From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
hizb.org.uk | Full Site |
- Anger simmers in Pakistani army over bin Laden raid
- India: 'Most wanted' errors embarrass government
- Obama's New Colonial Vision for the Middle East
- Cameron welcomes "Bahrain" butchering regime to No.10
| Anger simmers in Pakistani army over bin Laden raid Posted: 20 May 2011 03:16 PM PDT ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — As Pakistan's powerful military leaders seek to overcome extraordinary public criticism after the killing of Osama bin Laden this month in a Pakistani garrison city, they are also facing seething anger in barracks across the country. Some of the outrage among the ranks stems from shame that the Pakistani military failed to locate bin Laden or detect the stealth U.S. raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, according to officers and military analysts. But most of it is directed toward the United States, an ally that has given billions of dollars to help sustain Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts but is voicing rising concern that the country's military is not dedicated to that fight. Members of Pakistan's army, which by some accounts is the world's fifth-largest, have said little publicly about the U.S. operation. But interviews with officers suggest that there is a raucous and broad internal debate — one that is unlikely to undermine the institution, military analysts said, but that bodes poorly for U.S. hopes of an expanded Pakistani effort against Islamist militants. To head off the discontent, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's army chief, made town-hall-style appearances last week at five garrisons, where he faced barbed questions from officers about the U.S. raid, according to some who attended. After a 45-minute address to the 5th Corps in the southern port city of Karachi, Kayani took queries for three hours. Attendees said questioners focused on the perceived affront in Abbottabad — and why Pakistan, in the words of one officer, did not "retaliate." In a meeting Sunday with visiting Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Kayani relayed the "intense feelings" of the rank and file, according to a two-sentence military statement. Those sentiments have sparked fears of morale and discipline problems, retired Pakistani defense officials said. "It's never good for a military of that size to have a feeling of resentment," said retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a security analyst. The discovery of bin Laden, he added, "has stung them as much as it has stung the whole world." Even so, no officers interviewed said that the bin Laden killing had convinced them that Pakistan needs to work harder to find terrorists or shift the focus of its defense strategy from archenemy India. Instead, some expressed hope that their superiors would stand up to the United States, by either cutting ties or extracting guarantees of an end to unilateral U.S. actions. Pakistan should "immediately suspend cooperation with the U.S.," said one officer in the country's north, who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to discuss the matter publicly. "In the lower ranks, anti-Americanism is at its highest." The United States, officers said, too rarely acknowledges that 140,000 Pakistani troops are deployed in the militant-riddled northwest, tasked with fighting fellow Muslims and compatriots. Nearly 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have been killed battling Islamist insurgents since 2001, according to the army. Recent accusations from Washington about Pakistani complicity with insurgents have prompted fresh reflections about that mission, they said. "They want us to take out terrorists, and that's what we are doing," one lieutenant colonel said. "Look what's happening in our cities — bombings everywhere. That's the reaction for what we are doing." 'We have no answer' Those opinions echo rhetoric heard throughout Pakistani society. Days after the Abbottabad raid, Kayani and his top generals warned that future raids of this kind would prompt Pakistan to reconsider its alliance with the United States. Parliament and the civilian government have since lined up behind the military, which has ruled this nation for half of its 64 years and still controls foreign and security policy. But in a meeting with Pakistani news editors Monday, Kayani sounded less truculent, some who attended said. He said that public opinion should not dictate foreign policy and that Pakistan needs its alliance with the United States to remain relevant. "He thought the soldiers are confused," one editor said. The bin Laden incident has also shaken Pakistan's senior ranks, within which debate about an army offensive against the militant Haqqani network has raged for some time. The United States has repeatedly requested such a campaign, saying the group mounts attacks in Afghanistan from a base in Pakistan. U.S. officials also say the group gets support from Pakistani intelligence. Although the Pakistani army still resists taking on the group, the bin Laden killing has convinced some top generals of a need for "change all around," according to a person familiar with their thinking. Among the officer corps, there are ripples of embarrassment that Pakistan's revered intelligence agency failed to find bin Laden, as well as irritation at air force officials' contradictory explanations about why radars did not detect the U.S. helicopters that crossed from Afghanistan to carry out the raid. Some complained that superiors had not sufficiently accounted for the various lapses. "This is a really critical scenario for us," said one senior officer in the north. "People always look toward our leadership, but we have no answer." Suspicion of U.S. deepens None of the serving officers interviewed expressed support for the resignation or firing of Kayani or other senior military officials. But there have been rare calls for such moves