Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts

USA - The Dragon in Afghanistan

Image result for USA dragon

A SOUTH ASIAN crisis is still brewing after US Secretary Rex Tillerson’s speed visits to Afghan­istan, Pakistan and India. The brief encounter in Islamabad confirmed the gulf in Pakistan-US positions.

What the US and India want from Pakistan is impossible for it to deliver.

The US has decided to ‘stay on’ indefinitely in Afghanistan. It knows it cannot defeat the Afghan Taliban. It is unwilling to accept an equitable political settlement. It wants to utilise Afghanistan as a base to contain China, resist Russia, push back Iran and coerce Pakistan to target the Afghan Taliban, in particular the Haqqanis, in order to make its ‘stay’ in Afghanistan as ‘comfortable’ as possible. The US also wants Pakistan to suppress the Kashmiri militants and restrain its nuclear and missile programmes. These latter aims are, of course, fully shared by India.

In his public remarks, Tillerson cloaked US demands in the garb of concern for Pakistan’s stability. In fact, Pakistan is most certain to be destabilised if it accepts the US and Indian demands.

In the Zarb-i-Azb and subsequent operations, Pakistan expelled the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani fighters from its soil. Some Taliban leaders periodically cross into Pakistan, Iran and other neighbouring countries. In the past, Washington encouraged Pakistan to maintain contacts with Taliban leaders to promote a political settlement in Afghanistan. Now, however, it wants Pakistan to kill or capture them.

In the crisis unfolding, China could do several things to support Pakistan.

If Pakistan does start doing so, it would produce two outcomes: one, the Afghan Taliban would join the Pakistani Taliban, Jamaatul Ahrar and the militant Islamic State group in perpetrating terrorism against Pakistan; and two, it would foreclose the possibility of a political settlement in Afghanistan since there would be no one left in the insurgency with the authority or stature to negotiate such a settlement. This will prolong Afghanistan’s civil war, the suffering of its people and instability in the region.

The consequences of forcibly suppressing the Kashmiri militant groups are similarly predictable. Two of these organisations, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, were placed on the Security Council’s terrorism list when the previous government in Islamabad agreed to this under US pressure. But these groups and others, like the Hizbul Mujahideen, enjoy considerable popular support in Pakistan. Military and police action against members of these pro-Kashmiri groups who have not committed any crime will produce a public outcry and possibly a violent reaction and intensify, not restrict, extremism. A programme for deradicalisation of extremist groups through job creation and social reintegration is the best option. This would be easier if India halts its oppression in held Kashmir and agrees to a peaceful resolution of the dispute.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s reasonable concerns fall on deaf ears in Washington and, of course, in New Delhi. Encouraged by US patronage, the Modi government is brutally suppressing the latest revolt of the Kashmiri people. It has also adopted an aggressive posture towards Pakistan: sponsoring anti-Pakistan terrorism from Afghanistan; intensifying ceasefire violations along the Line of Control; and issuing repeated threats of ‘surgical strikes’, ‘limited war’ and a ‘Cold Start’ attack against Pakistan.

Not only has the US not opposed Indian brutality in held Kashmir and aggression and threats against Pakistan, it has itself threatened Pakistan with sanctions, drone strikes and military intervention unless it complies with US demands. American drone strikes appear to be already under way. If Pakistan does not respond to unilateral US strikes, India may feel emboldened to carry out its threats of military incursion. A South Asian conflict could be ignited by miscalculation if not design.

To twist an idiom, it is time for the dragon in the room (China) to make an appearance.

America’s new alliance with India, its intention to arm India to the teeth, and its endorsement of New Delhi’s aim to kill the Kashmiri freedom movement, are designed to secure India’s collaboration to contain China’s rising power across Asia. Tillerson made no bones in spelling this out in his CSIS speech before visiting the region.

Likewise, the US decision to ‘stay on’ in Afghanistan is designed in large measure to restrict China’s growing influence in South and Central Asia and, more specifically, to challenge, if not disrupt, President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative. Defence Secretary Mattis objected that the Belt and Road passed through ‘disputed territory’. Tillerson last week criticised the conditions of Chinese financing for the Belt and Road projects.

So far, China has responded somewhat passively to the US-India strategy. After Trump’s Aug 21 speech, the Chinese foreign minister defended Pakistan’s counterterrorism credentials. The Chinese foreign ministry refuted Mattis’s comment against CPEC. However, given the anti-Chinese genesis of the two-front threat which Pakistan faces today, and China’s strategic stake in the success of CPEC, it appears essential that Beijing extend strong political support to its oldest ‘strategic partner’ and ‘do more’ to equalise the South Asian equation that is presently tilted against Pakistan.

During all previous Pakistan-India crises, especially the 1965 and 1971 wars, China extended diplomatic, material and military support to Pakistan.

In the crisis now unfolding in South Asia, China could do several things to support Pakistan:


  1. — strongly endorse Pakistan and the UN’s demand for a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan and help build a regional coalition in favour of such a settlement;
  2. — call for a just and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with international law and denounce India’s brutal repression of the Kashmiri people;
  3. — oppose all threats of use of force against Pakistan from any quarter and declare that any aggression against Pakistan will evoke an appropriate Chinese response;
  4. — affirm that CPEC’s security is the common and joint responsibility of Pakistan and China;
  5. — offer Pakistan advanced and appropriate weapons systems to defend and deter aggression from the east or the west.


The forthcoming visit of President Trump to China offers the opportunity for a powerful President Xi Jinping to convey China’s opposition to America’s India-centric policies and destabilising demands on Pakistan, and to propose a plan for comprehensive Sino-US cooperation to advance security and prosperity across Asia, including South Asia and the developing world.
"The dragon in the room" by Munir Akram, a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1366998/the-dragon-in-the-room
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
SalaamOne سلام
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
Web,Books, Articles, Magazines,, Blogs, Social Media,  Videos

Trump Doctrine for Middle East

Trump doctrine must be driven by US core vital interests, which are:

• Eliminating ISIS as a functioning entity.

• Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon capability.

• Preventing Iranian hegemony throughout the Middle East.

• Removing the Iranian theocracy from power.

• Re-establishing and strengthening our relations with our traditional allies.

• Ensuring the survival of Israel.

• Establishing a sovereign Kurdistan.

• Maintaining freedom of navigation throughout the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, including strategic choke points, e.g., the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Hormuz.
..............
Trump’s Middle East doctrine
by James A. Lyons, washingtontimes.com

President Trump’s historic visit last month to Saudi Arabia, where he met with the heads of more than 50 mostly Sunni heads of state, dramatically marked the end of eight years of Barack Obama’s appeasement of Iran. It signaled to all the Muslim leaders that the United States as the “strong horse” is back. There was no doubt in any of the Muslim leaders’ minds that Mr. Trump is a man of action and a leader who will keep his word.

Mr. Trump’s goal of establishing a coalition of nations that share the objective of defeating terrorist groups and providing for a stable and hopeful future made it clear that the assembled nations cannot be indifferent to the presence of evil. That evil is represented not only by the Islamic State (ISIS), al Qaeda et al., but also by Iran, the recognized world leader of state-sponsored terrorism. In that sense, one of the key objectives of the summit was to isolate Iran, a goal embraced by the coalition, as well as their shared disdain for the Obama administration’s atrocious failed nuclear agreement with Iran.

Mr. Trump also made it clear that this coalition of nations must adopt a policy of “sovereign responsibility,” which means that they cannot wait for American power to defeat the enemy for them. They must be directly involved, with our assistance.

Nonetheless, the Trump doctrine must be driven by our core vital interests, which are:

• Eliminating ISIS as a functioning entity.

• Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon capability.

• Preventing Iranian hegemony throughout the Middle East.

• Removing the Iranian theocracy from power.

• Re-establishing and strengthening our relations with our traditional allies.

• Ensuring the survival of Israel.

• Establishing a sovereign Kurdistan.

• Maintaining freedom of navigation throughout the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, including strategic choke points, e.g., the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Hormuz.

The establishment of a Global Terrorism Center for Combating Extremism in Riyadh was a manifestation of the shared objective of defeating terrorist groups and isolating Iran, but its effectiveness will depend on results. The same can be said for the establishment of the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States-United Arab Emirates Center to Counter the Online Spread of Hate. It was clear to all the attendees that a peaceful, stable future can only be achieved by defeating the ideology that drives terrorism. Carrying this out will require some very fundamental and painful changes. For example, mosques and imams that preach hate and urge all Muslims to conduct violent jihad should be closed and the imams removed.

Concrete steps must be taken to stop funds from going to radical mosques and front groups that promote terrorism. Targeting funds being sent to various terrorists groups, e.g., ISIS and al Qaeda, must receive immediate priority. The source of these funds, be it from individuals or states like Qatar, must be identified and interdicted.

Qatar has been a particular problem because of its support of the Muslim Brotherhood and its cozy relationship with Iran. This came to a head on June 5, when Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic and some commercial relations with Qatar over its terrorist financing and its links to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Hamas and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Qatar’s relationship with Iran was a decisive factor in causing the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain to quickly join with Saudi Arabia in breaking relations. Most land, sea and air routes to Qatar have been closed. Qatar is an isthmus whose only land route is through Saudi Arabia by which it receives 40 percent of its food. This is a major problem for Qatar, despite Turkey’s offer of food and water delivered by sea.

Another issue that must be addressed is the U.S. Central Command’s forward air base in Qatar, which has been an essential element of our air campaign in the region. As of today, there has been no impact on U.S. air operations, but contingency plans should be made ready for an alternative air base if regional relationships further deteriorate.

An underlying element of the Trump doctrine that cannot be overstated is recognition that 65 percent of the population of the Middle East is under the age of 30, and that those youths must be provided with opportunities for a satisfying life as an attractive option to the lure of terrorist groups. While this is a worthy objective, Muslims don’t commit to jihad because they don’t have jobs. They commit to jihad because they are devout Muslims, many with university degrees. The only way they can be dissuaded from jihad is to see a crushing defeat of jihadis on the battlefield. Once they understand they cannot win, they are obligated by their own doctrine to back off.

Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman is taking the lead for economic and cultural reform in Saudi Arabia, and other members of the coalition should follow. Nevertheless, the indispensable principle for achieving the objectives of the Riyadh summit is the isolation of Iran, the prime mover of instability throughout the region. As a start, sanctions on the mullahs’ ballistic missile programs must be imposed. Further, until the unsigned nuclear weapons deal with Iran is formally canceled, real inspections by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency must be conducted on all the sites in their nuclear weapon infrastructure.

Finally, an aggressive plan must be developed with the objective of removing the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power. That is the first principle of any plan to return stability and peace to the Middle East.

• James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Source: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/13/donald-trumps-middle-east-doctrine/

Wilayat-e-Faqih:
Wilayat-e-Faqih doctrine, a fifth column strategy, has propagated sectarianism in the Muslim world

Trump summons Muslim nations to confront ‘Islamic terror of all kinds’



RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Trump delivered a forceful address here Sunday summoning the Muslim world to confront “the crisis of Islamic extremism” as he seeks to create new partnerships to unite against global terrorism.
Speaking from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to several of the religion’s holiest sites, Trump implored the leaders of dozens of Muslim nations to take their own destinies in hand and, together with the United States, stop the killing of innocent people in the name of religion.
“This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations,” Trump said. “This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion — people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.”
Trump implicitly rejected the aspirational goals and call for democracy and human rights of former president Barack Obama, who also delivered a major speech to the Islamic world early in his presidency. “We are adopting a principled realism,” Trump said.
“We are not here to lecture,” he said. “We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership, based on shared interests and values.”

President Trump, right, and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi share a laugh during a meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 21, 2017.
Photo by: Evan Vucci/AP
Trump called for unity in confronting Iran over its funding of terrorists and promotion of a “craven ideology.” He called on the Muslim world to help isolate Iran and, just days after Iranians reelected moderate President Hassan Rouhani, to “pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they so richly deserve.”
[Trump campaigned against Muslims but will preach tolerance in Saudi speech]
In the run-up to Trump’s visit, there was considerable speculation about whether he would utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in his speech, the centerpiece of his Saudi trip.
On the campaign trail, Trump loudly criticized Obama for refusing to describe the terrorism threat in those terms. But some of Trump’s top aides, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have been urging him to soften his language. Many Muslim leaders consider broad denunciations of their faith insulting.
In his Riyadh address, Trump decided to use a substitute phrase: “Islamist extremism.” But he slightly veered off the prepared excerpts released earlier by the White House, saying “Islamic” instead of “Islamist” on several occasions.
Describing the fight against terrorism, Trump spoke of “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.”
Lamenting the scourge of terrorism across the Middle East, Trump exhorted, “Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of this Earth.”

President Trump, second to the left left, shakes hands with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, left, during a bilateral meeting on May 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Seated with them are, from center to right, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
Photo by: Evan Vucci/AP
Trump was addressing a rare gathering of leaders of about 50 Muslim nations at the Arab Islamic American Summit. It was his second day on a marathon foreign trip that will take him next to Israel, where he has ambitions to help negotiate peace, and then to the Vatican. The Middle East, he said, had long been home to “Arabs and Christians and Jews living side by side” and could again be a place for “every person, no matter their faith.”
[Trump mocked Obama for bowing to a Saudi king. And then he …]
By preaching tolerance and calling Islam “one of the world’s great faiths,” Trump departed from his previously stated views on Muslims. Anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies were hallmarks of his nationalist 2016 campaign; he proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States and proclaimed, “I think Islam hates us.”
Trump gave his remarks in an opulent hall of the King Abdulaziz International Conference Center, where crystal chandeliers hung from the gilded ceiling and attendees sat in plush armchairs. The president was seated at the front of the room, behind an ornate wooden desk and alongside the summit’s host, King Salman, before taking the lectern.
No final list of the leaders in attendance was initially released. Seen chatting in the chamber and then listening intently were kings, presidents and prime ministers from Jordan, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, as well as Egypt and numerous other African states with Muslim majorities. Some, including Turkey and Sudan, sent lower-level officials.
Speaking before Trump, Salman appeared to be gently admonishing the United States for its strict visa policies, saying that all in the room rejected “profiling religions and countries on a religious or sectarian basis.”
But he was effusive in his praise for Trump and the president’s decision to make Saudi Arabia the first stop on his first overseas trip. Trump, he said, “has many hopes and aspirations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.”
He said that his kingdom is committed to “fighting all forms of terrorism” and that “one of the most important goals of Islamic sharia is protecting life, and there is no honor in committing murder.”
The king directed much of his ire toward Iran, saying the Arab world had no problems with that country until its 1979 revolution brought a theocratic government that quickly turned to terrorism and regional ambitions. “These odious acts are the products of attempts to exploit Islam as a cover for political purposes to flame hatred, extremism, terrorism and religious and sectarian conflicts,” Salman said.
Trump was equally generous in his praise for Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim state that considers Shiite Iran its principal rival for regional power.
He made proud reference to the $110 billion arms deal signed with the Saudis during his visit here and said the United States was willing to extend the same partnership to other nations that share its objectives.
Trump also highlighted, in terms reminiscent of his domestic boasting, what he said were the achievements of his first months in office, claiming the creation of nearly 1 million jobs.
[Ivanka Trump meets with Saudi women leaders as some activists remain critical]
The president wants to both profit from the sales and move partners in the Middle East to share more of what he has said is the unequal burden of defending them from both the Sunni terrorism of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and from Iran.
“America is prepared to stand with you — in pursuit of shared interests and common security,” he said. “But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries and, frankly, for their families and for their children.”
Overall, Trump delivered a dark decree to the leaders in attendance.
“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory — piety to evil will bring you no dignity,” he said. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”
A few hours before his remarks, Trump and the leaders of six Persian Gulf states reached an agreement to crack down on terror financing, including the prosecution of individuals who continue sending money to militants.
The memorandum of understanding — between the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — includes the creation of a center in Riyadh to fight extremism.
Dina Powell, Trump’s deputy national security adviser, called the agreement the “farthest-reaching commitment to not finance terrorist organizations” and said the Treasury Department would monitor it along with the gulf governments.
“The unique piece of it is that every single one of them are signatories on how they’re responsible and will actually prosecute the financing of terrorism, including individuals,” Powell told reporters.
[Trump signs ‘tremendous’ deals with Saudi Arabia on his first day overseas]
Outside funding for the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups has come primarily from the Persian Gulf. U.S. officials in recent years have said that the gulf states have cracked down and virtually eliminated money coming from governments in the region. Instead, they believe certain wealthy individuals — primarily in Kuwait and, to a lesser degree, Qatar — remain funnels for money or are themselves financing the groups.
A Kuwaiti cabinet minister was forced to resign in 2014 after the United States complained about his activities, and regional governments have instituted legal crackdowns, with varying degrees of success, to stem the practice. All have signed agreements in the past to stop it.
The Islamic State, in particular, has largely funded itself through extortion and taxes in the areas it controls in Syria and Iraq, and through revenue for oil it sells clandestinely. But those sources, along with kidnapping for ransom, have diminished as the militants have lost territory.
The warm embrace of Trump that was on festive display on his first day in Riyadh continued during a trio of bilateral meetings the president held Sunday at the Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi praised Trump and invited him to visit Egypt, which Trump said he intends to do. Through a translator, Sissi said, “You are a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.”
“I agree!” Trump replied, as his advisers and others looking on laughed.
Trump went on to compliment Sissi on his fashion, telling the Egyptian leader, “Love your shoes. Boy, those shoes. Man . . .”
Trump met with Sissi earlier this spring in Washington, breaking an Obama-era ban on receiving the Egyptian leader in the White House because of his crackdowns on political and civil expression since taking power in a 2014 coup.
Trump called Sissi “my friend” and thanked him for his help with the release of American aid worker Aya Hijazi, 30, who had been imprisoned in Cairo.
[Freed Egyptian American prisoner returns home following Trump intervention]
Trump also met with the emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, and noted the long friendship between the two countries and the prospect of future trade.
“One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment, because nobody makes it like the United States,” Trump told reporters ahead of his talks with the Qatari leader. “And for us that means jobs, and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want.”

Martin McGuinness: The 'super-terrorist who became a super-statesman – like so many others


Martin McGuinness followed along the familiar trail of so many enemies of Britain’s weary colonial history. A “super-terrorist” becomes a super-statesman. Jomo Kenyatta comes to mind. And Archbishop Makarios. And of course, Menachem Begin. With blood on their hands, they pass through that mist of nobility bestowed by colonial power and former rulers – and re-emerge as statesmen of compromise, eloquence, even humour.

I’ve never been sure they really changed that much. Begin blew up the King David Hotel, murdered two British army sergeants because the Brits were executing Irgun fighters, and became Prime Minister of Israel. He signed a peace agreement with Egypt, met Margaret Thatcher – then invaded Lebanon in 1982: 17,000 died.

In fact, most of these folk recalled their past with a certain amount of caution. “Father of the Nation”, they liked to be called – although that hardly applied to McGuinness. Michael Collins went through a similar transmogrification. There he was, killing Churchill’s Cairo Gang intelligence men in Dublin and then sitting in Downing Street with Lloyd George and Churchill himself, who told of meeting Collins whose hands had “touched directly the springs of terrible deeds”. Doubtless, he would have said the same of McGuinness.

In 1972 I saw him first, standing beside a table on the Creggan – already no-go Derry after Bloody Sunday – for a frantic press conference. They said he was the IRA commander in Derry (he was actually number two), but he was a rather frightening young man, 22 at the time, high cheekbones, fluffy, curly hair, red-faced, sharp, narrow eyes, unsmiling. A very dangerous man, I thought at the time – to his enemies, at least. There was a rifle in the room, though I don’t think he touched it. People later said it was a Kalashnikov, but there weren’t many AKs around at the time and I rather think it was an old American Garand. 

The British were claiming at the time that McGuinness was the most wanted man in Derry or Northern Ireland or all of Ireland – but they did that on a regular basis to all their most tenacious enemies. That’s what they once called Begin. That’s what they said about Collins in the early 1920s, who passed through that infamous mist of nobility when he signed the grim Treaty which the Brits had prepared for him, Griffith and the others. It cost him his life, of course, so he never travelled to Buckingham Palace to meet the King. But Collins did meet James Craig, one of Northern Ireland’s most sectarian Protestant prime ministers, before he was killed by his own people. Avoiding assassination, McGuinness was to sit down with Ian Paisley and his cronies and become deputy minister of the state he tried so hard to destroy. That alone was worth a handshake from the British monarch. 

But we should not be too romantic about violent men who pass through the archway of British political acceptance. Sadat was a German spy in Cairo in the Second World War. Then he became the beloved peace-maker. Nasser was at first greeted by Eden, who only later called him the Mussolini of the Nile, although Nasser did for the British Empire at Suez. Yasser Arafat was a “super-terrorist” when I first met him in Beirut in the 1980s, blathering on about the “Zionist military junta”; then he signed the Oslo agreement and became a “super-statesman” and shook hands with Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin. Yet under the brutal Sharon, he reverted to “super-terrorist” status, up to and including his moment of death. What moral transformartions! His body must have been “spinning” even before it was put in the grave.

It’s a heady, giddy business to undergo these constant conversions. Saddam was our man when he sent his Iraqi legions into revolutionary Iran in 1980 but then became the Hitler of the Tigris when he invaded the wrong country (Kuwait) 10 years later and got bombed for it, and was then invaded in 2003 for the one crime he didn’t commit (9/11). Off with his head, we cried, and the noose surely strangled him. Then take Muammar Gaddafi, whose Libyan coup was at first welcomed by the Foreign Office. But then he went a bit mad, issuing Trump-like statements of mind-numbing inanity, and then tried to fix up McGuinness and his mates with explosives and organised a bomb in a Berlin nightclub where it killed an American serviceman – and then got bombed by Ronald Reagan who dubbed him the “Mad Dog of the Middle East”.

But the “Mad Dog” outlived Saddam and got slobbered over by the Brits for deconstructing nuclear weapons he never had, and Saint Tony bestowed a kiss upon him and all was well until the Libyans decided they’d had enough and the much-kissed Muammar was butchered by a mob. No wonder he had a strange, puzzled look in his eyes at the time. Then there was Bashar al-Assad, son of the ferocious Hafez, invited to Bastille Day but then – post-Arab Awakening – loathed by the French, whose foreign minister declared that he did not deserve to live “on this earth”. The Quai d’Orsay did not suggest which particular planet he should fly to. But reader alert: with the Europeans back-peddling on their demands for his overthrow and Putin welcoming him to the Kremlin, we may yet see Bashar back in the halls of western Europe.

McGuinness, of course, maintained his statesmanship to the end, seeing off the grousing old Paisley, watching Peter Robinson slip in the Unionist mire and then observing the Democratic Unionists swamped in financial scandal. A good time to go, you might say, and join all the other “most wanted men” in the sky. But one of them, we would do well to remember, had a wanted poster all his own more than 100 years ago, way back in the Boer War: his name was Winston Churchill. And much to talk about they’ll have, I’m sure.

By Robert Fisk, independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/martin-mcguinness-dies-super-terrorist-becomes-super-statesman-like-so-many-others-a7640676.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

Countering Terrorist Narrative


The military action just one part of war against terrorists. The ideological front remains untapped, except occasional condemnation Fatwas (religious edicts) by gatherings of Islamic Scholars. The terrorists continue recruitment through their propaganda machine via internet through twisted interpretations of Islamic holy texts. The common terrorists,  their sympathizers and supporters within society are not aware of reality. There is very little to confront and expose their false ideology in the media. The rise of Islamophobia plays into the narrative of ISIS or Daesh that's exactly what they want, for some Muslims to feel that they are not part and parcel of their adopted homelands in the Western societies. People like Trump and Indian Prime Minister Modi in power with well known anti Muslim stand, provide more fuel to Islamophobia which suits the terrorists.

The terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaida, Taliban, Boko-Haram and many others claim the justification of their struggle for establishment of a worldwide Caliphate and cleanse the Muslim land from the infidels (Muslims not following the heretic ideology of terrorists). While these organization and groups use terrorism as means there are many others who are restricted to the political struggle but they do have sympathies for each other. This has caused great loss to the Muslim world in term of loss of men and material besides weakening them politically, economically and intellectually.
Effort has been made to expose the fallacy of the narrative of terrorists, which is not based on Islamic teachings, but twisted interpretations and lies:
  1. Countering Narrative of Terrorists-1: Caliphate of Terror تکفیری خوارج کی شیطانی خلافت
  2. Countering Narrative of Terrorists-2: Dogs of Hell خوارج جہنم کے کتے
  3. The real War against Terror is the war of Ideology & Counter Narrative
............................................................................................................
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace

Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media

سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors:
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

Defeating radical Islam - by By Daniel Pipes , the Islamophobe




Who is the enemy? It’s been over 15 years since Sept. 11, 2001, and this fundamental question still rattles around. Prominent answers have included evildoers, violent extremists, terrorists, Muslims, and Islamists.
As an example of how not to answer this question, the Obama administration convened a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group in 2010 and included participants who turned up such gems as: “Jihad as holy war is a European invention,” the caliphate’s return is “inevitable,” Shariah (Islamic law) is “misunderstood,” and “Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms because terrorism is not Islamic by definition.” The result? The group produced propaganda helpful to the (unnamed) enemy.
In contrast, then-candidate Donald Trump gave a robust speech in August 2016 on how he, as president, would “Make America Safe Again.” In it, he pledged that “one of my first acts as president will be to establish a commission on radical Islam.” Note: he said radical Islam, not some euphemism like violent extremism.
The goal of that commission, he said, “will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.” The commission “will include reformist voices in the Muslim community” with the goal to “develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.”
On Feb. 2, Reuters reported that, consistent with the August statement, the Trump administration “wants to revamp and rename” the Obama administration’s old CVE effort to focus solely on Islamism. Symbolic of this change, the name Countering Violent Extremism will be changed to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism” (or a near equivalent).
To make the most of this historic opportunity, the Middle East Forum has crafted a comprehensive plan for a White House Commission on Radical Islam for the administration to use. Here’s a summary of how we see the commission working and having an impact:
Structure. To be successful, all its members must be selected by the president. Too many commissions have included contrasting ideologies and agendas, grinding out sausagelike self-conflicting reports that displease the administration and end up discarded. Also, learning from the struggles of the Tower Commission, which lacked sufficient powers, and the precedent of the Three Mile Island Commission, which actually had them, the commission needs the power to subpoena documents, compel testimony and grant immunity.
Personnel. The commission should include a mix of experts on political violence and radical Islam, as well as elected officials, representatives of law enforcement, the military, the intelligence and diplomatic communities, technology specialists, Muslim reformers (as the president insisted), and victims of radical Islam. It should also include liaisons to those who ultimately will implement the commission’s recommendations: secretaries of the departments of state, defense, and homeland security, the attorney general, and the CIA director.
Mandate. The commission should expand on President Trump’s commitment to explain the core convictions of Islamists (i.e., the full and severe application of Shariah) to expose their networks, and develop new protocols for law enforcement. In addition, it should examine where Islamists get their resources and how these can be cut off; figure out how to deny them use of the internet; offer changes to immigration practices; and assess how political correctness impedes an honest appraisal of radical Islam.
Implementation. For the commission’s work to be relevant, it must coordinate with federal agencies to gather data and craft recommendations, draft executive orders and legislation, provide supporting documents, prepare requests for proposals, outline memos to state and local governments, recommend personnel, and work out budgets. Finally, the commission should be prepared that its reports may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, such as was the case several times in the past (e.g., the Warren, Rogers, and Tower commissions).
The overall goal of the White House Commission on Radical Islam should be to bring the American people together around a common understanding of the enemy’s nature, how that enemy can be defeated, and specifics to accomplish this objective.
Perhaps this will start the long-delayed process of winning a war that has already gone on far too long. The United States has all the economic and military advantages; it lacks only a policy and a strategy, which the new administration, relying on a first-rate commission, can finally supply.
 Daniel Pipes (@DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. Christopher C. Hull (@ChristopherHull) is president of Issue Management, Inc.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

The far right is helping IS as it tries to destroy Western tolerance and liberalismby Robert Fisk

THERE is something infinitely naive in our pursuit of the identity of those behind the massacres which the IS is committing in Europe. Yes, we need to know the names.
اردو میں پڑہیں 》》》
Sure, we need to know what their wives or parents thought. Did they know? How did the perpetrator of Monday’s Berlin truck killings communicate with the IS? Or did he merely imbibe their political instruction manual? After the Bataclan mass murders and the lorry slaughter in Nice, we asked the same questions.
But we didn’t bother to ask what the IS was trying to do. Was it a tactic of “terror” — “terror” being the pejorative word that enables us to avoid all rational thought in the aftermath of any bloodbath — or a strategy, a thought-through political attempt to produce a profound crisis in the societies of western Europe.
And the simple answer is that it was a strategy. The “grey zone”, a phrase invented by the IS almost two years ago, first made its appearance in the group’s French-language publications, obviously intended for those Muslims who make up perhaps 10 per cent of the population of France — the nation with the largest number of Muslims in Europe. The IS wanted to eliminate “the grey zone” which it identified as those western — “Crusader”, “Christian”, etc — countries with a large Muslim immigrant community. Muslims should revolt against their European nations (or their host nations, if not actually citizens) and create conflict within the countries.
The intention was to provoke European states to “persecute” the Muslims within their frontiers in acts of reprisal for the mass killing of western Europeans — presumably non-Muslim — civilians. In fact, it didn’t matter to the IS if their victims were Muslims — since the latter were mere “apostates” who had accommodated to non-Muslim societies and adapted to their secular rules for economic or political advantage. In a mass flight from the vengeful “Crusaders”, according to a French edition of Dabiq in early 2015, the Muslims of Europe would migrate to the caliphate of the Islamic State “and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens”.
In other words, they wished to provoke the non-Muslim people of Europe to reject their millions of Muslim fellow-citizens. An uprising among IS followers — however few — would produce mass murder by the “Christians” of Europe. That was — and obviously still is — the strategy. And it has had some success. The rise of far-right parties in both western and eastern Europe has a strong anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant detonation, and the hunt for political power by those who wish to discriminate against Muslims (or “persecute” them) has been fuelled by mass killings carried out in the name of the IS. Thus Angela Merkel, the angel of the one million refugees who sought sanctuary in Europe last year, is herself now dressing in the dark robes of Mephistopheles (by objecting, ironically, to the dark robes worn by Muslim women). Faustus, of course, was a character of German folklore long before Christopher Marlowe wrote about him.
But the IS strategy has far more recent precedents than a man (or woman) who sells his soul to the devil. First a health warning: there is no connection between the IS and the man widely regarded as the Greatest Briton in history. But when Britain remained the only country still under arms against Nazi Germany in 1940, Winston Churchill believed that the occupied people of Europe should rise up against their Nazi occupiers. He believed — not without reason — that western Europeans under German domination were settling far too peacefully into the role of quiescent occupied peoples, making accommodation for — and creating collaboration with — Hitler’s army and Gestapo.
Churchill was right. Crushed by economic as well as military disaster, the people of France, Denmark, Holland and Belgium were far too busy trying to protect their families and feed their children to start an insurrection. Furthermore, they knew — as Churchill knew — that any armed resistance to German occupation would immediately lead to the murder of hostages, the destruction of villages, executions, deportations and mass murder — the sort of “persecution” which the IS obviously hopes, however vainly, would be visited upon the Muslims of Europe if they continue their attacks on the European continent and, indeed, in Britain.
But Churchill was ruthless. “And now, set Europe ablaze,” he told his minister of economic warfare, Hugh Dalton, who set up what was to be called the Special Operations Executive (SOE), whose extraordinary and courageous exploits of arms smuggling, ambushes and sabotage — clearly regarded as “terrorism” by many of Churchill’s associates — led to great losses, civilian reprisals, the death of many innocents and a history of defeat. Not of victory, as post-war monochrome movies about SOE’s daring-do would have cinemagoers believe. Churchill called his policy “a new instrument of war”. The Spanish had used just such an instrument during the Peninsula war, the “guerrilleros”. And as a student of history, Churchill well knew the terrifying results for civilians. Goya depicted their suffering for all time.
The happier side of this comparison, however, is clear. Churchill’s policy — justified for him at the time, however cruel — did not work. It took years, and the terror assaults by the Germans which they had used in eastern Europe, before armed resistance to their rule became a serious problem for Nazi occupiers. And today’s western Europeans, however much the right may try to earn their votes with their anti-Muslim hatred, are not Nazis — much as the IS may wish them to be. The “Crusaders” ceased to exist six hundred years ago. Millions of Muslims cannot be turned into “apostates” because the IS identifies them as such. They wish to live in Europe.
Besides, the Muslims of the Islamic world had their chance of joining the IS caliphate last year. They could have walked, marched or trekked across the deserts to Raqqa and Mosul to join the “caliph” al-Baghdadi. But they didn’t. Instead, they took the train to Germany. Which remains the greatest defeat the IS has suffered in more than two years. Europeans can maintain that defeat by turning away from those of their non-Muslim fellow citizens — in effect IS allies — who advance a policy of revenge and racism.
By arrangement with The Independent
http://www.dawn.com/news/1304110/the-far-right-is-helping-is-as-it-tries-to-destroy-western-tolerance-and-liberalism
More:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Knoweledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
Peace Forum Network
Visited by Millions
Frequently Asked Questions <<FAQ>>
.                                   ......               .

Israel’s Response to the United Nation's Resolution on Palestine Is Hysterical: Noam Chomsky


The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution 14-0 condemning all Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as having “no legal validity” and amounting to “a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution goes on to note that Israeli settlements pose “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security.”


Trump calls UN 'sad' club after vote on Israeli settlements - Raw Story

Trump calls UN 'sad' club after vote on Israeli settlements ... resolution 2334,
 which describes Israel's ..




This represents the first UNSC resolution in almost eight years concerning Israel and Palestine, and the first in over 35 years regarding the issue of Israeli settlements. Typically the U.S. would veto resolutions critical of Israel, but in this case, the Obama administration opted to abstain, in effect allowing the resolution to pass.
For comment, AlterNet contacted Noam Chomsky, famed linguist, dissident and professor emeritus of MIT. Chomsky said of the resolution, “The UNSC resolution is essentially the same as UNSC 446, March 1979, passed 12-0-3. The main difference is that then two countries joined the U.S. in abstaining. Now the U.S. stands against the world; and under Trump, in even more splendid isolation, on much more crucial matters as well.”
Following the UNSC resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly responded by announcing a halt to his government’s funding contributions to numerous U.N. institutions. Netanyahu called the resolution “a disgraceful anti-Israel maneuver” and blamed it on an “old-world bias against Israel.” Furthermore, he vowed to exact a “diplomatic and economic price” from the countries that supported it.

Shortly thereafter, Netanyahu made good on his threats by personally refusing to meet with the foreign ministers of the 12 UNSC members that voted for the resolution and ordering his Foreign Ministry to limit all working ties with the embassies of those 12 nations. He also summoned the ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for a personal reprimand over the vote—including, in a highly unusual move, the U.S. ambassador.
Asked about Netanyahu’s response, Chomsky told AlterNet, “The hysterical reaction in Israel and in Congress (bipartisan) reflects their sharp shift to the right in the years since, and the whole incident illustrates quite interesting shifts in world order.”
Palestinian rights advocates have quipped that Israel’s suspension of relations with the UNSC member nations that voted for the resolution—powerful countries including the U.K. and France—has effectively realized a goal of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. AlterNet contacted Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the BDS movement, to see what he thought of this assessment. Barghouti replied, "This unanimous resolution, despite its many flaws in addressing basic Palestinian rights, has dealt Israel's colonial designs a serious blow that will inadvertently, yet significantly, enhance the impact of the BDS movement in isolating Israel academically, culturally, economically and otherwise."
"Israel's delusional hubris and surreal threats to punish the U.N. and the world indicate above everything else how deeply alarmed it is at fast becoming an international pariah, as apartheid South Africa once was."
Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American founder of the Electronic Intifada, told AlterNet that Israel’s use of diplomatic sanctions against the UNSC member states contradicted its vocal opposition to sanctions advocated by the BDS movement. Abunimah said, “It’s sort of amusing to Israel try to impose sanctions and punish the whole world for this decision…Israel claims that sanctions are illegitimate as a tool except of course when Israel is the one wielding them, whether it’s against Iran or whether against the countries that displeased it.”
Though Israel’s heavy-handed response may concretely impact its diplomatic standing internationally, the resolution itself is largely symbolic and, as professor Chomsky pointed out, a reiteration of an earlier UNSC resolution. However, experts like Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights from 2008-2014, don’t think the resolution’s symbolic nature means it isn’t important.
As Falk told AlterNet, “The SC resolution at this stage is symbolic. Israel has already announced plans for thousand additional units, and the government has indicated its refusal to comply with the resolution. Nevertheless, it is of great psychological and potentially political support for the Palestinian struggle to end the occupation and achieve a sustainable and just peace. The fact that aside from the United States' notable abstention, all 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution, is indicative of the encouraging reality that the world is not ready to forget the Palestinians, that Israel faces a renewed experience of diplomatic isolation, and that the growing international solidarity movement, including the BDS campaign, will be strengthened and encouraged.”
Asked how the resolution could move from symbolic to something with more concrete effects, Falk responded, “much depends on the future, and whether the commitment in the resolution to have reports from the U.N. Secretary General every three months on implementation will lead to any tangible results beyond a reiteration of censure remains to be seen.”
Though the Obama administration’s unusual decision not to veto a U.N. resolution critical of Israel might be start toward accountability, many Palestinian rights advocates remain cynical about Obama. Abunimah told AlterNet, “Obama has done more than any other president in history to assure Israel’s impunity.”
“When Obama was president-elect, Israel was engaged in this massacre in Gaza in 2008, 2009. When Obama came in he blocked any form of international accountability, trashed the Goldstone report which was the independent U.N. inquiry. The same in 2014 when Israel attacked Gaza, Obama actually rearmed Israel while the bombs were falling on Gaza and then of course the same story of blocking any form of international accountability. And …giving Israel this unconditional boost in military aid—a minimum of $3.8 billion [per year] over the next 10 years, up from $3.1 billion [per year] currently.”
Noam Chomsky: Israel’s Response to the United Nation's Resolution on Palestine Is 'Hysterical'
by Ken Klippenstein, alternet.org
Ken Klippenstein is an American journalist who can be reached on Twitter @kenklippenstein or via email: [email protected]

http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-israels-response-unsc-hysterical
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

More:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Knoweledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
Peace Forum Network
Visited by Millions
Frequently Asked Questions <<FAQ>>
.                                   ......               .