he said. “And this invasion is already costing much more than we get back.”

Fears are growing that Libya's new leaders are too divided to win the peace. Pierre Guerlain points to the rebels' murder of their military chief General Younes last month. Experts warn widespread rebel looting and executions mean France's problems may have only just begun.

http://rt.com/news/french-total-oil-libya-013/

Unusual Police Activity Before London Riot

2011-08-13T22:49:00.000-07:00

Live TV coverage on Sky News states that local residents report unusual police activity taking place before and after officers shot dead Mark Duggan in Tottenham, London — an incident which subsequently led a protest and riots. The local Member of Parliament says that the authorities have serious questions to answer regarding these matters.

http://www.infowars.com/unusual-police-activity-before-london-riot/

Balanced Scorecard on US defeat in Afghanstan

2011-08-08T17:13:00.000-07:00

The United States of America has lost the war in Afghanistan. It has also failed to win the peace in the Hindu Kush. It is leaving a much bigger mess that it had inheritied. Bharat had advised the US to attack both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The US did not directly invade Pakistan, but gave Islamabad a few lollipops and infiltrated the country and proliferated the state with spies and agents. During the chaos of the change in government, the Haqqani ilk stamped thousands of visas to US mercenaries and CIA agents.

The long term US strategy was to prop up Bharat, and create an Anti-China alliance forcing Pakistan to side with Bharat. Intense pressure was applied and is being applied to convince Pakistan to abandon the friendship with China and Iran and form an alliance led by Bharat. Even the likes of Zardari have been able to resist this. and its strategic partners therefore embarked upon a well-thought plan to gradually weaken Pakistan and its institutions politically, socially, economically and Keeping watch over Pakistan nukes and forcing Islamabad to accept India’s hegemony were other key objectives.

The US has had limited success in achieving its objective. It has not been able to denuclearize Pakistan, has been unable to drive a wedge into Sino-Pakistan relations and has been unable to convince the Pakistanis on forming an alliance with Delhi. Islamabad is under a lot of pressure from terrorists to make foreign policy adjustments, but has not buckled.

The Bharati role in Afghanistan has been limited to arts and crafts projects in and around Kabul–and most of the plans have been abandoned. No new projects are being started.

Instead of kowtowing to the US pressure, the youth have been radicalized and are Anti-American, rising under the leadership of Imran Khan who speaks their language. Khan is a natural byproduct of the hatred for drone attacks and the obsequious behavior of the Zardari regime. If Imran Khan did not exist, he would have been constructed.

Raymond Davis and the Abbottabad raid has woken up the Armed forces to the dangers of the infiltration and the ISI and the army is busy cataloging and then hunting down CIA spies. The Army decimated the foreign-propped insurgents in Swat region and in FATA, and rebels in Balochistan are being effectively dealt by the paramilitary forces.

The CIA infiltration is being confronted with zeal. CIA agents under the guse of military trainers have already been sent home and others are being hounded out. Three US military intelligence liaison centers in Peshawar and Quetta have been closed. The last two CIA’s Station Chiefs who were coordinating clandestine network have departed.

The CIA informants who helped CIA and US Navy Seals in conducting helicopter assault in Abbottabad have been detained for interrogation, have not released despite US pressure, and are singing like canaries in a cage. Visas to Pakistan are being scrutinized by the ISI. No US citizen can now travel from one city to the other without the knowledge and clearance of ISI.

The press is vocal and keeps a check on the government actions. Pakistan has been able to exponentially expand its nuclear arsenal and increase the number of nuclear palnts–really making the Bharatis and the Americans jittery. The new generation of Plutonium based miniaturized weapons are harder to track and easier to conceal. Kashmir remins at boiling point. Bharat has been unable to pullout a single soldier out of its over 700,000 troops deployed in occupied Kashmir.

Bharat is discussion Kashmir and has resumed dialogue with Pakistan on equal terms and not on its dictated terms.

Bin Laden’s ghost and the Talibs have avenged the death of OBL by downing a US Chinook helicopter carrying 31 US soldiers including 25 US Navy SEALs who had conducted the Abbottabad operation. This will expedite the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The US victory in eliminating Bin Laden gives the Obama Administration enough coverage to leave Afghanistan. The long term objectives of propping up the Northern Alliance, containing China, bulldozing Pakistan, threatening Iran, building Bharat as a counter-weight to Beijing, and forcing Pakistan to comply to US demands—remain elusive and seem to have failed. The US bases that will stay behind will be run over by the Afghans and the US will only be bale to respond to Aircraft Carrier based plans and drones which will have to fly over Pakistan and Iranian territory to try to contain the Talib victories.

http://www.pakistanpatriot.com/2011/08/07/balanced-scorecard-on-us-defeat-in-afghanstan/

All F-35 and F-22s grounded

2011-08-08T17:08:00.000-07:00

Over 200 of the most expensive aircrafts in the world are used by the US Military, but fleets of war planes owned by the Air Force are sitting on the sidelines, despite costing billions of dollars.

All 20 of the F-35 aircrafts in a fleet manufactured by Lockheed Martin were grounded today after the factory’s Joint Program Office (JPO) identified a failure in the plane’s electrical system while conducting tests on the ground.

An official for the JPO tells Flight International that they are investigating the problem, and once the facts are “understood,” Lockheed Martin will then decide what to do with the fleet of planes.

This F-35 fleet has been grounded three times now since October. The one plane that triggered the problem, the AF-4, has been grounded itself twice in 2011 alone.

The fleet of F-35s join 187 F-22’s purchased by the Air Force through Lockheed Martin have been out of operation since they were first acquired in 2005. Those planes, worth a total of $77.4 billion, have remained out of use since they were first added to the Military’s arsenal. In May, however, malfunctions in the oxygen system installed in the crafts caused the Air Force to indefinitely ground the fleet, this time with actual reason.

Aside from training and patrol operations, the nearly $80 billion worth of F-22s have never been used by the US Military, despite the country’s engagement in several wars.

In 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the F-22 was something the Military needed in order to defeat highly advanced enemy fighter fleets, but added, “to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict.”

http://rt.com/usa/news/f22-f35-fleet-grounded/

Tea Party screws Boehner; collateral damage for Obama

2011-07-30T10:12:00.000-07:00

Days away from default, no solution for the US debt ceiling has been reached.

On Tuesday, the United States government is planning on running out of the more than $14 trillion that DC lawmakers say the country can borrow from abroad.

As Democrats and Republicans remain unwilling to come to a compromise on the debt ceiling dilemma, the congressional crisis is spiraling into sure catastrophe as the whole world looks to the US, searching for a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, Speaker John Boehner will be able to get his fellow GOP elected leaders to save the economy of the nation and, indirectly, the entire globe.

Those lawmakers met last night before Speaker Boehner to vote once more on a hurried, hoped to be infallible proposal to save the country.

Instead, it was Pizza Day on Capitol Hill.

Hours into a quickly doomed debt discussion, pizza slices in hand, lawmakers moved forward with Thursday night’s itinerary and abandoned any talk of the debt for yet another day. Boehner brought lawmakers into his office over the course of a few hours on Thursday evening, but even his own GOP peers couldn’t be persuaded to vote yes on a debt ceiling raise.

While Boehner gave it one more go at getting a plan to action, there were post offices to be renamed and piping hot pie to be chewed and swallowed on Capitol Hill. As lawmakers licked off every last drop of marinara from their collective lips, legislation to save America went unpassed, and as the pizzapie crumbles fell from slice to box and then to the voting room floor, what was left of a Congressional Pizza Party were mere morsels. Yet, sadly, those meager leftovers are bigger of what’s left to borrow for an America preparing for default.

President Barack Obama stepped before television cameras this morning to plea to the public once again. It’s the fourth time in three weeks he has spoke on the matter of the debt ceiling and though the situation becomes more dire than ever, the president says it comes down to the same thing.

“What’s clear now is that any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan,” said President Obama. “We will have to have the support of both the House and the Senate.”

The president adds that both sides of the aisle have come up with plans that aren’t too far off from one another. Posturing needs to be put aside, however, and personal politics and career moves need to take a backseat to saving the country.

As if Boehner could not possibly have failed any bigger than his math mix-up earlier the week, he proved the world wrong on Thursday. This time he couldn’t get his own party to sign their name to his bill.

Many of those freshmen voting no against a debt ceiling raise are Republicans aligned to the Tea Party. Freedom Works, a group made up of the nay-sayers, tweeted people on Thursday to vote against a borrowing limit raise if they were on the fence. Sarah Palin urged others to do the same.

Obama added that “there are plenty of ways out of this mess but we are almost out of time.” A warning that he has given multiple times as of late. He harped that Tuesday’s deadline is days away, and if a bill isn’t before him that he can sign into law, the country will not be able to pay its bills on time, “as we always have,” he reminds the press.

“There are a lot of crises in the world that we can’t always predict,” said Obama. “This isn’t one of those.”

Reporters for the New York Times sat on Capitol Hill Thursday night and watched Republican leaders walk into Boehner’s office for a last-ditch talking to in hopes of swaying them to vote for his most recent plan. After Boehner’s bill from earlier this week was revealed to have been off by several hundred billion dollars, the House speaker went back to write up one more draft.

Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas said he was “a bloody, beaten-down no.” Representative Tim Scott of South Carolina, a freshman leadership team member, told the Times he would vote no along with the other freshman from his state.

“I am a no at the end of the day,” Scott told them. “I was leaning no. Now I am a no.”

“I am trying to find a way to vote for this bill,” Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan told the Times. “This is a step in the right direction. I wish it were a bigger step.”

President Obama echoed this morning that modifications can be made to these plans coming from both the left and the right, but a plan must be reached by Tuesday.

“This is not a situation where the two parties are miles apart,” said Obama. “Today I urge Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to find common ground.”

“This is one burden we can lift ourselves,” said Obama. “We can end it with a simple vote.” A vote, said Obama, that lawmakers have been making for decades.

“The debt ceiling does not determine how much more money we can spend,” reminds Obama, “but simply authorizes us to pay the bill what we have already racked up.”

Raising the limit, says Obama, “Gives the United States of America the ability to keep its word.”

In the meantime, lawmakers must decide if it is worth it to the American people — and an international economy that will surely be impacted by a downgrade of the US credit rating — if the world is worth of the country keeping their word.

http://rt.com/usa/news/boehner-obama-debt-vote/

US one step from default as Senate blocks House plan

2011-07-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

Democrats block Republican plan for US debt

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed a vote to raise America's debt ceiling and to cut spending, only for the Democrat-controlled Senate to block it almost immediately. Meanwhile the clock ticks toward the deadline.

The Republicans pushed their deficit-cutting plan proposed by Speaker John Boehner through by a vote of 218-to-210. But Democrats in the Senate defeated the Republican legislation, which was sharply criticized by President Barack Obama, by a vote of 59-to-41 later in the day.

However, economist Max Fraad Wolff from the New School University in New York says that none of the plans will reduce the national debt.

“They just change the speed by which it grows. A downgrade, which I think is quite possible, and the sheer spectacular public failure of the American political system will take a while to figure out. And so as, unbelievably, the worst-case scenario moves closer, it gets harder to retain your faith that we will avoid the worst outcome.”

The final decision on how to prevent America from defaulting must be made by Tuesday, August 2, or America will default on its debt. And while lawmakers still cannot agree on how to stop America's massive debt from falling off a cliff and into default, the military money's firing on all barrels to fund its overseas campaigns.

Former US Congresswoman and 2008 presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney told RT that all presidents let the war profiteers win, leaving struggling citizens to foot the bill.

“It is the same old story that the powers inside the United States can find money for war, but they can’t for the poor. And so unfortunately the many wars of President Obama, of both Democrat and Republican parties, have been taken off the table,” Cynthia McKinney said. “In the different values of the policy priorities of the republicans versus the democrats, we have clear winners and we have clear losers. But under both of the political parties the people are the clear losers. If you look at any of the statistics, whether it is family income, wealth, jobs, employment, underemployment, access to healthcare, access to quality education…the statistics that indicate the quality of life of the people of the United States…and there are very real winners in this economic arrangement of the chairs. The winners happen to be war profiteers and that is why war dollars have been taken off the table.”

http://rt.com/news/house-republican-debt-vote/

Free education fails to close India’s social divide

2011-07-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

Scence from the movie Slumdog Millionaire

More than a year has passed since the Indian government announced the unprecedented Right to Education Act, aimed at stamping out illiteracy and narrowing the country's socio-economic divide. However, the reform is facing tough challenges.

While there are nearly 200 million elementary school children in India, only half that number ever complete the eighth grade. Most end up leaving school to help their parents with domestic work or to get a job to bring in some extra money.

“I haven’t studied much, that’s why I want to educate my children,” says Lakshal Jayswal, the father of an eight-year-old girl.

After growing pressure to address the educational disparities in India, the government passed an act making it mandatory for all children between the ages of six and 14 to get a free education. It even requires elite private schools with tuition fees nearing 500 dollars per month to grant a quarter of their places to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“We are a nation of young people. The health and education and creative abilities of our children and young people will determine the value and strength of our nation,” says Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Today, there are just as many schools where students pay tuition as there are government-funded schools that are free to all. The act would allow parents to choose where they wanted to send their children to school. It would mean that students could attend elite private schools if they were lucky enough to become one of the 25 percent quota to win the ’free entrance’ lottery. It would also mean that, if social workers were able to identify and successfully enrol most children, low-budget schools with minimal tuition fees could get extremely crowded.

But the idea of free schooling in India has its opponents, with concerns being raised even by proponents of the act.

“Free schools have not resulted in quality, and I think poor parents are much smarter than that. They know quality and they want quality,” Sujatha Muthayya of the School Choice Campaign told RT.

And quality is something that the principal of one such school, Vikas Jain, knows has a different definition depending on the school. While he wants to see his students succeed, he believes that integrating Indian children from a lower class into a private school would not be practical.

“These elite schools have a very high standard. Only children whose parents are educated can study in school like these,” he explains. “Schools want to maintain their high standards and reputation. How can poor people send their children to schools like these? Because their parents are uneducated, there is no-one at home to tutor or supervise their studies or homework.”

It is a position supported by the well-off members of Indian society, as RT found out talking to people on the streets of New Delhi:

“Schools are not meant for them. They’re meant for higher-class people. Lower-class people, if they go there, they’ll get neglected,” said one passer-by.

“In a sense that he comes from a rural background, and his parents are probably labourers or whatever they are, putting him in that sort of environment – he would have trouble getting assimilated,” said another.

In spite of the mixed reception the integration model has received, for children from poor families, education remains one of the few ways to realise their dreams – dreams that may just fall through the gap of India’s socio-economic divide.

http://rt.com/news/free-education-children-school/

US plans nuclear talks with Saudi Arabia

2011-07-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

Senior officials at the White House have said that the Obama administration is planning to resume talks with Saudi Arabia about a potential nuclear cooperation.

A team of US diplomats are expected to visit the Saudi capital of Riyadh to "discuss the possibility of moving forward on a nuclear cooperation agreement," a congressional aide said on the condition of anonymity, AFP reported.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a lawmaker from the Republican Party has criticized the move, saying that "its ties to terrorists and terror financing alone should rule it out as a candidate for the US nuclear cooperation."

"I am astonished that the administration is even considering a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia," she added.
Washington and Riyadh signed a tentative agreement on developing civilian nuclear technologies in 2008.
The Obama administration, like its predecessor, has sought to promote nuclear cooperation with allies.
Washington also signed a nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2009. The deal meant that the UAE would renounce their plans to enrich and reprocess uranium in exchange of having the right to purchase the material from international suppliers.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has also been pursuing nuclear cooperation agreements with South Korea, Japan, France and Russia.
In February, 2011, France singed a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia, offering the kingdom nuclear know-how.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191546.html

The Greatest event in history

2011-06-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Americans are ready to leave Afghanistan. The OBL raid proves it. They needed a victory to hide the retreat. it is being called the last hoorah before the withdrawal. There are concerns in India and some parts of the world about the US exit from Afghanistan. The Bharatis have been asking US-led forces not to leave so early. In the Hindu Ksuh and Central Asia there is celebration.
The US has failed in the application of force. They face colossal practical problems on the ground. There is a sense that they will pull out. President Barack Obama will make this announcement as early as next month.
The Americans needed an excuse. General Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI, calls the US withdrawal “the greatest event in history”. In an interview with Tehelka magzine, he says “all the imperialists have been defeated on Afghan soil. Cracks are already showing in the NATO alliance. The US regional strategy is woven around countering China. For Europe, China is not an enemy or a threat. Therefore, India stands on the wrong side of history, backing the wrong horses.”
Wat does General Hamid Gul mean when he says “the is the greatest event in history”. An analogy to Vietnam is apt. When the US was bombing Vietnam with agent orange and fighting the Vietcong, Cambodia was feeling the pain. The American invasion gave rise to a radical group called the Khmer Rouge. Today Pakistan as the country bordering the war faces a similar radicalization. The US withdrawal from Southeast Asia, and its retreat from Vietnam changed Southeast Asia. When the US left that radicalization subsided and It allowed the countries of that part of the world to come together in an economic union called ASEAN.
Central Asia is going through a similar awakening. With the imminent withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan West Asia is once again stirring with the same emotions that allowed Taimur and Zaheeruddin Babur to head towards the Khyber and Lahore. Zaheeruding Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty wanted to unite the people of the region–and he and his progeny did that for several centuries (1526-1857).
As the American forces withdraw from Afghanistan, the radicalism that they have caused will slowly subside. Then the ECO, the equivalent of the ASEN will begin asserting itself—this is the first step towards the unity of the area.
The withdrawal of the US forces will begin in July. History will record it as coinciding with the rise of China as a world power. Already Beijing has begun to build roads, bridges, and rila links to the Arabian Sea. This is a seminal event of world history.
That’s why it is being called “the greatest event in history”.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/dress-art/the-greatest-event-in-history/215975005091669

US economy on verge of ‘Great Great Depression’?

2011-06-02T21:39:00.000-07:00

World markets fall after the US economy suffered its worst day of the year on June 1 with all signs pointing to more declines over the summer.

“We’re on the verge of a great, great depression,” opined a market strategist Peter Yastrow.

The US market was hit by falls in job growth and manufacturing which in turn abolished quarter of the Dow Jones industrial average's gains for the year thus far. As the markets opened back up on June 2 investors were reluctant to take risks as more bad news regarding the US economy is expected to be released June 3.

The Dow dropped 30 points within the first 15 minutes of open trading as market watchers anxiously await the release of US government job numbers. Thus far reports indicate claims for unemployment benefits did not shrink as much as expected, causing many people to fear a labor market recover simply is not taking place.

“We've been through a couple-week period here where basically every piece of economic data has just been awful,” John Canally of LPL Financial in Boston told the Daily Mail.

Yastrow said he has witnessed “near panic” by investors unwilling to take risks in the volatile markets.

“Interest rates are amazingly low,” he told CNBC. “We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.”

“Almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently,” noted Mike Riddell of M&G Investments.

Home prices are down, foreclosures are up. Commodity prices are rising and many Americans remain unemployed, some have even exasperated their allotted unemployment benefits, leaving them with nearly no options.

A recent report by Capital Economics found drops in first quarter home prices indicated the prices had fallen by more than they did during the Great Depression.

US Treasury Bonds have now fallen to their lowest levels since December 2010. Overall doubts about Americans economic recovery have begun to surface from more analysts as new reports compound one another with dire news.

“It looks like this recovery has hit its second ‘soft patch’, which for a recovery that is less than two years old is troubling,” pointed out Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics.

Meanwhile, Moody’s Investors Service said if America’s two political parties fail to make progress on economic growth and a solution to the debt ceiling debate, it would place the US credit rating under review for a possible downgrade.

“If there is no progress on increasing the statutory debt limit in coming weeks, it expects to place the US government’s rating under review for possible downgrade,” Moody’s said.

This threat follows similar threats by Standards and Poor.

Erica Payne, the founder of The Agenda Project explained the threat may not change the debate however. Republicans are dedicated to their Tea Party agenda of not raising the debt ceiling.

“It’s hard to negotiate with a crazy person,” she said. “They fundamentally don’t understand this.”

The Tea Party has taken over the Republican agenda, they are calling on the Republicans to do the irresponsible and illogical thing, and that is to default on debt. Defaulting is not good for anyone – America or the rest of the world.

“Since the risk of continuing stalemate has grown, if progress in negotiations is not evident by the middle of July, such a rating action is likely,” Moody’s added.

The responsible thing to do is raise the ceiling, Payne argued, failing to do so will damage the economic recovery.

She said she hoped the Moody’s warning pushed for Congress to act more quickly and reach a compromise to raise the ceiling and tackle US debt concerns. Whether they will or not remains unclear.

The US government hit its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit on May 16 and now has until August 1 to solve the problem or risk defaulting on its debts.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-economy-great-great-depression/

The Great Game–a synopsis

2011-05-30T08:08:00.000-07:00

Lord Curzon said “Whoever controls Central Asia, controls the world.” He then tried to control Afghanistan with his “On to the Oxus” policy which ended in ignominious defeat leading to the “Back to the Indus” retreat. The British never ventured into the wild wild west and Peshawar never really flew the Union Jack. The Mongols, and Alexander faced severe problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is why Afghanistan and Pakistan are often called the graveyard of empires. Archives reflect a historical a historical perspective encapsulated by Rudyard Kipling and others. This was dubbed the Great Game by the British and Russian in the 19th century.

The Anglo-Russian Great Game 1813-1907
Catherine th Great had bequeathed her progeny to control the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. This was the reason the Tsars tried to make their way down to “Kolachi jo goth” (Karachi). The so-called classical “Great Game” was about Imperial Britain and Tzarist Russia attempting to control Central Asia. Russia was expanding into Central Asia at the time. Tsarist forays into Central Asia led to British concerns that Moscow would threaten te British Empire. The Union Jack attempted to bring the wild tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan under British jurisdiction. London Afghanistan twice in an attempt to place British puppets in Kabul and other areas of the region. At the time there was no “Afghanistan”. The country was a construct of the Tsars and the British colonialists. They demarcated the borders and created a non-mans land–a buffer region between the British and Russian empires. Thus a non-entity called “Afghanistan” came into existence. For the past century, the entire world has been trying to make this entity a reality. All have failed. , the first famously ending in the complete destruction of the invading British army. The Great Game subsided a bit when ended when the the USSR came into existence –Britain ceased to exist as a world power and the Soviets were more interested in Europe than South Asia.

The Anglo-Soviet Great Game 1917-1941
The downsizing of the Ottoman Empire and the ascendancy off the USSR and Lenin’s and Stalin’s desire to extend the borders of mother Russia into unchartered territory created new tensions. Britain got embroiled in Afghanistan again. It fought a third Afghan war to settle the border between Afghanistan and the British Empire. The artifical state of Afghanistan, which had never existed in history came into being. It was sequestered on one side by the Durand Line and the other by the Amu Darya (fka Oxus). The principality of Kabul became an entity, and it brought other regions under its control. It failed miserably to create federal structures in the Hindu Kush. The advent of World War II too the rivalry to another level. Both Britain and Russia got tangled up in various webs during the Cold war.

The USSR-USA Great Game 1979-1989
There are many reasons for the invasion of Kabul by the USSR. It is said that Amin’s coup against King Zahir Shah was an attempt to change the status quo, and to realign Kabul with Washington. This was seen as a direct provocation by the progeny of Catherine the Great. To prevent the American take over of the territory between the Indus and the Oxus, the USSR sent troops in Afghanistan in 1979. Babrak Kamal supposedly rode to Moscow on a Russian tank. The Soviet troops arrived ostensibly on the request of the legal government in Kabul. The world didn’t see it that way. Pakistan was the first government to oppose the Russian expansionism, because it saw it as a direct threat to Islamabad. Delhi supported the Russian move. Moscow wanted to end the widespread tribal revolts against Kabul. For two years the Pakistanis were the only ones fighting the Russians. In 1981 the US and its allies began providing financial and military support to the Afghan freedom fighters–all routed through the ISI. Millions of Muslim kids were recruited by the CIA to fight for the US and destroy the USSR. One of those who came to fight for America was Osama Bin Laden. After the USSR withdrew out of the Hindu Kush, the US lost interest. As a parting thank you note, it delivered the Pressler Amendment to Islamabad–ten years of debilitating sanctions. Afghanistan descended into Civil War and Pakistan got the present of the Drug and Kalashnikov culture. As Imran Khan said, the American did their deed and left us to clean the mess. , leaving the mujahideen to fight it out among themselves. The Talibs were a US attempt to bring sanity to the Khyber and beyond.

American-Taliban Great Game 2001-2011
Ostensibly it was the 9/11 attack in New York that led the US to invade Afghanistan. Many claim that the Afghan invasion was planned way before September 2001. The US leveraged the Tajik led Northern Alliance to oust the Pakhtuns from power. The Taliban regime fell and was replaced by the present Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. As the Bush Administration got bogged down in Iraq and reduced its military presence the Talibs began to control most of Afghan territory. Bharat and America attempted to destabilize Pakistan using fake movements like the TTP which were constructs of RAW and the CIA. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan will begin in July 2011. The Abbotabad raid provided the US the victory needed which would precipitate a speedy withdrawal without the baggage of “Cut and Run”

As Dr. Jamil has pointed out the “Great Game” has been going on for millenia.

ANCIENT PROTO-HISTORY GREAT GAME:

If we take the history back to abt 5000 yrs ago when none had heard about Jews, Greeks, Iran, Russia– Indus river was the boundary between a rich South Asia/Punjab and impoverished West. The Akkadian-Assyrian Arabs, and their Eastern enemy mostly under control of the Elamite (Dravidian’s linguistic cousins). The game was to control South Asian trade surpluses. The Assyrian Arabs had predominant control up to the Indus–they had one tribute paying Hindu king in Punjab-Indus valley–Jibra of Malluhva. Later in history Pre -Greek era, Cyrus/Darius had wrested control of Arab lands plus the area West of Indus. After that we see Sessanid Iran on the rise after a short Greek interlude.

Lesson from all these histories is transparent–locals (now Pakistan+Afghanistan) are the owners. Pakistan controls both sides of the Indus and being a regional power (5th largest army + Nuclear arms), has the responsibility for regional peace. The US and China cannot do a thing without Pakistan. India wants to only defend ” Hindu nationalism” and will be always shy of wars. Pakistan thus directly controls even India’s future being a part of great game.

One sees the critical importance of local players. and the lessons of history (as reviewd by you) supports the future. As it is clear from ancient most history. What has really changed ? India has lost its ancient importance ” farming surpluses” feeder of the west, due to industrial revolution since 1800. India is of no military significance to west or east.

The Latest Great Game:

The new Great Game is not about the control of resources–it is about the prevention of the rise of Muslim Asia.

http://www.pakhistorian.com/?p=858&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PakistanHistorian+%28Pakistan+Historian%29

ISI gave USA Osama bin laden's death "LOLLY POP"

2011-05-10T10:16:00.000-07:00

No any single USA army man or helicopter entered in Pakistan for Abbottabad operation. so i wonder how bigger risk ISI took to plan this hoax operation just for expelling USA's obnoxious feet from this region. i really admire Pak Army With ISI, is the only patriotic pakistani institute.

CIA Announces that Next False Flag Terror Op will be Blamed on Pakistan's

2011-05-10T09:50:00.000-07:00

Killers reveal horrific details of target killings

2011-04-15T18:42:00.000-07:00

ISLAMABAD: The alleged target killers arrested by police have revealed before the Joint Interrogation Team (JIT) horrific stories of murder, rape and looting common citizens on the basis of affiliation, revenge and profiling based on the colour of their skin.

The arrested accused have told the investigators whom they killed on the orders of the high-ups. They have also explained as to who provided them the weapons and how they used to return the arms after the commission of the offence. The killers have also disclosed that girls were being used to identify targets and how mother of a person was raped as revenge because that person had developed illicit relations with mother of the rapist, when he was in jail.

One alleged killer told the JIT that he was ordered to kill Pathans and he opened fire on three persons who looked like Pathans.

According to the Sindh government’s report, the JIT comprising representatives of ISI, IB, CID Karachi, Special Branch, Pakistan Rangers, CID Sindh, Citizen Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) and Karachi Police interrogated some twenty-six alleged target killers and the report’s findings speak clearly of violence in Karachi which is being committed with ease and comfort.

One of these alleged killer, Habib-Ur-Rehman, who disclosed before the JIT that in year 2004 he, on the directions of Saad Siddiqui, killed a person of Nazimabad who used to give donation (Chanda) to the organization but had stopped. Nadeem Bihari, Zubair Kala and Danish also accompanied him in this murder. On 22-06-2009 Abdullah, a member of a political party was killed on the orders of Saad Siddiqui by him.

He also killed a meat-seller, Muhammad Naeem and a vegetable vendor Asim Hussain because of their affiliation with a political party. Orders from the top were given to him to kill Muhammad Ali too, another man.

“On 04-01-2010 Saad Siddiqui asked them to commit acts of terrorism on the orders of high command under the prevailing situation of the city to create an atmosphere of fear and harassment. He along with other members went to Liaquat Market and killed an unknown person,” JIT report reveals.

Another accused target killer Muhammad Sultan alias Couple has also been involved in six events of target killing. One Aamir Pundit was killed in January 2010. Pundit was killed on suspicion of being a police informer.

Muhammad Yasin another alleged target killer explained before the investigators his acts of dacoity, murders and rape. He was wanted in twelve FIRs of murder and illict weapons at the time of his arrest.

He along with co-accused Abu Huraira killed drugs dealer Noorul Ameen in 2009 by firing with a Kalashnikov. After killing the said person, he went to safe house while Abu Huraira took Kalashnikov to unit no 76 as the same belonged to the said unit. He also disclosed to have opened fire on Pathan labourers in a brick kiln.

He with Amir Topi, Rashid and Papo Kania picked up Zia-ur-Rehman from the area of Ibrahim Hyderi and brought him to Unit 76 in the Cultus car of Amir Topi. Zia was kept in the unit for whole day during which the boys of the unit obtained different information and also tortured him. After obtaining the required information Zia was killed and his dead body was thrown at the beach of Ibrahim Hyderi. Zia was killed because he had created his own group in the area and was creating problems.

He and his associates went to attend the marriage ceremony of brother of their associate Saleem Bengali where he along with co-accused Mansoor, Rafiq Rikshaw wala, Sher Ali and Ismail committed robbery in three houses belonging to Yousaf, his mother and their neighbour. The motive behind committing robbery in the house of Yousaf was that while Mansoor was in jail, his mother used to visit him in court and jail with Yousaf and due to such interaction his (Mansoor’s) mother had developed illicit relation with yousaf and to have revenge for this act of Yousaf, Mansoor committed robbery in the house of Yousaf and his mother during which he (Mansoor) also raped Yousaf’s mother. He is also involved in killing of four persons who had developed their own group in the area.

Abdul Nasir alias Commando who was gunman of Asif Hussain MNA and was involved in at least ten events of target killing since 1993 has also been interrogated by the investigators and one of his targets was Matti Pehalwan who was a drug dealer and used to give small amount of extortion money (Bhatta). In 2004 he killed Zubair Tunda to get himself reinstated in the party as Zubair had grown links with underworld. He was also part of the team that fired rocket launchers on Bait ul Hamza, in 1996.

Another alleged killer Imran Ali alias Lamba Irfan disclosed that he was leader of the killer squad in Unit 66-B. He further disclosed that on the orders of the high-ups to kill Pathans he opened fire at three persons looking to be pathan near Imam Bargah Mehdi Akhar-uz-Zaman Gulistan-e-Johar. “Directions were received from unit office to kill Pathans”.

He also set on fire, a paint shop owned by a Pathan in Sunny Pride Gulistan-e-Johar after the killing of MPA. A Pathan Naseer Khan was also injured by him in a furniture market in Gulistan-e-Johar. Apart from killing Pathans and being involved in acts of dacoity and murder, Imran also set ablaze 7/8 wooden carts of Pathans at Johar Chowrangi.

Shariq Nafees alias Sheri, another accused target killer, disclosed that he had killed two motorcyclists by firing along with accused accomplices Imran alias Irfan, Zain and Atif Rasheed at Gohar More. Imran asked them to execute the murder, while Adnan former unit in charge 66-B said to Imran.

He also fired on a car with the accomplices of Atif, Zain and Imran at King Residency opposite Rabia City block 13 Gulistan-e-Johar Karachi resulting in killing of Furqan Butt alias Aamir, Saqib Warriach and Fazal Rahim affiliated with ANP. Plan was made at Good Broast Fast Food. Directions were given by Shahid unit Incharge 66-B to Adnan telephonically. Weapons were supplied by Adnan. No of Car ABU-221 was given by Adnan to Imran. After commission of offence they again gathered at Good Broast and handed weapons over to Imran.

He also opened fire on two gate-keepers that resulted in killing of a Pathan and a Seraiki. He is also involved in dacoity at Haleem Ghar, Iqra Complex, Johar Chowrangi, Gulistan-e-Johar. The accused disclosed that he took assistance/help of Adnan from girl friends Misal of Drigh Road and Komal of flats near Allah Din Park in target killing. Atif Rasheed alias Gandari, Kasoda another arrested killer accompanied Shariq in almost all incidents of killing and dacoity.

Ikramullah, another alleged target killer, has disclosed to have murdered a boy of a political party on the orders of Shaukat Bhai unit in charge 108, Shah Faisal Colony. He along with Atif Rasheed, Imran, Irfan and Zain, also killed two persons Fayyaz Kala (President Youth Wing SF Colony) and Amjad (PPI) at Rashid Minhas Road near Alladin Park on 13 July, 2010.

He also confessed putting a shoe store on fire after murdering an MPA. He further disclosed having fired along with accused accomplices Salman Saloo, Shaukat, Rafiq and Noni resulting in injuries to many persons.

Syed Abu Irfan alias Irfi confessed having killed DSP Nawaz Ranjha on the orders of Ishtiaq Policewala and Agha Sahib. Agha gets instructions from London, he told the investigators. He did not know what was the reason of killing DSP but he only got orders and fired six bullets into the body of DSP.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=5330&Cat=13&dt=4%2F15%2F2011

The Great Islamophobic Crusade

2011-03-06T06:26:00.000-08:00

Max Blumenthal: Meet the Bizarre Cabal Behind an Increasingly Paranoid Crusade

(CBS) Max Blumenthal is a writing fellow for the Nation Institute and author of the bestselling book Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party (Nation Books). This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.
Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country.

With it has gone an outburst of arson attacks on mosques, campaigns to stop their construction, and the branding of the Muslim-American community, overwhelmingly moderate, as a hotbed of potential terrorist recruits. The frenzy has raged from rural Tennessee to New York City, while in Oklahoma, voters even overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the implementation of Sharia law in American courts (not that such a prospect existed). This campaign of Islamophobia wounded President Obama politically, as one out of five Americans have bought into a sustained chorus of false rumors about his secret Muslim faith. And it may have tainted views of Muslims in general; an August 2010 Pew Research Center poll revealed that, among Americans, the favorability rating of Muslims had dropped by 11 points since 2005.

Erupting so many years after the September 11th trauma, this spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry might seem oddly timed and unexpectedly spontaneous. But think again: it’s the fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era. It was then that embittered conservative forces, voted out of power in 2008, sought with remarkable success to leverage cultural resentment into political and partisan gain.

This network is obsessively fixated on the supposed spread of Muslim influence in America. Its apparatus spans continents, extending from Tea Party activists here to the European far right. It brings together in common cause right-wing ultra-Zionists, Christian evangelicals, and racist British soccer hooligans. It reflects an aggressively pro-Israel sensibility, with its key figures venerating the Jewish state as a Middle Eastern Fort Apache on the front lines of the Global War on Terror and urging the U.S. and various European powers to emulate its heavy-handed methods.

Little of recent American Islamophobia (with a strong emphasis on the “phobia”) is sheer happenstance. Years before Tea Party shock troops massed for angry protests outside the proposed site of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, representatives of the Israel lobby and the Jewish-American establishment launched a campaign against pro-Palestinian campus activism that would prove a seedbed for everything to come. That campaign quickly -- and perhaps predictably -- morphed into a series of crusades against mosques and Islamic schools which, in turn, attracted an assortment of shady but exceptionally energetic militants into the network’s ranks.

Besides providing the initial energy for the Islamophobic crusade, conservative elements from within the pro-Israel lobby bankrolled the network’s apparatus, enabling it to influence the national debate. One philanthropist in particular has provided the beneficence to propel the campaign ahead. He is a little-known Los Angeles-area software security entrepreneur named Aubrey Chernick, who operates out of a security consulting firm blandly named the National Center for Crisis and Continuity Coordination. A former trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has served as a think tank for the American Israel Policy Action Committee (AIPAC), a frontline lobbying group for Israel, Chernick is said to be worth $750 million.

Chernick’s fortune is puny compared to that of the billionaire Koch Brothers, extraction industry titans who fund Tea Party-related groups like Americans for Prosperity, and it is dwarfed by the financial empire of Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media baron who is one of the largest private donors to the Democratic party and recently matched $9 million raised for the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces in a single night. However, by injecting his money into a small but influential constellation of groups and individuals with a narrow agenda, Chernick has had a considerable impact.

Through the Fairbrook Foundation, a private entity he and his wife Joyce control, Chernick has provided funding to groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and CAMERA, a right-wing, pro-Israel, media-watchdog outfit, to violent Israeli settlers living on Palestinian lands and figures like the pseudo-academic author Robert Spencer, who is largely responsible for popularizing conspiracy theories about the coming conquest of the West by Muslim fanatics seeking to establish a worldwide caliphate. Together, these groups spread hysteria about Muslims into Middle American communities where immigrants from the Middle East have recently settled, and they watched with glee as likely Republican presidential frontrunners from Mike Huckabee to Sarah Palin promoted their cause and parroted their tropes. Perhaps the only thing more surprising than the increasingly widespread appeal of Islamophobia is that, just a few years ago, the phenomenon was confined to a few college campuses and an inner city neighborhood, and that it seemed like a fleeting fad that would soon pass from the American political landscape.

Birth of a Network

The Islamophobic crusade was launched in earnest at the peak of George W. Bush’s prestige when the neoconservatives and their allies were riding high. In 2003, three years after the collapse of President Bill Clinton’s attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue and in the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq, a network of Jewish groups, ranging from ADL and the American Jewish Committee to AIPAC, gathered to address what they saw as a sudden rise in pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses nationwide. That meeting gave birth to the David Project, a campus advocacy group led by Charles Peters, who had co-founded CAMERA, one of the many outfits bankrolled by Chernick. With the help of public relations professionals, Peters conceived a plan to “take back the campus by influencing public opinion through lectures, the Internet, and coalitions,” as a memo produced at the time by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company stated.

In 2004, after conferring with Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the pro-Israel think tank where Chernoff had served as a trustee, Peters produced a documentary film that he called Columbia Unbecoming. It was filled with claims from Jewish students at Columbia University claiming they had endured intimidation and insults from Arab professors. The film portrayed that New York City school’s Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures as a hothouse of anti-Semitism.

In their complaints, the students focused on one figure in particular: Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor of Middle East studies. He was known for his passionate advocacy of the formation of a binational state between Israel and Palestine, as well as for his strident criticism of what he termed “the racist character of Israel.” The film identified him as “one of the most dangerous intellectuals on campus,” while he was featured as a crucial villain in The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, a book by the (Chernick-funded) neoconservative activist David Horowitz. As Massad was seeking tenure at the time, he was especially vulnerable to this sort of wholesale assault.

When the controversy over Massad’s views intensified, Congressman Anthony Weiner, a liberal New York Democrat who once described himself as a representative of “the ZOA [Zionist Organization of America] wing of the Democratic Party,” demanded that Columbia President Lee Bollinger, a renowned First Amendment scholar, fire the professor. Bollinger responded by issuing uncharacteristically defensive statements about the “limited” nature of academic freedom.

In the end, however, none of the charges stuck. Indeed, the testimonies in the David Project film were eventually either discredited or never corroborated. In 2009, Massad earned tenure after winning Columbia’s prestigious Lionel Trilling Award for excellence in scholarship.

Having demonstrated its ability to intimidate faculty members and even powerful university administrators, however, Kramer claimed a moral victory in the name of his project, boasting to the press that “this is a turning point.” While the David Project subsequently fostered chapters on campuses nationwide, its director set out on a different path -- initially, into the streets of Boston in 2004 to oppose the construction of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

For nearly 15 years, the Islamic Society of Boston had sought to build the center in the heart of Roxbury, the city’s largest black neighborhood, to serve its sizable Muslim population. With endorsements from Mayor Thomas Menino and leading Massachusetts lawmakers, the mosque’s construction seemed like a fait accompli -- until, that is, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Boston Herald and his local Fox News affiliate snapped into action. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby also chimed in with a series of reports claiming the center’s plans were evidence of a Saudi Arabian plot to bolster the influence of radical Islam in the United States, and possibly even to train underground terror cells.

It was at this point that the David Project entered the fray, convening elements of the local pro-Israel community in the Boston area to seek strategies to torpedo the project. According to emails obtained by the Islamic Society’s lawyers in a lawsuit against the David Project, the organizers settled on a campaign of years of nuisance lawsuits, along with accusations that the center had received foreign funding from “the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia or… the Moslem Brotherhood.”

In response, a grassroots coalition of liberal Jews initiated inter-faith efforts aimed at ending a controversy that had essentially been manufactured out of thin air and was corroding relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities in the city. Peters would not, however, relent. “We are more concerned now than we have ever been about a Saudi influence of local mosques,” he announced at a suburban Boston synagogue in 2007.

After paying out millions of dollars in legal bills and enduring countless smears, the Islamic Society of Boston completed the construction of its community center in 2008. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, nothing came of the David Project’s dark warnings. As Boston-area National Public Radio reporter Philip Martin reflected in September 2010, “The horror stories that preceded [the center’s] development seem shrill and histrionic in retrospect.”

The Network Expands

This second failed campaign was, in the end, more about movement building than success, no less national security. The local crusade established an effective blueprint for generating hysteria against the establishment of Islamic centers and mosques across the country, while galvanizing a cast of characters who would form an anti-Muslim network which would gain attention and success in the years to come.

In 2007, these figures coalesced into a proto-movement that launched a new crusade, this time targeting the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a secular Arabic-English elementary school in Brooklyn, New York. Calling their ad hoc pressure group, Stop the Madrassah -- madrassah being simply the Arab word for “school” -- the coalition’s activists included an array of previously unknown zealots who made no attempt to disguise their extreme views when it came to Islam as a religion, as well as Muslims in America. Their stated goal was to challenge the school’s establishment on the basis of its violation of the church-state separation in the U.S. Constitution. The true aim of the coalition, however, was transparent: to pressure the city’s leadership to adopt an antagonistic posture towards the local Muslim community.

The activists zeroed in on the school’s principal, Debbie Almontaser, a veteran educator of Yemeni descent, and baselessly branded her “a jihadist” as well as a 9/11 denier. They also accused her of -- as Pamela Geller, a far-right blogger just then gaining prominence put it, “whitewash[ing] the genocide against the Jews.” Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative academic previously active in the campaigns against Joseph Massad and the Boston Islamic center (and whose pro-Likud think tank, Middle East Forum, has received $150,000 from Chernick) claimed the school should not go ahead because “Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage.” As the campaign reached a fever pitch, Almontaser reported that members of the coalition were actually stalking her wherever she went.

Given what Columbia Journalism School professor and former New York Times reporter Samuel Freedman called “her clear, public record of interfaith activism and outreach,” including work with the New York Police Department and the Anti-Defamation League after the September 11th attacks, the assault on Almontaser seemed little short of bizarre -- until her assailants discovered a photograph of her wearing a T-shirt produced by AWAAM, a local Arab feminist organization, that read “Intifada NYC.” (“As AWAAM provides young women with opportunities to become active as community organizers and media producers, ‘intifada NYC’ is a call for empowerment, service, civic participation and critical thinking in our communities,” the organization explained once the controversy erupted.)

Having found a way to wedge the emotional issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict into a previously New York-centered campaign, the school’s opponents next gained a platform at the Murdoch-owned New York Post, where reporters Chuck Bennett and Jana Winter claimed her T-shirt was “apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple.” While Almontaser attempted to explain to the Post’s reporters that she rejected terrorism, the Anti-Defamation League chimed in on cue. ADL spokesman Oren Segal told the Post: “The T-shirt is a reflection of a movement that increasingly lauds violence against Israelis instead of rejecting it. That is disturbing.”

Before any Qassam rockets could be launched from Almonstaser’s school, her former ally New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg caved to the growing pressure and demanded her resignation, prompting the state’s Department of Education to fire her. A Jewish principal who spoke no Arabic replaced Almontaser, who later filed a lawsuit against the city for breaching her free speech rights. In 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that New York’s Department of Education had “succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel” by firing Almontaser and urged it pay her $300,000 in damages. The commission also concluded that the Post had quoted her misleadingly.

Though it failed to stop the establishment of the Khalil Gibran Academy, the burgeoning anti-Muslim movement succeeded in forcing city leaders to bend to its will, and having learned just how to do that, then moved on in search of more high-profile targets. As the New York Times reported at the time, "The fight against the school... was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle."

“It’s a battle that has really just begun,” Pipes told the Times.
From Scam to Publicity Coup

Pipes couldn’t have been more on the mark. In late 2009, the Islamophobes sprang into action again when the Cordoba Initiative, a non-profit Muslim group headed by Feisal Abdul Rauf, an exceedingly moderate Sufi Muslim imam who regularly traveled abroad representing the United States at the behest of the State Department, announced that it was going to build a community center in downtown New York City. With the help of investors, Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative purchased space two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. The space was to contain a prayer area as part of a large community center that would be open to everyone in the neighborhood.

None of these facts mattered to Pamela Geller. Thanks to constant prodding at her blog, Atlas Shrugged, Geller made Cordoba’s construction plans a national issue, provoking fervent calls from conservatives to protect the “hallowed ground” of 9/11 from creeping Sharia. (That the “mosque” would have been out of sight of Ground Zero and that the neighborhood was, in fact, filled with everything from strip clubs to fast-food joints didn't matter.) Geller’s activism against Cordoba House earned the 52-year-old full-time blogger the attention she apparently craved, including a long profile in the New York Times and frequent cable news spots, especially, of course, on Fox News.

Mainstream reporters tended to focus on Geller’s bizarre stunts. She posted a video of herself splashing around in a string bikini on a Fort Lauderdale beach, for instance, while ranting about “left-tards” and “Nazi Hezbollah.” Her call for boycotting Campbell’s Soup because the company offered halal -- approved under Islamic law (as kosher food is under Jewish law) -- versions of its products got her much attention, as did her promotion of a screed claiming that President Barack Obama was the illegitimate lovechild of Malcolm X.

Geller had never earned a living as a journalist. She supported herself with millions of dollars in a divorce settlement and life insurance money from her ex-husband. He died in 2008, a year after being indicted for an alleged $1.3 million scam he was accused of running out of a car dealership he co-owned with Geller. Independently wealthy and with time on her hands, Geller proved able indeed when it came to exploiting her strange media stardom to incite the already organized political network of Islamophobes to intensify their crusade.

She also benefited from close alliances with leading Islamophobes from Europe. Among Geller’s allies was Andrew Gravers, a Danish activist who formed the group Stop the Islamicization of Europe, and gave it the unusually blunt motto: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Gravers’ group inspired Geller’s own U.S.-based outfit, Stop the Islamicization of America, which she formed with her friend Robert Spencer, a pseudo-scholar from Great Britain whose bestselling books, including The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, prompted former advisor to President Richard Nixon and Muslim activist Robert Crane to call him, “the principal leader… in the new academic field of Muslim bashing.” (According to the website Politico, almost $1 million in donations from Chernick has been steered to Spencer’s Jihad Watch group through David Horowitz’s Freedom Center.)

Perfect sources for Republican political figures in search of the next hot-button cause, their rhetoric found its way into the talking points of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin as they propelled the crusade against Cordoba House into the national spotlight. Gingrich soon compared the community center to a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, while Palin called it “a stab in the heart” of “the Heartland.” Meanwhile, Tea Party candidates like Republican Ilario Pantano, an Iraq war veteran who killed two unarmed Iraqi civilians, shooting them 60 times -- he even stopped to reload -- made their opposition to Cordoba House the centerpiece of midterm congressional campaigns conducted hundreds of miles from Ground Zero.
Geller’s campaign against “the mosque at Ground Zero” gained an unexpected assist and a veneer of legitimacy from established Jewish leaders like Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman. “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he remarked to the New York Times. Comparing the bereaved family members of 9-11 victims to Holocaust survivors, Foxman insisted, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Soon enough, David Harris, director of the (Chernick-funded) American Jewish Committee, was demanding that Cordoba’s leaders be compelled to reveal their “true attitudes” about Palestinian militant groups before construction on the center was initiated. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles, another major Jewish group, insisted it would be “insensitive” for Cordoba to build near “a cemetery,” though his organization had recently been granted permission from the municipality of Jerusalem to build a “museum of tolerance” to be called The Center for Human Dignity directly on top of the Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim graveyard that contained thousands of gravesites dating back 1,200 years.

Inspiration from Israel

It was evident from the involvement of figures like Gravers and Spencer that the Islamophobic network in the United States represented a trans-Atlantic expansion of simmering resentment in Europe. There, the far-right was storming to victories in parliamentary elections across the continent in part by appealing to the simmering anti-Muslim sentiments of voters in rural and working-class communities. The extent of the collaboration between European and American Islamophobes has only continued to grow with Geller, Spencer, and even Gingrich standing beside Europe’s most prominent anti-Muslim figure, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, at a rally against Cordoba House. In the meantime, Geller was issuing statements of support for the English Defense League, a band of unreconstructed neo-Nazis and former members of the whites-only British National Party who intimidate Muslims in the streets of cities like Birmingham and London.

In addition, the trans-Atlantic Islamophobic crusade has stretched into Israel, a country that has come to symbolize the network’s fight against the Muslim menace. As Geller told the New York Times’ Alan Feuer, Israel is “a very good guide because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man.”

EDL members regularly wave Israeli flags at their rallies, while Wilders claims to have formed his views about Muslims during the time he worked on an Israeli cooperative farm in the 1980s. He has, he says, visited the country more than 40 times since to meet with rightist political allies like Aryeh Eldad, a member of the Israeli Knesset and leader of the far right Hatikvah faction of the National Union Party. He has called for forcibly “transferring” the Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied West Bank to Jordan and Egypt. On December 5th, for example, Wilders traveled to Israel for a “friendly” meeting with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, then declared at a press conference that Israel should annex the West Bank and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan.

In the apocalyptic clash of civilizations the global anti-Muslim network has sought to incite, tiny armed Jewish settlements like Yitzar, located on the hills above the occupied Palestinian city of Nablus, represent front-line fortresses. Inside Yitzar’s state-funded yeshiva, a rabbi named Yitzhak Shapira has instructed students in what rules must be applied when considering killing non-Jews. Shapira summarized his opinions in a widely publicized book, Torat HaMelech, or The King’s Torah. Claiming that non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature,” Shapira cited rabbinical texts to declare that gentiles could be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “There is justification,” the rabbi proclaimed, “for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In 2006, the rabbi was briefly held by Israeli police for urging his supporters to murder all Palestinians over the age of 13. Two years later, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, he signed a rabbinical letter in support of Israeli Jews who had brutally assaulted two Arab youths on the country's Holocaust Remembrance Day. That same year, Shapira was arrested as a suspect in helping orchestrate a rocket attack against a Palestinian village near Nablus.

Though he was not charged, his name came up again in connection with another act of terror when, in January 2010, the Israeli police raided his settlement seeking vandals who had set fire to a nearby mosque. One of Shapira's followers, an American immigrant, Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze'ev Sternhell with a mail bomb.

What does all this have to do with Islamophobic campaigns in the United States? A great deal, actually. Through New York-based tax-exempt non-profits like the Central Fund of Israel and Ateret Cohenim, for instance, the omnipresent Aubrey Chernick has sent tens of thousands of dollars to support the Yitzar settlement, as well as to the messianic settlers dedicated to “Judaizing” East Jerusalem. The settlement movement’s leading online news magazine, Arutz Sheva, has featured Geller as a columnist. A friend of Geller’s, Beth Gilinsky, a right-wing activist with a group called the Coalition to Honor Ground Zero and the founder of the Jewish Action Alliance (apparently run out of a Manhattan real estate office), organized a large rally in New York City in April 2010 to protest the Obama administration’s call for a settlement freeze.

Among Chernick’s major funding recipients is a supposedly “apolitical” group called Aish Hatorah that claims to educate Jews about their heritage. Based in New York and active in the fever swamps of northern West Bank settlements near Yitzar, Aish Hatorah shares an address and staff with a shadowy foreign non-profit called the Clarion Fund. During the 2008 U.S. election campaign, the Clarion Fund distributed 28 million DVDs of a propaganda film called Obsession as newspaper inserts to residents of swing states around the country. The film featured a who’s who of anti-Muslim activists, including Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed “former PLO terrorist.” Among Shoebat’s more striking statements: “A secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than is Islamofascism today.” At a Christian gathering in 2007, this “former Islamic terrorist” told the crowd that Islam was a “satanic cult” and that he had been born again as an evangelical Christian. In 2008, however, the Jerusalem Post, a right-leaning newspaper, exposed him as a fraud, whose claims to terrorism were fictional.

Islamophobic groups registered only a minimal impact during the 2008 election campaign. Two years later, however, after the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in midterm elections, the network appears to have reached critical mass. Of course, the deciding factor in the election was the economy, and in two years, Americans will likely vote their pocketbooks again. But that the construction of a single Islamic community center or the imaginary threat of Sharia law were issues at all reflected the influence of a small band of locally oriented activists, and suggested that when a certain presidential candidate who has already been demonized as a crypto-Muslim runs for reelection, the country’s most vocal Islamophobes could once again find a national platform amid the frenzied atmosphere of the campaign.

By now, the Islamophobic crusade has gone beyond the right-wing pro-Israel activists, cyber-bigots, and ambitious hucksters who conceived it. It now belongs to leading Republican presidential candidates, top-rated cable news hosts, and crowds of Tea Party activists. As the fervor spreads, the crusaders are basking in the glory of what they accomplished. “I didn’t choose this moment,” Geller mused to the New York Times, “this moment chose me.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/opinion/main7166626.shtml

SALAFISM ON THE RISE IN EGYPT CAIRO

2011-03-06T06:15:00.000-08:00

1.(C) Summary: Increasing religious conservatism, a trend in Egypt over the past two decades, is taking on a new dimension; over the past several years, Egypt has witnessed a striking increase in Salafism, a fundamentalist Sunni movement that seeks to emulate the Islam practiced during the time of the Prophet Mohammed, and whose adherents disavow "modern" activities such as politics. Although there are no reliable statistics available to measure this shift, Salafis are increasingly visible among Egypt's lower and middle classes, in universities and on city streets. Some of our contacts characterize their rising appeal as a "major societal shift," and assert that Salafi preachers have more influence with Egyptians than the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), a group which Salafists criticize due to its engagement in politics. While there are several Salafi groups in Egypt, there appears to be no centralized leadership or infrastructure, and the various organizations seem focused on activities promoting their philosophical approach to Islam. The 10-12 Salafi-themed satellite TV channels broadcasting from Egypt have been key in its spread, as has alleged Saudi funding. Other factors cited in the Salafi upsurge include widespread popular frustration with governmental religious institutions, and a largely passive GOE approach towards burgeoning Salafi ideology. Increasingly, Egyptian political elites are uneasy about the rising popular resonance of Salafis, concerned that, although the Egyptian groups do not currently advocate violence, their extreme interpretation of Islam creates an environment where susceptibility to radicalism and jihadi ideas is heightened. As one contact opined, citing the experiences of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri and September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, both of whom attended Salafi mosques in Cairo, Salafism "is a bridge to extremism." End summary. ------------------------------- SALAFIS, SALAFIS EVERYWHERE ... -------------------------------

2.(C) Strolling through Cairo and Alexandria's lower and middle-class neighborhoods, one cannot help but notice the proliferation of niqabs (full facial veils, exposing only the eyes) on women, and the mid-calf galabiyah robe and untrimmed beards favored by male Salafis, who believe such an appearance emulates the dress of the Prophet Mohammed and his wives. Only ten years ago, the niqab was virtually absent from Cairo's streets; today, an Egyptian woman wearing a headscarf riding on Cairo's metro will often be harassed by her peers for not sporting a niqab, and an unveiled woman will be the target of either derision, or earnest proselytizing as to why she must take on the facial cover. Egypt's famed annual Book Fair, once a hotbed of liberal thought, has taken a distinct conservative turn in recent years, with Salafi literature competing with the other books available. Ask a Cairo taxi driver or street vendor about Salafi preachers Mohamed Yaqoub or Mohamed Hassan, and you will be treated to a paean about the men, and how superior they are to "corrupt" and "slavish government employees" at Al Azhar, the ten-century old Sunni religious institution generally revered by most Egyptians.

3.(C) There is consensus among a wide array of our contacts - politicians, academics, analysts, and "ordinary" Egyptians - that Salafism is on the rise, with some characterizing it as "a wave sweeping the country" and "nothing short of a major societal shift." While there are no formal statistics available to support this contention, anecdotally, it does seem that Salafis are experiencing an upsurge. Salafis are not a majority among Cairo's population, but do constitute a noticeable minority. Some contacts have opined that leading Salafi preachers now have more sway with Egyptians than the influential Muslim Brotherhood (MB). A former MB member and current leader of the centrist Islamist "Wasat" party, lamented to us the conservative trend, noting that that during a recent trip to his rural home-town of Minya, several nieces who six months before had been moderately religious, had donned the niqab, and were separating themselves from all male contact. College professors in Cairo and Ismailiya have complained to us that many of their female students will no longer shake their hands; the academics wring their own hands over what they see as "a Salafi wave of intolerance that is chipping away at our traditional Egyptian identity." A recent op-ed in the independent newspaper "Al Masry Al Yom" discussed the "transformation" of western Cairo; the article was titled "Monaqabat Street" (the street of the niqab-wearing women), and highlighted the increased number of niqab-clad women, men in short galabeyas, and numerous Salafi books for sale in the area. The author wrote, "(The neighborhood) has many Islamic bookstores, but readers there CAIRO 00000202 002 OF 004 do not buy the writings of Al Azhar sheikhs ... They criticize revered Muslim scholars, and instead prefer preachers like Mahmoud Al Masry, Mohamed Hussein Yaqoub, and Mohamed Hassan, all stars on the satellite channels these days. (Moderate) Muslim preacher Amr Khaled has no place here, perhaps because of his modern appearance. In addition, his books, people there say, are just stories, not suitable for those who want to read religious tomes." ----------------------------- WHY THE INCREASE IN SALAFISM? -----------------------------

4.(C) In addition to the regularly cited factors behind an overall increased piety among Egyptians - poverty, and the conservative influences that the millions of Egyptians working in the Gulf bring back to Egypt with them - most observers also point to "the total lack of credibility of the leaders of the Al Azhar religious establishment" as creating a vacuum of religious leadership that Salafi preachers are filling. We heard repeatedly that "Al Azhar has no legitimacy" and "it is viewed as just doing the government's bidding, issuing pro-regime fatwas whenever Hosni Mubarak wants it." While the institution is respected for its illustrious history, the Al Azhar leadership now has little street credibility, and is tarred as being a government agent. Thus many Egyptians, disenchanted with the regime, shy away from Al Azhar, and seek religious guidance elsewhere.

5.(C) There are 10-12 Salafi-themed TV channels broadcasting from Egypt on Nilesat, most of which started-up since 2003. The most popular are Al Nas ("The People"), Al Rahma ("The Mercy"), and Al Fajr ("The Dawn"). All feature religious programming, focused on the sermonizing of prominent Salafi preachers, and some programs on social issues. The role of these channels in furthering Salafi appeal in Egypt is substantial. One expert in Islamist movements at Egypt's Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies describes Egypt's experience as "satellite Salafism": "These channels are reaching people in ways that mosques and local preachers never could, and furthering Salafi thought, as well as the popularity of particular shaykhs."

6.(C) Analysts also point to Salafist charity work as another key factor in their growth. Taking a page out of the MB's playbook, Salafis have focused on providing social services, such as funding medical treatment or educational assistance for lower-income Egyptians. The two largest Salafi organizations in Egypt - Gamey'ah Shar'iah and Ansar al Sunna - are registered NGO's with the Ministry of Social Solidarity. According to their own descriptions, they offer health-care services and literacy classes, in addition to preaching and Quran recitation classes. Conventional wisdom is that funding for both groups comes from Saudi Arabia, and from wealthy Egyptians living in the Gulf. The Minister of Islamic Endowments ("Awqaf") Hamdy Zakzouk, was recently quoted in the press as stating that both organizations, as well as Al Sunna Al Mohammedeya, another Egypt-based Salafi NGO, "receive significant funding from Saudi Arabia."

7.(C) Perhaps one of the most potent factors in facilitating the spread of Salafism has been the GOE's largely passive approach to it. As one contact commented, "the government is consumed with the political threat posed by the MB. In contrast, while not encouraging non-violent Salafi groups, it is not actively opposing them." He cited the oppressive limitations imposed on the MB and opposition political parties, as contrasted with the relatively free operating environment that Salafists enjoy. A frustrated leader of the opposition Tagammu party complained that "Salafis are allowed to broadcast programming on over ten channels in Egypt, but I and my opposition colleagues are not allowed to run a TV station, or produce political party programming!" Some oppositionists speculate that the GOE is happy to allow the unfettered spread of Salafi ideology, viewing it as drawing popular support away from the MB. Two analysts on Islamist movements caution that the regime "is playing a very dangerous and foolhardy game": by allowing numerous Salafi TV channels to broadcast, and not restraining the activities of Salafi groups, they fear the GOE is making the same mistake Sadat did in the 1970's when he encouraged the activities of Islamist groups as a counter-balance to the then-powerful leftist opposition, and ended up opening a Pandora's box of violent Islamism that resulted in his assassination.

8.(C) Another expert on political Islam lamented the GOE's "huge mistake" in fighting the MB, "which espouses moderate Islam, political participation, and gradual political change through democratic means," rather than challenging Salafis, "who view democracy as an infidel idea, do not believe in CAIRO 00000202 003 OF 004 gradual change or political participation, but rather a wholesale shift in political systems and religious attitudes." He posited that the Salafi creed of "obedience to the ruler" resonates more with the GOE than the MB's message of political change. Some contacts fretted that the GOE's decreasing tolerance for the MB, an organization which they view as serving as a "fairly responsible, non-violent, and organized" release valve for some of the societal and political pressures in Egypt, will back-fire, driving frustrated MB members towards the less centralized, and therefore less controllable, and more extreme Salafis, and also possibly accelerating the rise of a Salafi-wing of the MB. ------------------ SALAFIS VS. THE MB ------------------

9.(C) The MB-Salafi dynamic is far from warm, fueled by the inherent tension between the two movements' worldviews, with the MB embracing political participation and a less extreme form of Islam, and the Salafists adhering to a more fundamentalist belief system and rejecting politics. MB leaders and prominent Salafis routinely denounce each other in the press for being agents of the security services. According to our contacts who regularly meet with the MB, the "moderate" leadership of the organization is aggressively anti-Salafi, and concerned by "Salafi creep" in Egyptian society. More conservative MB leaders are allegedly more agnostic towards the Salafists, asserting that there is no conflict between the two groups, and "applauding all Muslims practicing their faiths." Increasing the discomfort of some MB leaders is the reported trend, most often in rural areas, of younger MB members becoming increasingly Salafi-oriented.

10.(C) The different approaches of the two movements to the election of President Obama are a useful comparison of their two worldviews. MB Supreme Guide Mehdi Akef publicly lauded the election of the President, saying that "Obama has awakened the dreams and resurrected the hopes of not just the American people, but in the peoples of the entire world." Hassan Abu Al Ashbal, a popular Salafi preacher on the "Al Nas" channel, did not comment on the elections, but rather focused on calling on President Obama to convert to Islam: "If you refuse to return to your (Islamic) origins ... and to withdraw your huge armies and military bases from the lands of the Muslims ... Know, Obama, that in the lands of Islam, there are people who seek death, and are eager for it, even more than you and your people are eager for life." ----------------------------------- GOVERNMENT WAKING UP TO SALAFI WAVE -----------------------------------

11.(C) After years of largely looking the other way, parts of the GOE apparatus are slowly moving to address the Salafi wave. In December 2008, the Ministry of Islamic Endowments ("Awqaf") began distributing to mosque employees nationwide a book titled, "Our Forefathers and Salafism," which Minister Hamdi Zaqzouq said aims to correct "erroneous concepts" promulgated by Salafis, and argues that the real teachings of the Prophet Muhamed were to be "dynamic" and to "incorporate modern values." Also in December, the Awqaf ministry announced it is allocating 10 million LE (approximately 1.8 million USD) to fight the spread of the niqab in Egypt. The project entails training 45,000 imams and organizing 900 workshops nationwide to "educate Egyptians that the niqab is just a custom that is not mandated by Islam." The ministry is also distributing to mosques a book authored by Zaqzouq, titled, "The Niqab is a Custom, Not a Religious Requirement." The Ministry of Health, which in 2007 published a statistic estimating that nearly 10,000 of Egypt's 90,000 nurses wear a niqab, mandated in October 2008 that nurses cannot wear the facial covering while at work. Implementation of the edict has been spotty thus far. Throughout 2008, the security services allegedly approached several of the Salafi satellite channels, encouraging them to diversify their programming from just hard-core religious sermons. The popular "Al Hikma" (The Wisdom) channel was shut-down in October 2008, its transmission suspended by the security services; "Al Nas" has started airing programs on "social issues," in response to pressure from State Security. Two planned new Salafi satellite channels were also not given a broadcasting permit in early 2008, and so never got on the air.

12.(C) While the GOE is undertaking belated efforts to confront rising Salafist theology, the governmental religious establishment itself appears somewhat conflicted on the issue, in part because there is not much daylight between some conservative preachers and Salafis. For instance, the CAIRO 00000202 004.2 OF 004 director of the Cairo directorate of the Awqaf Ministry was quoted in a January newspaper interview as saying that "Al Rahma" and "Al Nas" are "moderate Islamic channels," and that Salafi preacher Mohamed Hassan is "moderate and well-educated." (Note: During the recent Gaza crisis, Hassan delivered a sermon on the "Al Rahma" channel stating that, "The Jews are the real terrorists and extremists. They are blood suckers, and shedders of blood. Review the history of the Jews from beginning to end, from the very first moment to the last moment, which is now. They specialize in the shedding of blood, in crime, and in killing - even the killing of prophets." End note.) Some Salafis have been appointed to serve in governmental religious institutions; one example is Shaykh Youssef Al Badry of the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. Other members of such institutions do not self-identify as Salafis, but reportedly agree with many Salafi ideas. One expert in the anthropology of Salafi movements told us that Salafis are "infiltrating" religious institutions, and that, "they are very smug about it. viewing it as part of a long-term plan to gain the dominant position in such organizations." ---------------------------------- IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASED SALAFISM ----------------------------------

13.(C) Egyptian political elites are uneasy about the rising resonance of Salafis with the population. Several analysts we spoke with are concerned that, although current Egyptian Salafi groups do not advocate violence, their extreme interpretation of Islam creates an environment where susceptibility to radicalism and extremist ideas is heightened. As one contact opined, citing the experiences of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri and September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, both of whom attended Salafi mosques in Cairo, Salafism "is a bridge to extremism." Others we spoke with, particularly politicians, worried that eventual Salafi political involvement is "near inevitable." While Salafi groups in Egypt forswear politics, the line does seem to be getting blurred. During the recent Gaza crisis, Salafi clerics delivered some of Egypt's most fiery sermons and calls for violent action against Israel; a Salafi candidate is running in the upcoming Bar Syndicate elections; and a debate is rumored to be ongoing in Salafi circles about the possibility of further political engagement. The popularity of some Salafi shaykhs also implies that they have potential influence over significant numbers of voters during elections. One contact we spoke with observed that, while taking pains to observe "red-lines" in public commentary, and never criticizing the Egyptian government, in private, many Salafists refer to the Mubarak regime as "kafir" (unbelievers). (Comment: "Takfiris," those who declare current Muslim leaders as un-Islamic, provide the doctrinal foundation for Al Qaeda and the most extreme and dangerous of Islamic splinter groups. End comment).

14.(C) All we spoke with worried that burgeoning Salafism will make Egypt less tolerant and more sectarian. They fear an increase in anti-Christian sentiments, anti-Shi'a rhetoric, and a chilling effect on Egypt's cultural scene. A senior member of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) mused to us that the upsurge in Salafism, and in overall religiosity among Egyptians, will "necessarily have a political impact, on all political parties, including the NDP. How can we champion liberal values in an environment like this, when we know it will cost us popular support?" SCOBEY

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/egypt-wikileaks-cables/8327088/SALAFISM-ON-THE-RISE-IN-EGYPT-CAIRO-00000202-001.2-OF-004.html

Top Selected Stories