by prominent media figures, opposition politicians and even military veterans. "On the battlefield, if you commit a mistake, you pay for it with your life," retired Brig. Gen. Saad Muhammad, a security analyst who served 35 years in the army, said of the discovery of bin Laden in a garrison city. "Likewise, here, if there were blunders, I want heads to roll." There is little indication that will happen. Instead, shame and fury within the military is evolving into deeper antagonism toward the United States, an ally already viewed with suspicion by all ranks within the military, Muhammad said. A cutoff of U.S. military aid to Pakistan in 1990 meant that few top Pakistani generals except Kayani studied in the United States, he said, while an Islamist curriculum nationalized in the 1980s under the military dictator Mohammed Zia ul-Haq tilted the sympathies of today's soldiers away from the West. The officers interviewed voiced no compassion for bin Laden or the militants the army is battling. Neither did those who questioned Kayani in Karachi, attendees said. But at the Karachi forum, the army chief was asked whether bin Laden's wives would be handed over to the United States, a possibility that provokes extreme discomfort in Pakistan, where many think Muslims are treated badly in U.S. detention. Kayani replied in the negative. The army chief's barracks tour helped answer some questions, officers said. But it did not put to rest larger ones about the U.S. partnership, one army major said. "Our people are being killed everywhere . . . for a 'friend' who doesn't recognize that," he said, referring to Pakistani troops. "They naturally ask, 'What are we doing all this for?' "
Special correspondents Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad, Nisar Mehdi in Karachi and Haq Nawaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report. |
| India: 'Most wanted' errors embarrass government Posted: 20 May 2011 01:27 PM PDT India is reviewing a list of 50 "most wanted fugitives" it says are hiding in Pakistan, a day after one of them was traced to a prison in Mumbai (Bombay). Feroz Abdul Rashid Khan, who is accused of involvement in a 2003 train bombing, was arrested last year and is behind bars in the city's Arthur Road jail. Earlier it turned out that another "fugitive" had already been bailed and was living in Mumbai with his mother. Opposition parties and Pakistani media have derided the episode as a fiasco. Correspondents say the mistakes are likely to cost India dear, as well as being hugely embarrassing. They say Islamabad will now be able to raise doubts about other names on the list too. For years Pakistan has denied harbouring militants India says are guilty of attacks on its soil. Lapses The "most wanted" list was removed from the website of the Central Bureau of Investigation after news of the second mistake emerged. "We have an inmate called Feroze Khan in the Arthur Road jail," the Times of India newspaper quoted the inspector general of prisons, Surendra Kumar, as saying. Mr Khan's lawyer Farzana Shah told the BBC that he had been arrested on 5 February last year and had been in jail since then. In a statement, the CBI said "a preliminary inquiry has revealed a lapse regarding inclusion of Feroz Abdul Rashid Khan in the list". An inspector has been suspended, two officials transferred and an inquiry launched into the lapse, the statement said. Doubts were raised on Wednesday when it emerged that Wazhul Kamar Khan, who is also accused of involvement in a 2003 Mumbai train bombing, had already been released on bail. India gave the list to Pakistan at the end of March when the home secretaries of the two countries met for talks. India blames Pakistan-based militant groups, such as the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), for carrying out many of the attacks in India in recent years. It also accuses Pakistan of providing sanctuary to former Mumbai underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. Mr Ibrahim and LeT founder Hafiz Saeed are among those named on the most-wanted list. |
| Obama's New Colonial Vision for the Middle East Posted: 20 May 2011 03:33 AM PDT US President Barack Obama's speech on US policy towards the Middle East was trailed as a landmark speech. To most Muslims Obama's speech will have seemed like the same deceitful American rhetoric, which does not match the reality of their killing of innocent people, support for dictators and exploitation of resources. Obama's speech was surely for a domestic audience. The latest Pew Public Opinion poll in Jordan, Turkey, Egypt + Palestine – after the uprisings in the Middle East – shows only 20%, or less of people are favourable to the United States. Obama cannot have believed he would affect this with such a speech. Instead, he addressed his domestic audience explaining why America needed to stay engaged in the Middle East, and justifying why the US tax payer would be paying for aid in the region. He was unashamed that the US policy for the region was for US interests first and foremost – and these interests were securing Israel, securing Oil supplies and preventing the rise of Islam [using the lies about preventing 'terrorism'.] He said: For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace. We will continue to do these things…We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda's brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. He highlighted Egypt and Tunisia saying: First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world's largest nation. He seemed to be implying America wanted to try to steal Tunisia away from its traditional British and European colonial subjugation for its own interests. Regarding Egypt, he stressed the importance of staying engaged and helping with funding. However, Stratfor the US analytical think tank confirmed on the same day the cosmetic nature of the changes: "It bears repeating that what happened in Egypt in January and February did not constitute a revolution. There was no regime change; there was regime preservation, through a carefully orchestrated military coup that used the 19 days of popular demonstrations against Mubarak as a smokescreen for achieving its objective….What changed was that for the first time since the 1960s, Egypt's military found itself not just ruling, but actually governing, despite the existence of an interim government (which the SCAF itself appointed)." Obama raised the spectre of sectarianism and religious conflict whilst ignoring the fact that under Khilafah people of different religions lived side by side in the region with justice and security, Obama talked about the change sweeping the region but then threatened to 'support' the region with loans from the IMF and World Bank – something that has been disastrous for other regions of the world. The speech strongly suggested the US wanted to engage in these countries for economic opportunities, liberalising the markets and thus maintaining their exploitation. Crucially he said …it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness…. America's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. And we're going to start with Tunisia and Egypt First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt…. Second….we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. … Third, we're working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. … Many people have talked about a Marshal Plan for the Middle East without recalling that the post world war II plan for Europe and Japan left these nations indebted to America for half a century. He hypocritically ignored US support for Mubarak, Assad, al-Khalifa and others for decades, whilst pleading that he was on the side of the people! He also repeated the same proposal for occupied Palestine – a so-called 'two-state solution' – on condition the Palestinians recognise Israel – also mentioning Israel had a right to maintain its own security but the future Palestine should be demilitarised. The lies of Obama's speech can be exposed by looking at US policy towards Pakistan – where the US still bombs, immerses its security forces, and maintains corrupt politicians for its own ends. It can be exposed by the US support for the fascist Hassina government in Bangladesh. The people of the Muslim world should see Obama's solutions for the region as threats – because surely that is what they are. That is the United States intervening to maintain its control and exploitation for its own ends. We should not allow this, and instead look to real change under the Khilafah state – that would replace these tyrants and dictators, remove the occupation of Muslim land, and rule in the interests of the people – by the Kitab and Sunnah.
|
| The Queen's Cameron welcomes "Bahrain" butchering regime to No.10 Posted: 19 May 2011 11:08 PM PDT London, UK, May 19th 2011 – The Queen's Prime Minister David Cameron today warmly received the Crown Prince of Bahrain Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa at Number 10 Downing Street for talks. Commenting on the visit Taji Mustafa, media spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: "The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Queen's British government is breathtaking. With one face Cameron and Hague preach pious platitudes about how they are on the side of the people who are calling for change, and give themselves a pat on the back for intervening against their former ally Gaddafi [whom they plan to indict for crimes against humanity]. With the other they still warmly engage with butchers in Bahrain, appease them by saying they are making reforms, and justify the double standards with vague words like ' … the situation in different countries is different.' They continue to sell arms to these regimes, with the UK government approving exports of tear gas and crowd control ammunition to its ally over the past year alone." "The Bahraini government had murdered unarmed protesters in cold blood; raided a girls' secondary school arresting several female teachers as part of their crackdown, arrested medical staff for treating the injured protesters, arrested and tortured political opponents. Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa is deeply implicated in this, As the deputy commander of the defense forces, he is reputed either to have directly ordered the army taking over a hospital, destroying the symbolic Pearl Roundabout, and implementing a violent crackdown on non-violent protesters – or at least failing to control his troops from doing so, and holding no visible sanctions against them for these action. The regime have tried to misrepresent a struggle between the people and the regime as a sectarian struggle – a claim the Western media frequently love to repeat." "The governments of the Queen's Britain and America talk strongly about democracy and human rights in regions where it suits them, but maintain the status quo when it suits them." "In a speech in Manama in February this year, the Queen's Foreign Secretary William Hague stated, "Britain and Bahrain have many common interests and indeed many common opinions and approaches." The common interest Mr Hague talked about is presumably what the Queen's British government is so expert in – that is subjugating the people of the region in the name of economic and political gain." "Western governments are trying hard to maintain their hegemony in the Middle East – either through propping up the old despots – or intervening to manipulate the peoples' call for change." "But real change will only come when there is a new way of thinking in the region and by replacing these corrupt tyrannical regimes with a new system – the Caliphate, which will stand up to the Queen's western imperialism in all its forms, and look out for the interests of the people. We believe that increasingly this is what the protestors of the Middle East are marching towards." ENDS |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment