Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

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

Intolerance, human rights violation, communalism, Hindu extremism against Muslims in india - Demise of Secular democracy

Superstar Aamir Khan's recent statement on the growing intolerance in India had sparked up a controversy, creating outrage on social media. He had apparently stated that his wife Kiran Rao is afraid of his child Azad's future in the country considering the growing issues over religion and communalism. His statement however met with hateful reaction from the masses as they posted several loathing comments and memes on social networking sites. While some of his own colleagues came out to raise their voice against his statements, some others decided to stand in support of their colleague. And now, after the outrage continued over a couple of days, Aamir Khan recently posted a letter on the social networking platform. It reads:

"Firstly let me state categorically that neither I, nor my wife Kiran, have any intentions of leaving the country. We never did, and nor would we like to in the future. Anyone implying the opposite has either not seen my interview or is deliberately trying to distort what I have said. India is my country, I love it, I feel fortunate for being born here, and this is where I am staying. 

Secondly, I stand by everything that I have said in my interview. 

To all those people who are calling me anti-national, I would like to say that I am proud to be Indian, and I do not need anyone's permission nor endorsement for that. 

To all the people shouting obscenities at me for speaking my heart out, it saddens me to say you are only proving my point. 

To all the people who have stood by me, thank you. We have to protect what this beautiful and unique country of ours really stands for. We have to protect its integrity, diversity, inclusiveness, its many languages, its culture, its history, its tolerance, it's concept of anekantavada, it's love, sensitivity and its emotional strength. 

I would like to end my statement with a poem by Rabindranath Tagore, it's a prayer really: 

Where the mind is without fear and the head held high, 
Where knowledge is free, 
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments, 
by narrow domestic walls, 
Where words come out from the depth of truth, 
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection, 
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way, 
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit, 
Where the mind is led forward by thee, 
Into ever-widening though and action, 
Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake. 

The Rajinder Sachar Committee, appointed in 2005 by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, was commissioned to prepare a report on the latest social, economic and educational condition of the Muslim community of ...

Image for the news result
Intolerance controversy: Priyanka Chopra gives a befitting reply to Aamir Khan's haters
Priyanka Chopra shares her opinion on Aamir Khan's intolerance remarks and controversy.
More news for Aamir khan controversy

SHOCKING : Aamir Khan Controversial SPEECH About ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ZwzTqRRPA
Breaking his silence on the raging debate over acts of intolerance, actor Aamir Khan on Monday expressed ...


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Syrian civil war: Fruits of foreign intervention

Image result for syrian civil war
THE chaos and carnage that has now spread from Afghanistan through West Asia and the Levant to North Africa and the Sahel is widely ascribed to Al Qaeda, the militant Islamic State group and their franchises or affiliates.

Yet, the origins of the conflicts and terrorism that engulf this arc of Muslim countries, and threaten Europe and beyond, are, fundamentally, the consequence of misguided or malevolent intervention by foreign powers in the affairs of Muslim states.

This history starts with the Soviet Union’s December 1979 military intervention in Afghanistan and the decision of the US, supported by its allies, including Pakistan and several Muslim states, to sponsor the religious Afghan parties — the Mujahideen — and import several thousand extremist fighters as their auxiliaries.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the Mujahideen mutated into the Taliban. The Islamic auxiliaries morphed into Al Qaeda.

Emboldened by their Afghan ‘victory’, Al Qaeda’s ambition was to eject the US from the Islamic world and overthrow Arab regimes allied to it. Many veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad stayed on in Afghanistan and Pakistan to form Al Qaeda ‘central’; others returned to their home countries to build Al Qaeda as a global movement.

Wherever their ‘terrorist’ insurgencies were ruthlessly suppressed, these ‘jihadis’ went underground or ‘migrated’ to more hospitable locations.

The ‘war on terror’, unleashed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US homeland, forms the next chapter in this history. Disregarding the lessons of the past, the US invaded Afghanistan instead of targeting Al Qaeda only.

Over a decade, America was able to degrade Al Qaeda and eventually kill its leader. But, by extending the fight to the Mullah Omar’s Taliban, it exacerbated Afghanistan’s ethnic fault lines, made national reconciliation difficult and created conditions in which Al Qaeda’s competitor, the IS, could emerge as a prominent force.

The Syrian civil war represents the sum of all the sins of foreign interference.
Hubris, generated by its post-Cold War monopoly of global power, led the US to make its most critical strategic mistake in recent years: the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the third episode of interventions, ousting Saddam’s (repressive and minority) Sunni regime, dismantling his army and administration, and enabling the Iran-affiliated Shia parties to gain power in Baghdad through ‘democratic elections’ (held basically to legitimise the US and foreign presence in Iraq) led to splintering the country into its Shia, Sunni and Kurdish components and generating a Sunni insurgency led by Saddam’s soldiers and Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQIP) — which has now morphed into IS.

The removal of the Sunni regimes in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq expanded Iran’s influence and power in the region and eroded that of America’s Saudi and Gulf allies.

The Saudi and Iranian power struggle and support for rival Sunni and Shia groups surged across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Terrorism became entwined with proxy wars. This is the fourth and under-acknowledged part of this history.

Then came the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt which were naively embraced by Western powers as heralding the long-awaited birth of Arab ‘democracy’.

Tunisia has succeeded so far in making a peaceful transition to democracy.

Egypt has experienced a cycle of military rule, an Islamic democracy and military rule again, precipitating an Islamist insurgency centred in the Sinai and now linked to IS.

In Libya, Qadhafi’s ouster was secured through armed support to insurgent groups and a prolonged aerial campaign by European powers, with America “leading from behind”. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, little thought was given to what would come the day after.

Libya is now splintered into rival areas, cities, tribes, groups and governments, some with connections to terrorist organisations including IS — which has a direct presence there.

After Libya, attention turned to Syria. Externally encouraged demonstrations against the minority Alawite regime of Basharul Assad were met by characteristic violence.

Opposition groups from Syria’s Sunni majority secured ready support from the West as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

As the conflict escalated, the most effective fighters turned out to be those belonging to an Al Qaeda affiliate (Jabhat al Nusra) and IS, led by AQIP’s Al Baghdadi and Iraqi veterans.

The Syrian civil war represents the sum of all the sins of this history of foreign intervention. A repressive minority regime fights on with support from Iran and Russia. An estimated 250,000 people have died in the conflict.

It has created a refugee crisis of epic proportions. The tide of Syrian and other refugees from the region has divided Europe, strained its vaunted commitment to human rights and humanitarianism and revived racism and Islamophobia.

This conflict has created IS, a militant organisation which occupies and rules the Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq with unparalleled brutality and whose influence and affiliates span a wide swath of the Islamic world.

Its appeal for extremists will grow unless it is defeated. Months of US bombing has failed to dislodge it from its strongholds.

Instead, IS has brought the war to its opponents, carrying out terrorist attacks against Russia, Turkey, Lebanon and France. It is unlikely to be defeated without “boots on the ground”.

No one is prepared to send in an army to eject IS, except Iran and its allies. This is naturally not acceptable to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Western powers since it would further enhance Iranian and Russian influence in the region.

A strategy to defeat IS and end the conflicts in Syria and Iraq will need to start with an alignment of the objectives of all the major players involved.

This implies a prior agreement on the future governance of Syria and Iraq before any combined military operations can be contemplated — mainly by Sunni forces.

A confederal structure in which Assad is confined to the Alawite majority regions of Syria and wide autonomy for the Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq are the only feasible political solutions.

Hopefully, political accords on Syria and Iraq and a joint campaign against IS will generate momentum for dismantling IS and Al Qaeda affiliates; create the political space for compromises to end the conflicts in Yemen and elsewhere, and bring to an end the modern history of foreign interventions in the Muslim world.
By MUNIR AKRAM — The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Want to get richer? Then take in more refugees

Image result for refugees welcome
As political debates about Syrian refugees rage on both sides of the Atlantic, initial assessments of their economic impact on receiving countries are comingin:Theinnuxis goodfor growth.

A new Bloomberg survey of economists predicts that Germany, the biggest recipient of Syrian asylum seekers in the Western world, will get a 0.2 per cent boost to its economic output next year if it takes in 800,000 refugees in 2015; that would be 12.5pc of Germany`s expected 2016 growth. The estimate is in line with the European Union`s most recent economic forecasts, which predict increases of 0.21pc for the gross domestic product of the EU as a whole in 2016, and 0.26pc in 2016.

These numbers may seem small, especially given some of the hyperbolic coverage of the `refugee crisis` in Europe. But then in equivalent terms, the influx of asylum seekers is small, too.

The 1.9 million refugees who arrived in the EU between January 2012 and July 2015 have increased the bloc`s population by 0.37pc. The European Commission predicts about 3 million will have arrived between the beginning of 2015 and the end of 2017, a tiny number next to the bloc`s total population of 508 million, although people in some neighbourhoods where refugees are being accommodated will feel otherwise.

The expected growth will mainly come from government spending. The German government estimates it needs to spend about 12,000 euros ($12,700) per refugee per year. That money, how-ever, is not going into a black hole: It stimulates domestic demand for goods and services. Economists have long been telling the German government it shouldn`t to be so tight-fisted, because the economy needed stimulus. Well, the refugees have melted Chancellor Angela Merkel`s heart and the stimulus is coming.

One could argue that this is unfair to locals: Why shouldn`t they, not some strangers, be at the receiving end of government largesse? As it is, local workers are at risk of being displaced by the refugees,andthe governments are only facilitating this with taxpayer money.

The unpopular answer is that locals are not procreating fast enough. European economies need more workers to keep expanding as the population ages, so the smarter governments are, in effect, buying immigrants to boost the workforce. A more politically acceptable argument in favour of the refugees is that their arrival increases the demand for local skilled workers in the bureaucracy, social services and education.

Integrating the newcomersisajobthatnooneexcept locals can take on. And more managers are needed as the workforce increases, as it inevitably will. That`s why the positive effect on growth is expected to be higher in 2017.

A recent World Bank study of the Syrian refugees` effect on the labour market in Turkey, which has accepted more than 2 million Syrians since 2011, registered this effect.

`The refugees, who overwhelmingly do not have work permits, result in the large-scale displacement ofinformal, low educated, female Turkish workers, especially in agriculture, Ximena Del Carpio and Mathis Wagner wrote.

`While there is net displacement, the inflow of refugees also creates higher wage formal jobs allowing for occupational upgrading of Turl(ish workers, while for women there is also an increase in school attendance.

Another reason the refugees are generally good for growth is that some of them come with financial assets.

Right-wing critics of permissive immigration policies like to point out that some of the newcomers are welldressed, equipped with modern smartphones and capable of paying human traffickers to bring them too Europe.

That`s not all bad. In 2013, the Jordanian Investment Board said Syrians had invested $1bn in the kingdom`s economy. In Turkey, the estimate is $10bn since 2011. Last year, Syrians founded more than 1,100 companies there, 26pc of all new foreign-owned firms.

Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan all have positive economic growth rates. They complain about the difficulties of dealing with millions of refugees and their shaky welfare states are certainly under strain. Even so, the newcomers are a force for growth.

In Jordan, the economicactivity rate of Syrians is higher than that of native Jordanians 48.5pc vs.

36.5pc. In Lebanon, just the humanitarian aid received by the Syrian refugees boosted GDP by 1.3pc last year, almost compensating for the drop in tourism and exports caused by the war in the neighbouring country, according to a study by the UNHCR, the United Nations` refugee agency.

There will be a temporary adjustment in Europe.

According to the EU`s forecast, per capita GDP in the bloc will drop by about 0.15pc next year because of the influx, because for now the refugees will naturally contribute less as a group than the settled population.

Europeans will notice the slight drop in living standards: Schools, clinics and police forces will of necessity be more strained than before.

The labour market, too, will become more competitive at its lower end. But soon, as public services expand tocope and the new labour force generates more output, this will smooth out.

Unfortunately, after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, any argument in favour of accepting more refugees from the Middle East will struggle to be heard.
By Leonid Bershidsky
By arrangement with The Washington Post, dawn.com


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Zionism is blocking the path to peace

Image result for Zionism
“If you want to dispossess a people, the simplest way to do it is to tell their story and to start with ‘secondly’.” — Palestinian writer Mourid Barghouti
The importance of context
The most dangerous threat Palestinians face in their struggle for freedom and human rights, besides the Israeli war machine, is the absence of historical context, or any context for that matter, in political discussions and media coverage of the conflict. This deliberate omission is demeaning, demonizing and dehumanizing.
When people talk about the current state of unrest, “the Third Intifada,” they typically start the conversation with Palestinian stabbings of Israelis. There rarely is a discussion of what might have triggered such anger. Likewise, when the media covered Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, they started their reporting with Hamas “militants” firing rockets at Israel, omitting the inhumane, seven-year Israeli blockade of Gaza, and positioning Israel as merely defending itself.
Even when talking about the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization or the emergence of Hamas, or when the “O-word” is finally used, people naively believe the conflict between the two peoples started in 1967, when the Israel military occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They ignore altogether the Nakba and the refugee crisis the Zionist creators of Israel orchestrated.
This narrow focus not only is careless, it is dangerous–making impossible a full understanding of the nature of the conflict and its causes and factors, as well as the negotiation of a just and lasting solution to the impasse.
What the absence of historical context does—intentionally or unintentionally—is lead people to believe that Israel is merely responding to provocation, that Palestinians are only those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. So when talking about the causes of the conflict, it is easy to reach the conclusion that “merely” the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the cause and ending it would be the ultimate solution. But what about Palestinians who live in Israel as second-class citizens? What about Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria in degrading conditions, often without the basic right to work in many types of jobs? What about the internationally recognized right of return to their lands that were unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1948? And finally, what about Palestinians who have been accepted as citizens in countries like the United States, but who are denied the ability to visit their ancestral homeland?
Root causes and understanding Zionism
I recently wrote a piece titled “It’s the occupation, stupid!” explaining Palestinians’ position on the current state of unrest. The conflict is not an independent action, but rather a reaction to institutionalized violence and harassment by Israeli settlers and soldiers, expanding illegal Israeli settlements, the segregation wall and military checkpoints—all which play a vital role in dividing Palestinian communities and ruining their social and economic structure. But in that commentary, I only scratched the surface. I didn’t explain the conflict; rather, I described the forces driving Palestinian frustration and desperation.
We could aimlessly argue back and forth about the so-called “Palestinian incitement,” or “Israeli security necessities,” or how “Palestinians teach their children to hate” (a supremacist, demonizing and dehumanizing statement in itself), with total disregard to Palestinian lives and Israeli policies. However, to truly understand the conflict, one must recognize and comprehend the ideology behind it: political Zionism. Today, political Zionism is woven into the very fabric of Israeli society. It is a leading force, significantly shaping the Israeli mindset and policies on all levels.
Political Zionism emerged as a movement in the late 1800s, with Theodor Herzl its founder. Herzl created the movement as a reaction to anti-Semitism, which was swamping Europe at the time. For Herzl and political Zionist leaders who came after him, the answer to anti-Semitism was not integration or a homefront fight against racism, but expulsion—the expulsion of Jews from Europe to a “Jewish homeland,” and the expulsion of the non-Jewish indigenous population from that homeland (which explains the cooperation and transfer agreement between Zionists and the Nazis during the 1933 international boycott of Germany). However, what is interesting is that political Zionism was not the only form of Zionism that emerged as a reaction to anti-Semitism. A competing movement also started called “cultural Zionism.” While both types concurred on the necessity of creating a Jewish homeland, they disagreed on the nature, structure and methods of creation.
For political Zionists, a homeland meant a political state where Jews must hold an absolute majority. For such a state to be created, the land had to be cleansed of its non-Jewish indigenous people. On the other hand, cultural Zionism sought the revival of a universal Jewish spirit, Hebrew language and Judaic culture. It desired a cultural homeland with intellectual centers, not a political state with borders and a Jewish army to enforce those borders. Cultural Zionists were dissidents within political Zionism and urged equality between Palestinian Arabs and Jews in Palestine, mainly through the formation of a binational state. The source of this dissention was the bleak future that would inevitably result from political Zionism, which unfortunately has become today’s reality: a heavily militarized, undemocratic Jewish state driven by blind chauvinism.
Abuse, exploitation and blind nationalism
Political Zionists abused Jewish suffering to appeal to and impose their ideology on Jews so they could carry out their colonial project in Palestine without much fuss. Many Jewish intellectuals, such as Albert Einstein, recognized that if political Zionists succeeded in creating a “Jewish state,” they would do so at the expense of the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land, who would be forced out. In addition, he understood that Jews in a Jewish state would naturally develop blind nationalism, which ultimately would result in the suffering and abuse of Palestinians, who were in fact the majority inhabitants of historic Palestine.
In April 1935, Albert Einstein addressed the National Labor Committee for Palestine, stating:
“If Palestine is to become a Jewish national center, then the Palestinian settlement must develop into a model way of life for all Jewry through the cultivation of spiritual values.
Under the guise of nationalist propaganda Revisionism [right-wing branch of Political Zionism] seeks to support the destructive speculation in land; it seeks to exploit the people and deprive them of their rights…
Furthermore, the state of mind fed by revisionism is the most serious obstacle in the way of our peaceable and friendly cooperation with the Arab people, who are racially our kin.”
Past and present
Indeed, the destruction of land, the exploitation of people and the deprivation of rights are what followed and still is happening. In 1948, Zionist militias expelled more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and erased more than 530 Palestinian villages and towns from the face of the earth, ethnic cleansing at its best. Near the end of the 1948 war, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 194, which stated that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property.” Israel has yet to comply.
Resolution 194 was passed to recognize the efforts of UN peace mediator Folke Bernadotte, who had helped save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. He was assassinated by the Zionists in September 1948.
In 1967, when Israel won the Six-Day War, it occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and annexed East Jerusalem, which is also considered an occupied Palestinian territory under international law. The UN Security Council then passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel has yet to comply.
Desmond Tutu, who fought apartheid in South Africa, compared Israel’s oppression of Palestinians to the abuse of black South Africans under apartheid. “I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces,” Tutu said in a statement. “Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.”
This is today’s reality in historic Palestine (Israel and Palestinian territories): apartheid. There are three classes of citizens: Jews, with all privileges and entitlements; Palestinian second-class citizens of Israel, who have some rights but are institutionally discriminated against; and stateless Palestinians living in the Bantustans of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who are deprived of virtually all rights.
Noam Chomsky went even further, calling Israeli policies toward Palestinians “much worse than apartheid” in South Africa.
The path to peace
Therefore, it is no surprise to see Israelis sitting on top of a hill, drinking beer and cheering as they watch their army bombing Gaza and lighting the night sky; to see Jewish youths full of hate, taking to the streets and chanting “Death to Arabs!” (even when they wish us death, they cannot bring themselves to call us Palestinians); and to see Israeli ministers calling for genocide against Palestinians, from Interior Minister Eli Yishai urging people “to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages,” to Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked declaring “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy” and calling for the destruction of Palestine’s “elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” To top it off, she called for the death of Palestinian mothers, who give birth to “little snakes.” Should you be surprised to hear Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserting the “need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future,” to “forever live by the sword”? This is blind nationalism, blind chauvinism. This is political Zionism.
Political Zionism is an ideology that is inherently racist, supremacist, and exclusivist. If you seek to understand the conflict, if you believe in and strive for a just peace in Israel-Palestine, this is where your fight starts. Ultimately, until Israelis break away from the chains of Zionism, until Palestinians regain their dignity, humanity, and civil, political and human rights, this land will see no lasting peace.
Zionism is blocking the path to peace – Mondoweiss
by Mohammed Alhammami, mondoweiss.net
Originally written for We Are Not Numbers.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/zionism-blocking-peace

More: Paris Attacks & Genesis of Terrorism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace

Terror Attacks in Paris: Western Imperialism Is to Blame

Image result for western imperialism
In the aftermath of the latest attacks on Paris that left more than 120 dead, the corporate, Eurocentric media of the West is in overdrive to scare working people into sacrificing their civil liberties and convince us of the need to launch more aggressive bombing raids, with the possibility of deploying troops, in Iraq and Syria to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The attacks reek of a false flag operation by French security forces, but even if the attacks were indeed the work of ISIS, the attacks are nevertheless the inevitable response to Western imperialism’s exploitation of the Middle East and North Africa and worldwide military interventions. Each conflict in the Middle East and North Africa can be attributed to the policies of Western imperialism. The conflict in Syria is not a civil war; it is a regional proxy war being waged by Western imperialism through air strikes, sanctions, and support for regional proxies (i.e., so-called “moderate” rebels, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Israel, etc.),(note: also add Iran, Syria, Ressia ) all with their own agendas, to weaken movements and states opposed to their interests. Likewise, the war in neighboring Iraq can be directly attributed to the illegal occupation of the country by Western imperialism in 2003; al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of ISIS, was not formed until after the U.S.-led occupation. The U.S. and its allies have over the last 50 years caused untold devastation and suffering to millions of people in dozens of countries throughout the world, especially in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. There is hardly a single country in all three regions that hasn’t been subjected to airstrikes, invasions, coups, sanctions, and/or mass murders by U.S.-led imperialism. The rise of radical Islamic extremism itself has its origins in the policies of U.S. imperialism to overthrow the People’s Democratic Government of Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s. Muslims were recruited, trained, and armed by the U.S. and its allies Pakistan, then under the control of Zia ul-Haq, an authoritarian, US supported military dictator with a radical Islamic agenda, and Saudi Arabia, still controlled by one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes in the world with an extreme interpretation of Islamic law, in camps and madrassas on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. These “freedom fighters”, as Ronald Reagan referred to them, poisoned the water of schoolchildren, mercilessly tortured teachers, raped women, and fought to reestablish the power of the feudal landlords. After the Soviet withdrawal and the overthrow of the socialist government, many of these Muslim fighters left Afghanistan to wage violent insurgencies against the authoritarian dictators that serve as the puppet masters of Western imperialism in their home countries and against the Western states that support them. Whenever a terrorist attack is committed, Western politicians and the media try to capitalize on the anger and fear of the masses to implement pre-planned agendas, while deliberately ignoring the history of these very states in committing terrorist acts themselves. France has terrorized the people of its former colonies for decades. In Algeria, 1.5 million were killed fighting for their independence from France, among many other bloody wars of independence fought against France. French imperialism routinely intervenes in its former colonies whenever its interests are threatened; French special forces were sent to control the uranium mines in Niger and the Central African Republic, and thousands of troops were deployed in the Ivory Coast to control the cocoa trade and also to Mali to control the country’s mineral wealth in competition with Chinese investments. To this day 14 former French colonies in Africa are forced to pay France a ‘colonial tax’, putting $500 billion of wealth into the French treasury each year instead of being used to help the desperately impoverished people of Africa. When French President Hollande declared, “Our democracy stands more true than these assassins,” he is referring to the same ‘democratic’ state that massacred 200 Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. The most recent attacks in Paris have the hallmarks of a false flag operation. A Syrian passport was conveniently located by French police at the scene of one of the attacks, an extremely helpful piece of evidence to justify closing the borders for refugees fleeing the violence created by France and its allies and illegally bombing cities in Syria. Hollande’s accusation that ISIS was responsible for the attack, before any investigation was completed and before ISIS, itself, claimed responsibility for the attack, as well as the appearance on Wikipedia of a detailed account of the attacks within two hours of them happening and Hollande’s statement an hour before he made it raises serious suspicions that this was a pre-planned attack by French security. False flag operations have been used by many states to carry out pre-planned agendas. The Nazis did it in 1933 when they set fire to the Reichstag, Israel did it when Israeli agents planted bombs in American and British own civilian targets (known as the Lavon Affair) in Egypt, and the U.S. did it during the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin Incident) and was prepared to do it Operation Northwoods, a plan by the U.S. to bomb civilians targets in the U.S. as a pretext for war against Cuba. French police conducted more than 150 raids following the attacks in Paris. If the U.S. Patriot Act and anti-terrorism activities of police in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and elsewhere tell us anything about these raids, it is that not all of them were against suspected terrorists. The FBI has used the Patriot Act to target anti-war, anti-globalization, environmentalist, immigrant, and socialist movements in the U.S., and the RCMP have used anti-terrorism legislation to monitorenvironmental and Aboriginal movements opposed to the Alberta Tar Sands. Working people must remember that the tragic and despicable attacks on Paris are the inevitable consequence of Western imperialism’s destructive policies of exploitation and terrorism abroad. Further restrictions on domestic civil liberties and more military interventions will not keep working people safe. To fight terrorism Western imperialism must first stop engaging in it and recognize the fundamental right of the people of the Middle East to live in peace and to self-determination.
By T. J. Petrowski, globalresearch.ca
T.J. Petrowski is an independent geopolitical analyst. You can read more of his work on his website tjpetrowski.com


More: Paris Attacks & Genesis of Terrorism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace

A 30 year war in the Middle East

It's the 15th year of what used to be called the “War on Terror” – and it's about to intensify
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/we-must-prepare-for-a-30-year-war-in-the-middle-east-a6746886.html

More: Paris Attacks & Genesis of Terrorism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace