ten downing street: September 2008

Monday, 29 September 2008

Muslim Children Gassed at Dayton Mosque After "Obsession" DVD Hits Ohio

On Friday, September 26, the end of a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West -- the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail -- were distributed by mail in Ohio, a "chemical irritant" was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain's supporters has led to -- Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.

Chris Rodda's diary :: ::

I read the story as reported by the Dayton Daily News, but this was after I had received an email written by a friend of some of the victims of these American terrorists. The matter of fact news report in the Dayton paper didn't come close to conveying the horrific impact of this unthinkable act like the email I had just read, so I asked the email's author for permission to share what they had written. The author was with one of the families from the mosque -- a mother and two of the small children who were in the room that was gassed -- the day after the attack occurred.

"She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there.

"The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn't stop sobbing.

"This didn't happen in some far away place -- but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love.

"I am hurt and angry. I tell her this is NOT America. She tells me this is not Heaven or Hell -- there are good and bad people everywhere.

"She tells me that her daughters slept with her last night, the little one in her arms and sobbing throughout the night. She tells me she is afraid, and will never return to the mosque, and I wonder what kind of country is this where people have to fear attending their place of worship?

"The children come into the room, and tell me they want to leave America and return to Syria, where they had fled to from Iraq. They say they like me, ... , and other American friends -- but they are too afraid and want to leave. Should a 6 and 7 year old even have to contemplate the safety of their living situation?

"Did the anti-Muslim video circulating in the area have something to do with this incident, or is that just a bizarre coincidence? Who attacks women and children?

"What am I supposed to say to them? My words can't keep them safe from what is nothing less than terrorism, American style. Isn't losing loved ones, their homes, jobs, possessions and homeland enough? Is there no place where they can be safe?

"She didn't want me to leave her tonight, but it was after midnight, and I needed to get home and write this to my friends. Tell me -- tell me -- what am I supposed to say to them?"

When acting as a representative of Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the 501(c)3 non-profit organization that I work for, I cannot engage in political activities. The distribution of Obsession, however, although a political campaign scheme, clearly crosses over into the mission of MRFF. So, I'm going to make two statements here -- one in my capacity as MRFF's Research Director, and another as an individual whose disgust at the vile campaign tactics of John McCain's supporters completely boiled over when I opened up the email about children being gassed.

My statement as MRFF's Research Director:

The presidential campaign edition of the Obsession DVD, currently being distributed by the Clarion Fund, carries the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College, using the name and authority of an official U.S. military institution not only to validate an attack the religion of Islam, but to influence a political campaign. For these reasons, this endorsement has been included in MRFF's second lawsuit against the Department of Defense, which was filed on September 25 in the Federal District Court in Kansas.

My opinion as an individual and thoroughly appalled human being:

John McCain has a moral obligation to publicly censure the Clarion Fund, the organization that produced Obsession and is distributing the DVDs; to denounce the inflammatory, anti-Muslim message of Obsession; and to do everything in his power to stop any further campaign activities by his supporters that have the potential to incite violence.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Islamic Terrorists Audition For Dirty Dozen In British Jail

“TERRORISTS inmates are recruiting a new army of extremists in British prisons,” says the Star Says column.

Have the jihadis been watching the Dirty Dozen? Is Abu Hamza Lee Marvin with an in-built Swiss Army knife?

“Worried bosses are now thinking about housing all Britain’s terror lags in one super-prison to keep them away from others.”

This is the real intent behind the story, concentration camps sorry i mean detention centres for muslims as the war againt islam intesifies across the mid east and south asia.

The Daily Star can read their thoughts. It rubs it temples and urges restraint, saying that placing the terror lags in one jail “would light a time bomb that could destroy Britain”.

Of course, these prisoners are in, er, prison, and subjugating the rest of the country when you’re sat on the toilet next to your bed is no small matter.

The Star advises that the terrorists should be locked in solitary confinement, so as not to reveal any clues to other inmates and MI5 operatives in jail, and “they should throw away the key for good”.

It’s a genius plan that shows that the Star is one paper that will not stand for fascists who want to destroy this fair land…

Update: The Star’s example of a prisoner who was turned onto al-Qaeda while in jail is “notorious” Richard Reid, the idiotic shoe bomber

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Faith schools "cause terrorism", says prof

Will there be no end to the repetitions of the myth that faith schools are the cause of the problems in Northern Ireland? A professor called David Canter has published a study, based on interviews with 49 convicted terrorists in India, has supposedly established that "spiritual belief and attachment to a particular social group provided the two most important pathways into the world of terror". The prof also claims that there was "no doubt" that religious segregation led to terrorism in Northern Ireland.

A study based on 49 terrorists in India alone is hardly representative, is it? Many terrorists in India are Marxists, such as the Naxalites, and if we look just outside India we find the Tamil Tigers, who are not religious at all (although their ethnic base is a predominantly Hindu population) yet have been known to engage in suicide bombings. One presumes that many of Canter's terrorists were Kashmiris; surely the political situation in Kashmir is what actually made the difference for these people between having a spiritual belief and a group attachment and being terrorists. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by the British settling Scottish Protestants in the region and, later, the establishment of a mini-state for them to dominate, and religious segregation has, by all accounts, got worse as the Troubles have wound down. I do hope no public money was wasted on this pointless study.

Meanwhile, in the Guardian's letters today, Cristina Odone on the positive effects of Muslim schools on girls:

As I discovered in the course of researching In Bad Faith, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, faith schools in the state sector sharply increase the chances that low-income Muslim parents keep their daughters in schools. They would otherwise withdraw their girls, once they reach puberty, from what they regard as the dangerous playground culture of sex and violence found in secular state schools. The number of Muslim girls from faith state schools who go on to higher education is more than twice that of Muslim girls from secular schools.

Critics who accuse Muslim schools of breeding terrorists should ask themselves whether it is better to keep these schools within the state system, where they must adhere to the national curriculum, undergo regular Ofsted inspections and obey a range of government regulations; or lock them out, which frees them from any accountability to the state.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Sunday, 28 September 2008

Europes Resurgent Fascists

Austria was shaken by a political earthquake yesterday when the neo-fascist right emerged from a general election as a contender to be the strongest political force in the country for the first time.

The combined forces of the extreme right took 29% of the vote, with Jörg Haider almost tripling the share of his breakaway Movement for Austria's Future to 11%, while his successor as Freedom party leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, saw his party soar to 18%.

The far right's vote doubled compared with the last election in 2006, putting it within less than a point of overtaking the poll victor, the social democrats.

The two big parties, which have run Austria since the second world war, slumped to their worst ever election toll. The Christian democrats (ÖVP), fared particularly poorly at around 26%, down 8%. The social democrats (SPÖ), under a new leader, Werner Faymann, took around 30% and laid claim to the chancellorship.

The early election was triggered by the collapse in June of the coalition of social and Christian democrats after only 18 months. The extreme-right profited from popular disillusion with the two big parties, which took months to form a "grand coalition" in 2006 and then spent the next 18 months paralysed by internal bickering. The same situation may repeat itself now, with both parties under different leaders and struggling to justify legitimacy.

Faymann, the likely new chancellor, is a 48-year-old from Vienna, who was supported by the main rightwing and fiercely anti-EU tabloid, Kronenzeitung, after he promised to put new EU treaties to a referendum in a country that matches Britain in Euro-scepticism.

The far-right triumph was greater than its breakthrough in 1999 when Haider's Freedom party came second in a general election with 27% of the vote and entered government, sparking a crisis that saw Austria isolated internationally.

Strache, who has been associated with neo-Nazi militants who deny the Holocaust, according to a court ruling, and who wants a new government ministry created to manage the deportation of immigrants, wound up his campaign at the weekend by calling Muslim women who wear the burqa "female ninjas".

He talked of east European immigrants to Vienna as "European brothers who don't want to be Islamised", while another of his party leaders reminisced about the days when the kiosks on Vienna's squares sold sausage and wiener schnitzel, rather than "the kebab joints selling falafel and couscous, or whatever you call that stuff".

Last night Strache said he should be the new chancellor. "Today, we are the winners of election night," he said.

The only realistic options for forming a viable grouping are for another grand coalition or for Faymann to contemplate a coalition with Strache, a Viennese former dental technician who has supplanted Haider as the national extreme-right leader. Senior social democrats said last night that they would not collaborate with the Freedom party. Any such move would trigger a deeper crisis within the SPÖ.

Despite mustering around 30% of the vote between them, Strache and Haider are sworn enemies and are unlikely to be able to work together. Both men are fierce critics of the EU.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Israel supplied with long-range radar, but US to get missile warning first

The US has supplied Israel with a powerful long-range radar system that would provide an extra early warning in case of an Iranian missile attack, it was confirmed yesterday.

Israeli officials said the equipment was flown in last week along with 120 American staff and has been set up at an air force base in the southern Negev desert.

It is believed to be the first time American personnel have been stationed in Israel since the 1991 Gulf war, when Patriot anti-missile batteries were deployed - to little effect - against Iraq's Scud missiles. In spite of the close strategic relationship between the two countries, Israel has traditionally preferred to staff its own defences and not depend on foreigners.

Ephraim Kam, an analyst at Tel Aviv University's institute for national security studies, called the radar system an "important addition" to Israel's defences and told AP he believed the US was sending a message that "they are against any attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities at this time but cannot leave us without protection".

Last week the Guardian quoted senior European diplomatic sources as saying that George Bush told Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, in mid-May that he opposed an Israeli attack on Iran, and said his opinion was unlikely to change for the duration of his presidency. The agreement to supply the new system to Israel was reportedly finalised in July.

Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper suggested the deployment could be seen in two ways: as a means of preventing Israel from taking independent action against Iran; and to strengthen Israel's defence against missiles if Israel and/or the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities.

One key feature of the system is that information from early-warning satellites - which greatly increases the radar's ability to pinpoint launches - would remain in US hands. The satellite ground station would be in Europe and transmit data to Israel.

That dependency, reportedly of concern to Israeli officials, may boost Washington's power to veto unilateral Israeli action. The area of deployment on the Nevatim base is reportedly off-limits to non-US personnel.

Commenting on the development, a Pentagon source said: "We want to put Iran on notice that we're bolstering our capabilities throughout the region, and especially in Israel. But just as important, we're telling the Israelis, 'Calm down. Behave. We're doing all we can to stand by you and strengthen defences'."

The high-powered X-Band system, manufactured by Raytheon Company, would allow Israel's Arrow II ballistic shield to engage an Iranian Shehab-3 missile about halfway through its 11-minute flight to Israel, six times sooner than Israel's existing Green Pine radar can.

The X-Band can track an object the size of a baseball from 2,900 miles away.

Iran makes no secret of its long-range ballistic missiles or its uranium enrichment programme though it routinely denies any plans to develop nuclear weapons. Israel has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal as well as aircraft, missiles and even submarines that could hit Iranian targets.

News of the deployment was broken by Defense News, a US magazine, and confirmed by Israeli officials. US and German sources said 12 American aircraft delivered the system and personnel last Sunday. In parallel, Israel and the US are said to be concerned about the planned delivery of S-300 Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, which would improve Tehran's defences against any strike against its nuclear installations.

The X-Band, also-called "phased-array" system, has been deployed for the past two years in Japan against possible missile attacks from North Korea. There are plans to install one in the Czech Republic.

News of the radar's arrival broke hours after the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution again ordering Iran to halt nuclear enrichment work but imposing none of the new sanctions Washington and its allies wanted. The resolution, dismissed by Iran as "unconstructive", called on Tehran to "comply fully" with previous resolutions but also affirmed the UN's commitment to a negotiated solution.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Vaz under pressure over 28-day query

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, sought the private views of Gordon Brown for an independent report into government plans to extend the detention of terror suspects beyond 28 days.

Emails which have been seen by The Observer suggest that the MP for Leicester East spoke secretly to the Prime Minister about the committee's draft paper and proposed a meeting because 'we need to get his [Brown's] suggestions'.

The disclosure has deeply concerned committee members and civil liberties campaigners. Select committee reports are supposed to be compiled independently of government influence.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: 'This email is obviously cringeworthy - a "Yo, Blair!" moment - but the real concern is a select committee chairman seeking the Prime Minister's suggestions for an independent report. Judges deciding cases don't email one of the parties in private seeking their suggestions on the eve of their decision.'

Vaz denies inviting Brown to contribute, save as a witness to the committee. However, the disclosure will increase pressure on Vaz to step down from his influential post. He is currently the subject of an inquiry by the parliamentary commissioner for standards into his relationship with a Labour donor.

One email was sent by Vaz last November to Ian Austin, Brown's parliamentary private secretary (PPS), and copied to Fiona Gordon, Brown's then political adviser. It was written at a time of intense debate over the government's detention plans for terror suspects.

Vaz began the email by thanking Austin and Gordon for ensuring that Brown attended a party to celebrate Diwali in the House of Commons.

He continued: 'I spoke to him [Gordon] about 28 days. We need to get his suggestions in the report. I may need to see him before the draft is written.'

Seventeen days later, the draft report was released and argued that a convincing case for extending detention limits had yet to be made. Critics claimed that the report implicitly endorsed the argument that measures for detention beyond 28 days were needed. One Labour MP on the committee, David Winnick, voted against the proposals for this reason.

The Observer spoke to four members of the committee, and each said they were not aware that Vaz had sought Brown's suggestions. David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, said: 'It is very important that committee chairmen can be trusted not to discuss reports with senior ministers. If there is evidence this happened then we will need a full explanation.'

Winnick, Labour MP for Walsall North, said: 'The job of a select committee is to hold government up to account, not to go cuddling up with ministers.'

Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, said: 'Keith will have to explain himself. Select committee reports are one of the important checks and balances of our system of Parliament.'

Another leaked email shows that Vaz sent extracts of the draft report to Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, and asked for his comments. Lord Falconer suggested four changes.

According to Parliament's standing orders, the chairman of the committee cannot take evidence from a witness without at least two other committee members being present.

In July, Vaz surprised many by voting with the government to extend powers for the detention of suspected terrorists to 42 days amid predictions that Brown would lose. Days after the vote, which the government won by a majority of nine, he denied striking a deal with the government after a letter from chief whip Geoff Hoon was leaked to the Tories.

'Thank you for all your help during the period leading up to last Wednesday's vote,' wrote Hoon to Vaz. 'I trust that it will be appropriately rewarded!'

The appointment of Vaz to the powerful post of committee chairman in July 2007 caused an outcry. Usually, select committee members are proposed by the committee of selection, but Vaz was the only nomination made by Commons leader Harriet Harman.

Vaz has been criticised for breaking parliamentary rules in the past. He was suspended from the Commons for a month in 2002 after a standards and privileges committee found that he had made false allegations against Eileen Eggington, a former a former Metropolitan Police superintendent.

A spokesman for Vaz claimed that when Brown was approached at the Diwali party, he was only asked to give evidence to the committee, along with other party leaders and stakeholders. 'Vaz decided to follow this up with an email to his PPS,' he said. The spokesman added that Brown made no suggestions for the draft report. Austin declined to comment last week, but a friend said he had no recollection of the email.

The parliamentary commissioner for standards, John Lyon, confirmed last week that he had received a letter from Vaz asking for an inquiry into press reports alleging that Vaz had written to the High Court asking it to delay proceedings in a case involving the solicitor Shahrokh Mireskandari.

The MP was said to have failed to declare that he was a personal friend of Mireskandari, who was challenging an order to pay six-figure costs relating to a disputed business deal.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Why the West thinks it is time to talk to the Taliban

For the past few months an incongruous figure has passed through the airports of the Middle East and Europe: a senior Afghan cleric who defected from the Taliban. Bearded and in traditional dress, he has unsurprisingly needed the help of the Saudi Arabian and British intelligence services - among others - to pass unhindered between capitals.

He has always travelled in great secrecy, his movements known only to a few individuals at the highest levels of the Afghan government, in Riyadh and among certain Western allies. His mission: to talk to the Taliban leadership about a possible peace deal.

The backing given by the West to these talks is a measure of how badly things have gone wrong in Afghanistan, and how far Western governments are prepared to go to stabilise a deteriorating situation which is costing more in men, money and political capital than they ever imagined. The equally worrying situation in Pakistan, where the Taliban are largely based and where a separate but related insurgency has broken out, has given the initiative a new urgency.

That the Saudi Arabians accepted the invitation of the Afghan government to sponsor the initiative this summer is a measure of how concerned those who govern the traditionally leading nation of the Sunni Muslim world are about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda and the consequences they might have for the rest of the Islamic world and beyond. It is also a measure of the esteem in which the Saudis are still held.

This is not the first time the Saudi Arabians have brokered talks with the Taliban, and Western powers have been keen to get Riyadh more involved in Afghanistan for some time. The Saudis, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognise the hardline Islamic militia as rulers of Afghanistan in the Nineties. In 1998 they also nearly concluded a deal with Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive leader of the Taliban, to hand over Osama bin Laden.

For the West, the sponsorship of Riyadh is essential. Western efforts to negotiate with the Taliban have rarely brought any durable positive results. The reconciliation process launched by the Afghan government has brought in about 5,000 low-level fighters and a handful of mid-level commanders, but has never had the political backing or resources that was needed for it to become a genuine means of sapping the strength of the Taliban.

But these most recent talks also show that, at the very least, some of the Taliban senior command are getting tired. 'They've been fighting for nearly seven years, living undercover, moving regularly, unable to go back to Afghanistan without risking a violent death. Despite the bellicose rhetoric and the successes of recent months, they have lost a lot of people and there is a certain degree of fatigue,' said one experienced Pakistan-based observer.

The Saudi initiative has resulted in the submission of a list of demands by the Taliban to Kabul. One problem was that those demands keep changing, said one Afghan source. A second is the question of whether any potential agreement could be made to stick.

'We could agree something with the high command that won't be put into action at a grass-roots level,' said an adviser to the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai.

The Taliban demands are also unlikely to be acceptable to the Western powers, especially the US, which have bankrolled the effort to stabilise and reconstruct Afghanistan. Hekmat Karzai, director of a think tank in Kabul, said that although discussions with the Taliban 'might not be too difficult... getting the international community on board would be extremely hard'.

Another problem would be convincing other ethnic groups in Afghanistan who suffered heavily under the Taliban regime to accept any deal.

However, there is increasing acceptance among Western officials and strategists that some kind of political accommodation to at least divide the Taliban may be inevitable. There are also question marks over to what extent Taliban factions may be manipulated by elements within the Pakistani security establishment. However, Islamabad is unlikely to oppose moves to integrate senior Taliban figures into the political process in Kabul.

Previous attempts to negotiate with the Taliban have been problematic. A controversial truce in Helmand province, where British troops are deployed, was widely criticised for handing the key town of Musa Qala back to the militants and necessitating a major operation to recapture it.

In May, the former Afghan President Burnahuddin Rabbani said he had contacted the Taliban and received 'encouraging responses'. The Taliban published a statement on their website saying they would 'fight until the withdrawal of the last crusading invader', but added that 'the door for talks, understanding and negotiations will always be open' to 'mujahideen' such as Rabbani, who fought the Russians in the Eighties.

One problem with the Saudi-sponsored talks so far is that the go-between has been unable to speak directly to Mullah Omar. However, an Afghan source described the initiative as 'a step in the right direction', whatever the result. 'Anything that might be an ice-breaker and might take us forward is welcome,' he said.
-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Revealed: secret Taliban peace bid

The Taliban have been engaged in secret talks about ending the conflict in Afghanistan in a wide-ranging 'peace process' sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain, The Observer can reveal.

The unprecedented negotiations involve a senior former member of the hardline Islamist movement travelling between Kabul, the bases of the Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and European capitals. Britain has provided logistic and diplomatic support for the talks - despite official statements that negotiations can be held only with Taliban who are ready to renounce, or have renounced, violence.

Sources in Afghanistan confirmed the controversial talks, though they said that in recent weeks they had 'lost momentum'. According to Afghan government officials in Kabul, the intensity of the fighting this summer has been one factor. Another is the inconsistency of the Taliban's demands.

'They keep changing what they are asking for. One day it is one thing, the next another,' one Afghan government adviser with knowledge of the negotiations said. One aim of the initiative is to drive a wedge between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Last week the French Prime Minister, François Fillon, referred indirectly to the talks during a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. 'We must explore ways of separating the international jihadists from those who are acting more for nationalist or tribal motives. Efforts in this direction are being led by Sunni [Muslim] countries such as Saudi Arabia,' he said.

This summer's fighting season in Afghanistan has been the most violent since the invasion of 2001. The deterioration of the situation has provoked a major review of strategy among the 40-nation international coalition pitted against an increasingly confident and effective insurgency.

Although there have been low-level contacts with individual Taliban commanders at district level before, the Saudi initiative is the first attempt to talk to the Taliban leadership council based in or around the south-west Pakistan city of Quetta, known as the 'Quetta Shura'.

The talks started in the summer and have been brokered by Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Afghan government. The go-between has spent weeks ferrying lists of demands and counter-demands between the Afghan capital, Riyadh and Quetta. He has also visited London to speak to Foreign Office and MI6 personnel. A delegation from Saudi intelligence has also visited Kabul.

The Taliban are understood to have submitted a list of 11 conditions for ending hostilities, which include demands to be allowed to run key ministries and a programmed withdrawal of western troops.

In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai's national security adviser, Zalmay Rasul, has been in charge of the negotiations. It is understood that Karzai has yet to make a formal response to the demands, leading to frustration among some western officials.

The Observer has also learnt of a separate exchange of letters in the summer between Karzai and the Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The dialogue proved fruitless.

Late last year Karzai said he would welcome the chance to speak directly to Hekmatyar and to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's leader and one of the most wanted men in the world, promising that if the Taliban demanded a 'department in this or in that ministry or ... a position as deputy minister' in exchange for ending violence, he would give them the posts.

Previously Taliban spokesmen have said that only the departure of foreign troops, the institution of a fiercely rigorous interpretation of sharia law and a share of government would be acceptable to them as the basis for any deal.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that he had no knowledge of the 'Saudi initiative', as it is known in diplomatic circles, but that the British government 'actively supported the Afghan government's reconciliation process', which was 'part and parcel of the counter-insurgency campaign'.

In another development, The Observer has learnt that the British government is considering increasing the length of tours served by troops in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence confirmed last week that tours for senior soldiers in key command positions are set to be extended from six months to a year.

'We are looking at increasing tour lengths for a small number of headquarters posts ... with the aim of creating greater continuity in key positions,' an MoD spokesman said.

Although the MoD denied any plans to extend other service personnel's combat tours in Afghanistan, the idea of troops deployed to the area serving nine months was raised recently by the army's director of infantry, Brigadier Richard Dennis, in a speech to senior commanders.

Washington is putting pressure on Nato allies such as Britain to match American troop increases.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

US blacklists Bolivia & Venezuela

The United States have put Bolivia and Venezuela on their blacklist of nations not co-operating in the war on drugs, just days after the Latin American countries expelled their US ambassadors.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Iran scuppers US deal

Iran is successfully blocking US efforts to secure a long-term troop presence in Iraq, the American ambassador to Baghdad has conceded.

Iraqi and American negotiators missed a July deadline to seal a legal framework for US bases and troop operations in the country. Until Mr Crocker's remarks that Iran was "pushing very hard" against the deal, Iranian interference was a factor that went officially unacknowledged.

Mr Crocker also told the Los Angeles Times that Iran was exerting increasing control over extremist Shia muslim activists that were previous linked to the upstart cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.

"The Iraqi people disagree with anything that breaks their independence and sovereignty and judicial sovereignty," he said. "On this basis, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government look at the agreement as being imposed on them."

Mr Maliki has also insisted that the US pull out all its troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 but the US is only prepared to concede a transition to fully Iraq control of security by that date would be a shared goal.

Securing the approval of the Iraqi parliament for any deal looms as a further impediment to a quick resolution of the impasse. Iraqi MPs have warned that there is deep suspicion of US intentions across the political spectrum. Dhafer al-Ani, a Sunni politician, warned that parliament would conduct a protracted debate on the document: "Due to the sensitivity of the issue, the arguments in parliament will be acute." -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

forced marriage

The Forced Marriage Unit has helped rescue 58 underage children since it was set up in January 2005, including 11 under-16s so far this year. The youngest victim this year was 13, one was 14 and nine were 15.

The unit deals with 5,000 inquiries and 300 cases of forced marriage a year. A third of inquiries come from under 18s. "It happens across all races ".

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Council employees will patrol the streets and dish out £100 penalty notices,

Council employees will patrol the streets and dish out £100 penalty notices, under a new plan.

Residents who fail to pay within two weeks could end up with a £5,000 fee and be left with a criminal record.

Homeowners are at risk of being fined if they fail to remove their bins after a collection or leave them in the wrong place.

Bin owners should only put their rubbish out the night before and remove them the day of the rubbish collection.

Residents could receive a fine if they fail to put their bin in spaces allocated outside their homes.

Under proposed changes, councils could refuse to empty bins that are too far from a curb, not placed directly outside a gate or put out on the street too early.

The plan is expected to be trialled by councils in Northern England.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

De Menezes tragedy 'could happen again'

The senior police commander in charge of the operation that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes said yesterday it was "entirely feasible" that a similar tragedy could occur.

The jury was told that the core of Mr McDowell's plan – that the surveillance team would be supported at Scotia Road by CO19 officers – was flawed because it would take too long for the firearms units to receive their weapons and briefing in the early hours of 22 July to allow them to arrive in good time.

In a series of tense exchanges with Mr Mansfield, it also emerged Mr McDowell was unaware that 21 Scotia Road was an apartment block rather than a single house, that high-quality photographs of the suicide bomber were available before 5am on 22 July and that some of the Special Branch team in Scotia Road were only shown a photocopied picture of the fugitive at a briefing and not given their own copy.

Putting it to Mr McDowell that these oversights contributed to the Stockwell shooting, Mr Mansfield said: "Do you accept that there were significant lapses of information and knowledge by you which resulted in a strategy being set in stone that was entirely inappropriate?"

Mr McDowell denied the claims put to him, saying his strategy was "fit for purpose".

The inquest continues. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Steep rise in 'stop and search' complaints

The number of complaints made about "stop and search" incidents have risen by nearly a quarter, the police watchdog said today.

Police forces in England and Wales received 536 complaints about stop and search in the last financial year, up from 434, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said.

Stop and search grievances made up 3 per cent of complaints by black people, the report revealed.

Opponents of stop and search say it unfairly targets minority groups, but the recent spate of high-profile knife crimes has led to greater use of the powers.

Figures released earlier this year showed police carried out 955,000 stop and searches in 2006/07, up 9 per cent.

Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped as white people, Ministry of Justice statistics showed.

The overall number of complaints against the police remained steady, after rises in recent years, today's report found.

The 43 forces received 28,963 complaints, ranging from impoliteness to assault.

Most concerned failures to investigate crime properly or abusive language or behaviour.

There was also a 9 per cent increase in the number of complaints from Asian people, investigators found.

Of the stop and search grievances, only 169 needed to be investigated, and 88 per cent of those were found to be unfounded.

Officers from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said the figures needed to be seen "in the context of over 950,000 stop and searches carried out annually in England and Wales".

Craig Mackay, chief constable of Cumbria Constabulary, who leads ACPO on stop and search policing, said: "Used fairly, Stop & Search has proven to be a powerful tool for tackling and preventing crime to the benefit of all."

He added that the use of stop and search where criminal activity is suspected "must be justified by reasonable suspicion".

"Officers are also required by law to justify their actions to any individual they stop," he said.

"Any individual who feels that they have not been treated in a manner consistent with this approach can report that either to their local police force or to independent authorities including the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

"Where there are lessons that can be learnt ACPO is determined to ensure that they are acted on to the improvement of the police service."

But Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Stop and search is one tool of policing but use it as a bludgeon not a rapier and you alienate far more people than you protect.

"Formal complaints about stop and search are inevitably the tip of the iceberg, as the young and most vulnerable lack the confidence to complain."

Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "The overall number of complaints on stop and search last year represents less than 0.5 per cent of the overall numbers of stop and search.

"This indicates that the police are conducting themselves in the overwhelming majority of cases without complaint.

"Unless exceptional circumstances apply, the use of stop and search against the individual requires reasonable suspicion.

"The police have been working with community partners to raise awareness and understanding on why stop and search and stop and account powers are used.

"At the same time, the police are raising awareness of what a member of public can expect when they are stopped and what to do if you are not satisfied on how the stop was dealt with." -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'

The country's top appeal judges are failing to correct miscarriages of justice where they suspect the jury has come to a wrong verdict, the head of the body charged with investigating wrongful convictions has warned.

Professor Graham Zellick, the outgoing chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), said the Court of Appeal should order retrials in cases that have a "lurking doubt" about the safety of the conviction.

In an interview with The Independent, Professor Zellick also called on judges to prevent "very dubious" expert evidence, including lip-reading and ear-prints, being presented to the jury. He argued: "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted ... We know from bitter experience that juries get things wrong. The Court of Appeal ought to be more active in quashing convictions even though there has not been any irregularity in the trial process."

He added that when he had raised this argument with members of thejudiciary he had been "admonished" for asking judges to second-guess the jury. "They tell me that in this country we have trial by jury, so who are they to go behind the verdict of the jury which has seen all the evidence? Well, I say we have trial by judge and jury, not just jury."

Professor Zellick, pictured below, who has been in charge of the commission's referrals to the Court of Appeal for the past five years, said a more interventionist approach would allow the court to order a retrial when judges were unhappy about the safety of a conviction. "The Court of Appeal is even more reluctant in 2008 than in the 1990s to quash convictions because they think they are unsafe. We are more deferential to a jury now than in the 1990s when things were going wrong," he said.

Professor Zellick, a professor of law at University College London, cited the wrongful conviction of the solicitor Sally Clark, 42, as an example of the consequences of judicial reluctance to free immediately an innocent victim of a miscarriage. Mrs Clark was jailed in 1999 for killing her 11-week-old son Christopher in December 1996, and eight-week-old Harry in January 1998. An appeal in 2000 failed, but she was freed in 2003 after a fresh appeal following a referral from the CCRC. She was found dead last year. "Sally Clark should never have been convicted," said Professor Zellick. "She should have succeeded at her first appeal. It should never have taken two years' work by us [CCRC] and a referral before she was released, by which time she was broken in mind and body." The jury at her trial was told by an expert witness, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in a family was 73 million to one. Other experts said the odds were about 200 to one. Although not criticising the standing of the expert witnesses in the case, Professor Zellick said juries were not always capable of deciding between diverse expert opinions. "There have been miscarriages of justice caused by experts whose expertise is somewhat suspect. We are too casual about expert evidence in the criminal justice system." He said he was particularly concerned about lip-reading and ear-print evidence, which he described as "very dubious" for a jury. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

First sight of the ID cards that will soon be compulsory

The Government was accused yesterday of cynically targeting immigrants to boost support for its controversial £4.7bn compulsory identity cards scheme as the Home Office unveiled the documents it plans will eventually be held by every adult in Britain.

A coalition of opposition parties, trade unions and civil liberties campaigners condemned the symbolic release of the pink and blue cards, which will be introduced for foreign nationals living in Britain from next month. The plastic permits, containing the personal details, fingerprints and immigration status of foreign nationals, offer the first glimpse of what ID cards for British citizens will look like.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the pressure group Liberty, predicted that the scheme would lead to court action if people from ethnic minorities were targeted: "As a daughter of migrants to this country I think it's a pretty nasty piece of politics to pick on foreign nationals first. It's a divide-and-rule approach when they cannot sell the idea of compulsory ID cards for everybody."

Phil Booth, director of the campaign group No2ID, added: "The Government are picking on soft targets."

Up to 60,000 cards, containing fingerprints as well as photographs and personal details of the holders, will be issued to people from outside the European Economic Area within the next four months. Students and married people renewing their residence visas will be targeted from 25 November, and Home Office officials expect 90 per cent of foreign nationals to hold a card by 2015.

Ministers said they expected to issue up to one million a year as the system is rolled out across the population over the next three years.

Airport workers and other employees in sensitive roles will be given ID cards from next year before they are offered to young people from 2010 and the general public from 2011. Ms Smith admitted that it would be impossible to include the fingerprints of all citizens on the planned government identity database. - link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

New mental health powers

Lawyers are lining up to challenge the legality of the new Mental Health Act as fears about the imminent new powers grow among patients.

The legislation was passed in July amid controversy after seven years of opposition from a coalition of 75 organisations.

The new law introduces a much wider definition of mental disorder which could see people with an "untreatable" personality disorder sectioned and brought into hospital.

Nurses, occupational therapists and social workers will be given new powers previously reserved for doctors. Patients detained in care homes could be forced to pay for treatment they do not want.

A campaign by this newspaper helped to ensure that a number of safeguards was written into the new Act. But at least five key aspects of the controversial Act could breach human rights law, meaning the Government would be forced to revisit the legislation as early as 2013, according to the Law Society. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Al-Qaeda bid to recruit inmates

AL-QAEDA terrorists have targeted 800 Muslim criminals they want to recruit for their “holy war” against Britain, say prison probation officers.

The officers believe that attempts have been made to convert one in 10 of the estimated 8,000 Muslims in the eight high-security prisons in England and Wales to the Al-Qaeda cause in the past two years.

The Ministry of Justice said this weekend that it had established a unit to tackle “the risks of extremism and radicalism in prison”.

The radicalisation is being led by some of the estimated 150 terrorist prisoners in England and Wales.

The size of the problem emerged in evidence given to a review of radicalisation in jails by Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Spirit of Benito Mussolini

Mussolini’s tomb at Predappio has become a shrine for neo-Fascists, who have grown increasingly assertive, plastering Rome with far-Right posters and massing on football terraces and at political rallies with their close-cropped hair and black shirts.

In April, Gianni Alemanno of Alleanza Nazionale was elected Mayor of Rome — the first rightwinger to hold the office since the Second World War. Recently, critics have accused Mr Berlusconi — who last week announced plans to merge his Forza Italia with Alleanza Nazionale next year — of encouraging racist attacks on immigrants by blaming gypsies and illegal immigrants for street crime.

What is at stake for Mr Fini is his calculated transformation of the postwar remnants of the Fascist Party into a mainstream, democratic, conservative party — and a springboard for power. He has visited Israel several times, praying at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, and has forged close ties with Rome’s Jewish community.

He faces formidable resistance, however, in the form of Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of the Duce, who is heading a grassroots revolt. Ms Mussolini, a former model and actress who has forcefully defended her grandfather’s reputation since entering politics in 1992, and who is the niece of Sophia Loren, appeared in Parliament recently wearing a striking T-shirt reading “Proud to be on the wrong side” — a reference to those who fought for Fascism rather than Resistance during the war. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Thursday, 25 September 2008

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack. Some western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon's Shia movement Hizbollah to strike at the US.

"It's over ten years since Hizbollah's last terror strike outside Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos Aires [killing 85 people]", said one official. "There is a large Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hizbollah supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action".

Even if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission.

"The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of an uranium enrichment plant.

In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US.

Several high-level Israeli officials have hinted over the last two years that Israel might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans.

Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis.

Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear programme in the dying weeks of Bush's term.

During Saddam Hussein's rule in 1981, Israeli aircraft successfully destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was due to start operating.

Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.

In contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, which are officially described as intended only for civilian purposes, are dispersed around the country and some are in fortified bunkers underground.

In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded. In a speech to the Knesset the following day he confined himself to telling Israel's parliament: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests".

Three weeks after Bush's red light, on June 2, Israel mounted a massive air exercise covering several hundred miles in the eastern Mediterranean. It involved dozens of warplanes, including F-15s, F-16s and aerial refueling tankers.

The size and scope of the exercise ensured that the US and other nations in the region saw it, said a US official, who estimated the distance was about the same as from Israel to Natanz.

A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

The exercise and Mofaz's comments may have been designed to boost the Israeli government and military's own morale as well, perhaps, to persuade Bush to reconsider his veto. Last week Mofaz narrowly lost a primary within the ruling Kadima party to become Israel's next prime minister. Tzipi Livni, who won the contest, takes a less hawkish position.

The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option.

The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Pakistan fires on Nato aircraft

Pakistan says its troops fired warning shots at two Nato helicopters as they crossed the border from Afghanistan.

It is the first time the Pakistan army has admitted opening fire near US or Nato forces, as tension grows over cross border military action.

Nato said its aircraft were not in Pakistani airspace when shots were fired over Khost province.

The Pentagon said they were US helicopters and that Pakistan would have to explain what had happened.

'Routine operations'

Chief Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said that the helicopters had "crossed into our territory in Ghulam Khan area".

"They passed over our checkpost so our troops fired warning shots," he said.

He added that the matter was being taken up with the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Kabul.

However, Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, appeared to contradict his military spokesman, insisting that his troops had only fired "flares" to warn the helicopters they were near the Pakistan border.

"They are flares, they are flares, just to make sure that they know they have crossed the border line," he said.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan, in Islamabad, says that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is very unclear.

There is an imaginary border called the Durand line which each side marks differently.

Our correspondent says that, in reality, the border is marked by a 3-4km (1-2 mile) stretch of no man's land.

Pakistan says that this is its territory and Afghanistan makes similar claims.

In a statement, Isaf said its helicopters had received small-arms fire from a Pakistan military checkpoint along the border near Tanai district, Khost, on 25 September "while conducting routine operations in Afghanistan".

"At no time did Isaf helicopters cross into Pakistani airspace," it added.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The flight path of the helicopters at no point took them over Pakistan."

He said US and Nato officials were speaking to their Pakistani counterparts to determine what had happened and to ensure there was no recurrence.

"The Pakistanis have to provide us with a better understanding of why this took place," he said.

Local tribesmen in the area told the BBC that two helicopters were trying to cross into Pakistani territory near Ghulam Khan, in North Waziristan, when Pakistani troops at posts near the border fired at them.

There are currently two Western military operations in Afghanistan - a US-led coalition and the Nato-led Isaf mission.

It appears the helicopters involved in Thursday's incident were US aircraft operating under the Nato flag.

The BBC's Martin Patience, in Kabul, says it is believed to be the first time Nato helicopters have been fired on in this fashion.

Correspondents say there is growing anger in Pakistan at US forces in Afghanistan allegedly violating Pakistani sovereignty.

There has been growing tension between the two countries since 3 September when the US conducted its first ground assault in Pakistani territory on what it said was a militant target in South Waziristan.

Pakistan reacted angrily to the action, saying 20 innocent villagers had been killed by US troops.

Local officials have said that on two occasions since then Pakistani troops or tribesmen have opened fire to stop US forces crossing the border. The claims were not officially confirmed.

On Wednesday, a drone believed to be operated by the CIA crashed inside Pakistan.

The US and Nato have called on Pakistan to do more to curb militants operating in the border area -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Allegations against police rise

A record number of allegations were made against the police in England and Wales last year, says the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Figures show there were 48,280 claims in 2007/08 - an increase of 5% on the previous year.

However the number of complaints - which can be made up of more than one allegation - has remained stable.

The Home Office says allegations have risen because people are becoming more aware of their rights.

Just under half of all allegations are either proved or resolved locally, through an apology or some other resolution.

The IPCC says they received the highest number of allegations since complaints began to be investigated independently in 1985.

Stop-and-search

Almost a quarter of the allegations were categorised as "other neglect or failure in duty".

Allegations of "incivility, impoliteness and intolerance" accounted for more than one in five of the total number.

There was a sharp rise in claims relating to the use of stop-and-search - up from 434 in 2006/07 to 536 this year. Allegations of corruption rose from 236 to 290.

The police force recording the biggest percentage increase in allegations against officers was Sussex, which saw a rise of 91%.

A Sussex Police spokesman said: "We believe there are largely technical reasons for the large increase in Sussex during 2007-08.

"However we are not complacent and we and Sussex Police Authority continue to examine the data closely in order to draw lessons from it so that we can continue to develop and improve the policing service we deliver."

Northamptonshire Police recorded the biggest fall, with 32% fewer allegations received.

The IPCC said the number of complaints - which may consist more than one allegation - has stabilised.

Alienation

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the rise in complaints over the use of stop-and-search were particularly worrying.

She told BBC News: "Yes, stop-and-search has a role, but it ought to be a rapier, not a bludgeon.

"Let's not have indiscriminate stop and searching on the streets of this country."

Ms Chakrabarti said stop-and-search powers should be focused on potentially high-risk situations, such as after a spate of stabbings, but should not be deployed as a blanket approach.

To do so, she said, would be a return to the infamous "Sus" laws that alienated many young men.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We welcome the publication of the IPCC figures and we note that there has been no change in the number of complaints.

"We say the increase in allegations is positive thing because it points to a greater public awareness of people' rights and more confidence in the system."

The Home Office said 32% of allegations against the police are investigated, of which only 11% are being proved - and that number is not rising.

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

The real war at the Met

The headlines screamed from the front pages. "Race War in the Met". It is at first disturbing, but only a couple of officers of dark skin are named - Commander Ali Dizaei and Deputy Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, third in rank beneath Sir Ian Blair.

Yet, there are stirrings of dissatisfaction among the rank and file. Long before Ian Blair took over as commissioner, there was a movement of blacks and Asians into the London Metropolitan Police. This was no sudden urge of wannabee policemen and women. The revolt from within our communities against police malpractice spurred some within our ranks to enlist. They wanted to make a difference. It was that simple. Their presence across London, they hoped, would alleviate the oppression from which our communities suffered. For these new entrants, it continues to be a noble cause.

Here is a simple catalogue of major moments of racist policing. Once upon a time, a police officer named Harold Challenor at West End Central had the reputation of ducking the heads of black men charged with being suspicious persons, into an unflushed toilet bowl while he beat them about the head and chanted: "Bongo bongo, go back to the jungle". The practice spread to Notting Hill police station, and then throughout London. The allegations did not reach the mainstream press until years later, but the Caribbean communities knew of it. There began to appear on the horizon, leaflets and pamphlets which itemised these events. Then, in the early Seventies, a gang of police officers at Scotland Yard, operating as the "Drug Squad" under another infamous inspector, gathered a group of West Indian male hustlers around the squad who provided information about drug-dealing to officers who seized the marijuana and returned most of the drugs to the informer who sold them on. The squad was financially rewarded.

This led to the trial of six detectives, three of whom went to prison. But no other heads rolled.

As the years rolled by, mutterings against malpractices gathered pace, culminating in social explosions throughout the black communities. Grudgingly the police establishment, urged by their political masters in the Home Office, were forced to make changes.

When the drive to recruit blacks and Asians to the police forces began, Ian Blair, the present commissioner, was nowhere in sight. When he entered the hierarchy, blacks and Asians had been already enlisted. The old Met was moving into oblivion and the new Met opened its account with a policy of fast-tracking of the bright sparks. Commander Ali Dizaei was one; so was Leroy Logan, son of Caribbean parents, and now chief superintendent in Hackney.

What did the new influx bring to the table? Unbridled enthusiasm. Their presence undermined the racism of white officers. Their creative spirit and sound judgement, shaped in the black and Asian communities, propelled the Metropolitan Police along a new road. Dizaei, Logan and others such as Ghaffur are proof that the presence of blacks, Asians and Turks sets new standards. And Ian Blair's task, as the new commissioner, was to incorporate these entrants at the helm of policing in London. He got it abysmally wrong, succumbing to the rantings of the right-wing press which claimed that his force was overrun by political correctness.

Blair took his eye off the ball. Lifted to prominence by Tony Blair, he became General Blair, leader of the war against terror. His budget expanded; he turned his back on the task of incorporating blacks and Asians into the Met. He governed from the tight circle he gathered about him, relegating Ghaffur to the periphery.

But a new movement is stirring among black and Asian police officers. They are determined to enter every rank; they won't be cheated out of promotion. They have my support. link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

FREE BALUCHISTAN

Via Soj comes a news report about China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visit to Pakistan. A treaty of friendship and cooperation was signed and someone dropped a geopolitical bomb:

Briefing newsmen about official talks, Pakistan Ambassador to China Salman Bashir said the 'most important' aspect of the talks were the "clear and unambiguous, categorical assurance by China to defend Pakistan's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity".

Clear, unambiguous, categorical assurance is exactly what one likes to have when there is some geopolitical game going on - and it is extremely strong diplomatic language.

Why is Pakistan turning its back to the United States and falling into China's arms?

The area of interest is Baluchistan in the south west corner of Pakistan. A huge mountainous underdeveloped plateau with only some 7.5 million tribal inhabitants, the Baluch.

There has always been trouble between Pakistan and the proud Baluch, a small people also living in southern Afghanistan and eastern Iran. But now issues are heating up again.

There are several parties who have strategic interests in Baluchistan.

The United States is still dreaming of a gas pipeline from the Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan and Baluchistan to the Arabian see. Long term troop stationing in landlocked Afghanistan will also demand a safe line of communication to a seaport.

India wants a gas pipeline from Iran eastward through Baluchistan to Delhi.

But the biggest interest in Baluchistan is Chinese. All sea traffic from the Middle Easter resource fields and East Africa to China now has to go through the Malacca Strait and also pass India and the Philippines. Strategically it is a nightmare to keep this route open in case of a hot or cold global conflict.

China has therefore invested $420 million into developing a deep sea harbor at Gawadar in Baluchistan. A second investment phase of $600 million is planed. From Gawadar land transport routes lead up in north eastern direction to the Chinese-Pakistan boarder. To protect the new harbor Pakistan will even get four modern Chinese frigates.

For Pakistan these plans are all positive. Being the transport hub for neighbor countries pays off financially and adverts conflicts as it creates common interests.

But the strategic interest of the U.S. does differ from Pakistan's. A completely U.S. controlled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Baluchistan pipeline would be nice. To advert an Iran-Baluchistan-India pipeline would help U.S. interests against Iran and to deny China access to the Arabian sea checks the upcoming competitor. (As does keeping a hand on Unacol)

For about a year now Baluchistan is heating up again. There have been protests, bombs exploding and pipeline attacks. A low level guerrilla war has started even while the Pakistan government is pushing money into the region and develops the water infrastructure.

One wonders who or what might feed this guerrilla war. Who could have an interest in an independent, small, sparse inhabited Baluchistan?

Pakistan was just allowed to buy 24 F16 fighters and the media displayed this as an example of Pakistan-American partnership. But this decision was probably made more in the interest of 5,000 Lockheed voters in Ft. Worth, Texas, who would have been fired without this deal.

A small tribal guerrilla war, supported by a few secret special forces and some Dollars could easily escalate and lead into an independence movement in Baluchistan which would be hard to overcome by military means. Pakistan's President Musharraf will have recognized the possibilities and has decided to go with China.

I now expect a "Free Baluchistan Act" to be on next years congressional agenda. link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

What we cannot escape,is a confrontation with Pakistan

"What we cannot escape," one Pentagon policy planner told us, "is a confrontation with Pakistan. Pakistan holds the key to success for us in Afghanistan."
Afghanistan: How Does This End?, Swoop, Sept 20, 2008

If one wants to make sense of the big bombing that hit the Marriott hotel in Islamabad yesterday, one has to look at the bigger strategic picture.

If you believe the usually 'western' media, the U.S. is still an ally of Pakistan and India is still a neutral country. In reality the U.S. and India are allied in a war against Pakistan and China.

Foreign policy elements in India and the in U.S. see China as their respective big strategic enemy. But both want - for now - avoid an open conflict. The center of gravity in this silent war against China are the hydrocarbon reserves in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa and the transport routes for these.

The war in Afghanistan and the war in Pakistan can be seen as proxy wars between these three big powers over the energy issue.

China is developing the port of Gwader in Baluchistan on the south coast of Pakistan and transport routes from there into its mainland. The port will allow energy flow from Africa and the Middle East to China without Indian naval interference.

Just like China is in a strategic alliance with Pakistan, India is in a strategic alliance with Afghanistan. It is developing a road connection from Herat to a port in south Iran. While Pakistan supports some Taliban groups in their war against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, India and the U.S. support other Taliban groups within Pakistan in fighting Islamabad.

The current aim seems to be to splinter Pakistan into smaller pieces.

Oh, that is not what the media say? The above is all baloney?

Attached is a collection of excerpts of recent news pieces and strategic papers. Skim through them with the above in mind.

From the U.S.:

[T]he Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent “Pashtunistan.” The Sindhis in the southeast, numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran. “Pakistan” would then be a nuclear-armed Punjabi rump state.
Drawn and Quartered, New York Times op-ed, Feb 1, 2008

From India:

If ever the national interests are defined with clarity and prioritised, the foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before) materialised on the western periphery, continuously. To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its influence through export of both, soft and hard power towards Central Asia from where invasions have been mounted over centuries. Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective.
...
With China’s one arm, i.e. Pakistan disabled, its expansionist plans will receive a severe jolt. Beijing continues to pose primary threat to New Delhi. Even as we continue to engage with it as constructively as possible, we must strive to remove the proxy. At the same time, it is prudent to extend moral support to the people of Tibet to sink Chinese expansionism in the morass of insurgency.
Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest, Indian Defence Review, Sept. 2008

From Pakistan:

Pakistani policy analysts are convinced that United States has been a duplicitous ally during the past seven years, using the sincere Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan to gradually turn that country into a military base to launch a sophisticated psychological, intelligence and military campaign to destabilize Pakistan itself.

The objective is to weaken the control of the Pakistani military over geographical Pakistan and ignite an ethnic and sectarian civil war leading to changing the status of Balochistan and NWFP, possibly even facilitate the break up of both provinces from the Pakistani federation.
Pakistan Reverses 9/11 Appeasement, Ahmed Quraishi, Sept 13, 2008

Various sources:

Mere rhetorical response to the mounting American gangsterism is no answer, when this adventurism has very deeper diabolical motivations to it.
...
It is for the failure of the retired general, who loved playing a slave to American warlords, to demand this action from the coalition forces in Afghanistan that our tribal region has become the lair of foreign-sponsored militants, who on the bidding of their masters have turned our once-peaceful tribal belt into a violent place and the rest of our country their killing field.
Mullen’s betrayal, The Frontier Post, Peshawar, Editorial, Sept 19, 2008

---

India is buying armaments that major powers like the United States use to operate far from home: aircraft carriers, giant C-130J transport planes and airborne refueling tankers. Meanwhile, India has helped to build a small air base in Tajikistan that it will share with its host country. It is modern India’s first military outpost on foreign soil.
...
“There seems to be an emerging long-term competition between India and China for pre-eminence in the region,” said Jacqueline Newmyer, president of the Long Term Strategy Group, a research institute in Cambridge, Mass., and a security consultant to the United States government. “India is preparing slowly to claim its place as a pre-eminent power, and in the meantime China is working to complicate that for India.”
Land of Gandhi Asserts Itself as Global Military Power, NYT, Sept. 22, 2008

---

Armed with a permit for global nuclear trade, India's prime minister leaves next week for the United States and France hoping to seal atomic energy deals and discuss cooperation in defense and counter-terrorism.
Atomic trade high on India PM's U.S., France tour, Reuters, Sept. 19, 2008

---

Senior Chinese military official Guo Boxiong pledged on Monday to further strengthen military exchanges between China and Pakistan.

In his meeting with Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq PervezKiyani, Guo, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, appreciated the fruitful cooperation between both sides over the years.
...
China highly values its all-round strategic cooperative partnership with Pakistan, Guo said, vowing to join hands with the country to boost bilateral ties to a new level.

In response, Kiyani said his country treasures its traditional friendship with China and is ready to further boost cooperation with China.
China eyes closer military exchanges with Pakistan, Xinhua, Sept. 22, 2008

---

Taliban insurgents have attacked an Indian construction project in the western Afghan province of Herat, killing 11 Afghan policemen and wounding several others on a weekend that saw most fighters lay down their weapons for U.N. Peace Day.
Indian construction project targeted by Taliban, Globe and Mail, Sept. 21, 2008

---

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Two local intelligence officials say troops and tribesmen opened fire when two U.S. helicopters crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan.
Intel officials: US copters cross Pakistan border, Reuters, Sept. 22, 2008

---

Pakistani military forces flew repeated helicopter missions into Afghanistan to resupply the Taliban during a fierce battle in June 2007, according to a U.S. Marine lieutenant colonel, who says his information is based on multiple U.S. and Afghan intelligence reports.
U.S. Officer: Pakistani Forces Aided Taliban, Defense News, Sept. 19, 2008

---

This U.S. media campaign has been going hand in glove for the past eighteen months with a wave of terrorism inside Pakistan targeting Pakistani civilians and government. The blame for these acts was laid at the doors of something called ‘Pakistani Taliban’ which is, in major part, a creation of Indian and Karzai intelligence setups inside Afghanistan.
...
But the situation between Islamabad and Washington does not have to come to this. Islamabad can help tip the scales in Washington against the hawks who want a war with Pakistan. Not all parts of the U.S. government accept this idea and this must be exploited. Pakistan must make it clear that it will retaliate.
...
The only way to entrap Pakistan now is to either orchestrate a spectacular terrorist attack in U.S. and blame it on Pakistan, or to assassinate a high profile personality inside Pakistan and generate domestic strife that will make it impossible for the military to resist U.S. attacks.
Pakistan Reverses 9/11 Appeasement, Ahmed Quraishi, Sept 13, 2008

So:

* Who could be/is responsible for yesterday's big bomb in Islamabad? -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Islamabad Attack: Time To End Pakistani Role In America’s War

Pakistan is being punished for refusing to allow U.S. military boots on Pakistani soil, for the bombings in India, for the July 7 attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, and for the failures of the American military in Afghanistan. The attack is a clear message to the Pakistani ruling elite: We will bring the war to your home. The Americans are now accusing army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani of complicity in bombing the Indian embassy in Kabul, an accusation that even the Indians dared not make. The General is a suspicious man now in the eyes of the Americans and the Zardari government. After its bungled attempt on the ISI, there is a possibility that the pro-U.S. Zardari government might try to remove Gen. Kayani and replace him with a more pliant army chief who can subordinate the Pakistani military to Washington’s agenda in the region. To end this mess, Pakistan needs to say goodbye to the coalition that Washington assembled in 2001 to occupy Afghanistan, a coalition that has shrunk in seven years to only U.S., U.K. and Pakistan.

The massive attack on the Marriott hotel in the heart of the federal Pakistani capital is a punishment for Pakistan for refusing to allow U.S. military boots on Pakistani soil, for the bombings in India, for the July 7 attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, and for the failures of the American military in Afghanistan.

The attack is a clear message to the Pakistani ruling elite: We will bring the war to your home; we will convince you and the world that your situation is worse than Iraq and Afghanistan and that you are unable to handle it alone and need foreign intervention.

Pakistan stands accused of attacks in both Afghanistan and India. The Americans have gone as far as blaming Pakistan in advance for future attacks against United States. In fact, in a calculated leak, The New York Times on Sept. 11 accused Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani of complicity in the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, something that even the Indians didn’t dare do. And on Sept. 7, President Bush delivered a speech at the National Defense University in Washington where he almost called Pakistan a terrorist state.

The Americans had hoped that the pro-U.S. Zardari government in Islamabad would move to neutralize or disband the ISI and check the Pakistani military. They waited enough. The Zardari government did make a failed attempt on July 27 to clip the wings of ISI, which would have ended the agency’s external counterintelligence operations, crucial for the world’s sixth declared nuclear power and an important regional power that has legitimate security and strategic interests to protect. But it seems Mr. Zardari has decided not to risk alienating the country’s powerful military. Hours before the attack, President Zardari told a joint session of Parliament “We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism.” This statement ended the confusion, at least for now, on Zardari’s apparent reluctance to endorse army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s stern warning to Washington not to attack Pakistani soil.

The punishment for Pakistan is not limited to the Marriot hotel, which was more of a symbolic target, close to the houses of the President, Prime Minister, federal ministers and senior federal bureaucrats. Hours earlier, explosives-laden cars attacked two military convoys in the tribal belt. Eight hours after the Marriot attack, the power grid in Swat, northern Pakistan, was blown up. The frequency and intensity of attacks inside Pakistan have exceeded the attacks that U.S. military is facing in Afghanistan.

Which is in itself a strange thing. If the U.S. accusations are true and Islamabad is behind Afghan Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan, then why are the ‘Pakistani Taliban’ attacking Pakistani military targets? They should be happy that Pakistan is allegedly supporting the Afghan Taliban? But what is happening is the opposite: The so-called ‘Pakistani Taliban’ is punishing Pakistan, exclusively. The question is: Who benefits?

According to one Pakistani source, there are close to 8,000 foreigners in the country’s tribal belt at the moment. Before 9/11, they were under 1,000, and most of them were peaceful leftovers from the anti-Soviet war in the 1980s, grownup, aging, with local wives and children. Yes, Pakistan did have a domestic religious extremism problem but it consisted of small groups and not armies with endless supplies of money and sophisticated weapons and, apparently, advance knowledge of Pakistani military movements.

There is no question that many of these 8,000 foreigners are agents of foreign intelligence agencies who have infiltrated the Pakistani tribal belt from Afghanistan. This is not Hollywood. During the 2001 war against the Taliban government in Kabul, U.S. military used special ops teams made up of Pashtun look-alikes complete with perfect Pashtun accents, assisted by local help, purchased in U.S. dollars, in the areas of their deployment.

In Pakistani tribal belt, the numbers of foreigners dramatically increased in the years 2002 to 2004. These foreigners used the natural local anger at Pakistani military’s alliance with U.S. to work up the locals against Islamabad. The area remained quiet for most of the time after the 2001 war until it finally erupted in insurgency led by a series of ‘rebel Mullahs’ who caught the Pakistani government and military by surprise.

Karzai’s security and intelligence network is populated with strongly anti-Pakistan officers. The Indians received an American nod to establish an elaborate intelligence and military training setup in Afghanistan. Indians and Karzai’s men are directly involved in training, arming and financing rebels and insurgents and sending them into Pakistan. There is a full backing for an ethnic insurgency in southwestern Pakistan where China is building a strategic seaport. There are reports that the Israeli intelligence, the Mossad, is helping the Indians and Karzai’s security in destabilizing Pakistan’s western parts. The Israeli ambassador in New Delhi admitted in February that Israel offered crucial help to India during the Kargil war in 1999 which was the only reason India managed to repeal what appeared to be a surprise Pakistani victory. The Israelis have built a close defense relationship with India ever since and are also helping India perfect its occupation methods in Kashmir.

Pakistanis don’t have evidence that shows direct U.S. involvement in this anti-Pakistan campaign. But the circumstantial evidence is more than overwhelming. Afghanistan could not have turned into a staging ground for anti-Pakistan covert operations involving several players with out Washington’s nod. U.S. military has also been deliberately attacking those militant tribals inside Pakistan who are pro-Islamabad, and sparing those militants who only fight Pakistani military. Also, U.S. government has refused to designate the ethnic insurgency in southwestern Pakistan as terrorism. One very interesting piece of information that points the fingers to both India and U.S. is that these shady ‘Pakistani Taliban’ have focused their efforts in the past four years on attacking Chinese citizens and Chinese interests inside Pakistan. No U.S. or NATO citizens have been attacked.

The Afghan Taliban –who are the real Taliban before this American-orchestrated insurgency in Pakistani border areas was deceptively termed ‘Taliban’ – have never attacked Pakistan despite Islamabad’s policy change after 9/11. In fact, senior Taliban officials, like its ambassador to Islamabad Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, never said anything against Pakistan despite having been captured and handed over to the Americans by Islamabad.

There is no question that Washington destabilized Pakistan using the same methods it had perfected in South America in the 1970s. As Pakistan faced instability on the border, Washington moved in late 2006 to destabilize the country from the inside. A discredit former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, was convinced to end her self-exile and enter into a U.S.-brokered deal with a weakened President Musharraf in exchange for endorsing the U.S. agenda and having her stolen millions whitewashed. The fast paced political change threw Pakistan off-balance and resulted in massive internal upheaval that continues until today, almost ending Pakistan’s remarkable economic rise of the past decade.

Once Pakistan was trapped, U.S. media sprung into action and mounted a massive propaganda about Pakistan becoming ripe for an Iraq-like U.S. intervention to neutralize its nuclear weapons and to ‘save’ the country from turning into a haven for al-Qaeda.

The entire purpose of this anti-Pakistan campaign is to remove the Pakistani hurdle that stands in the way of Washington’s plans for the region: China, Russia, Central Asia and Iran, and also to help pave the way for India to assume a bigger role, which it can’t in the presence of Pakistan. This is what the planners in Washington might be thinking. The Indian thinking, however, is more short term. India is more interested in disorienting Pakistan and using all possible opportunities to make hurt Pakistanis and deprive Islamabad of any strategic advantage, whether in Afghanistan or with regards to the Chinese-built seaport near the Gulf.

WHAT ISLAMABAD CAN DO

Pakistan will continue to face instability as long as it continues to be part of the war on terror on Washington’s terms. Pakistan’s legitimate security interests have been so damaged and ignored by Washington that it is time to tell the Americans to go and deal with Afghanistan on their own. This is the only way for Islamabad to regain respect in the eyes of its own people. Pakistan can say that it will help Washington where possible but that it is no longer part of the coalition that Washington assembled to occupy Afghanistan 2001, a coalition that only includes three nations now: U.S., U.K., and Pakistan. In this regard, Pakistanis can renegotiate the terms of letting U.S. use Pakistani soil and airspace for the transport of supplies. Pakistan can ask U.S. military to vacate the remaining Pakistani airbase under American use. Also, Islamabad can revoke the permission that former President Musharraf granted CIA to establish outposts in Pakistan’s tribal belt and the permission to recruit local assets. Meanwhile, Pakistan can continue eliminating the shady foreign and local criminals who call themselves ‘Pakistani Taliban’. This is what the Pakistani military has been doing recently, wiping off all these foreign assets. Which probably explains some of the recent American panic.

This way Pakistan can regain some of the stability and also the confidence of other countries in the region, especially China which has been watching with concern how Islamabad has allowed itself to be dragged by Washington into this mess.

KAYANI’S FUTURE

Of immediate interest is how the Zardari government will balance its strong pro-U.S. stance with the military’s resolve to stop U.S. belligerence. Mr. Zardari did try to please Washington by his risky July 27 move on ISI. But now, with Gen. Kayani’s strong statements, it is fair to say that the army chief might become the new target of American’s and this government’s anger. There is a possibility that Mr. Zardari might try to replace the army chief, using powers that Mr. Musharraf left in the hands of the new president. Gen. Kayani is the last standing roadblock in Zardari government’s way to seize control of the military and spy agencies and subordinate them to U.S. policy interests in the region. -link

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

Why Would ‘Terrorists’ Want To Decapitate Anti-US Leadership In Pakistan?

After several weeks of international bad press because of drone planes being piloted by 19 year olds with joy-sticks in California, blowing up families in Pakistan willy-nilly, after all that, the “terrorists” in Pakistan decide to blow up a second rate hotel there, killing civilians, and making them the bad guys once again? How’s that for the worst timing ever? The end result of this attack is to give the U.S. Army and the American politicians all the reason in the world that they would need to continue attacking Pakistan’s population, and taking the international pressure off the Americans to stop bombing their country. The playbook that the CIA has employed over and over again in places like Central America, Italy, Cuba, South America and the Middle East for decades to destabilize and overthrow governments is a tried and tested formula. Hotel bombing doesn’t make sense unless “Al-Qaeda” is working to advance Neo-Con political agenda.

Why would “Al-Qaeda,” a group that is supposedly the prime target of the U.S. initiated war on terror, commit a terrorist attack against a country that has recently changed its government and all but renounced its role as a U.S. ally in the war on terror?

The mass media has already blamed the Marriott Hotel bombing, which killed at least 53 people, on “Al-Qaeda,” a routine reflex action despite the lack of any real investigation and no claim of responsibility.

On Saturday morning, newly elected Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told his parliament, “We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism.”

Hours later and hey presto! “Al-Qaeda” provides the perfect pretext for the U.S. to violate Pakistan’s territorial integrity in the name of … you guessed it … combating terrorism!

More telling than that - had the leadership of Pakistan not cancelled their plans to dine at the Marriott Hotel at the last minute, the entire command structure of the whole country would have been decapitated.

“Pakistan’s top leaders were to dine at the Marriott hotel that was devastated by a truck bombing over the weekend, but changed the venue at the last minute, a senior government official said Monday,” reports the Associated Press today.

“Perhaps the terrorists knew that the Marriott was the venue of the dinner for all the leadership where the president, prime minister, speaker and all entire leadership would be present,” Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik told reporters. “At the eleventh hour, the president and prime minister decided that the venue would be the prime minister’s house. It saved the entire leadership.

Indeed, it seemed the “terrorists” did know that their prime objective was to completely wipe out the most influential players in a government that has seemingly vowed to break away from the years of Pervez Musharraf-mandated lapdog subservience to U.S. imperial whims.

The timing of this weekend’s bombing coincides with a build-up in tensions over the past month not between Pakistan and “Al-Qaeda,” but between Pakistan and the United States government.

Relations between Pakistan and the U.S. soured dramatically following a raid by U.S. commandos on the border town of South Waziristan earlier this month which killed 20 people, including women and children.

Pakistani troops fired on U.S. helicopters that had violated the country’s border a week ago and a repeat of the incident in the village of Angor Adda occurred again Saturday night.

On September 13th, Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani vowed to safeguard the country’s territorial integrity against U.S. incursions and warned of a possible direct confrontation with U.S. forces if the incursions continue.

In light of all this, does it make much sense that “Al-Qaeda” suddenly popped up and helped out its arch enemy the U.S., by attempting to wipe out the Pakistani leadership?

It only makes sense if “Al-Qaeda,” or whoever carried out the bombing, was working to further the geopolitical agenda of the Neo-Cons in control of the White House.

“After several weeks of international bad press because of drone planes being piloted by 19 year olds with joy-sticks in California, blowing up families in Pakistan willy-nilly, after all that, the “terrorists” in Pakistan decide to blow up a second rate hotel there, killing civilians, and making them the bad guys once again? How’s that for the worst timing ever, huh? Well, the worst timing for them and the best possible timing for those troubled U.S. Military PR guys and all the politicians who had been saying just a month ago we need to step up military action in Pakistan, ” writes Scott Creighton.

“The end result of this attack is to give the U.S. Army and the American politicians all the reason in the world that they would need to continue attacking Pakistan’s population, and taking the international pressure off the Americans to stop bombing their country.”

The playbook that the CIA has employed over and over again in places like Central America, Italy, Cuba, South America and the Middle East for decades to destabilize and overthrow governments is a tried and tested formula.

A strategically located country with a newly elected, populist government, vowing not to sacrifice the interests of its people for the U.S. imperial agenda, is almost immediately attacked by unknown “terrorists,” creating fear, chaos, and a demand from the population for “protection” that cannot be provided by the weakened ruling party, creating a power vacuum and an opportunity for the mighty U.S. war machine to step back into the fold, promising to chase away the evil deadly terrorists.

[+/-] show/hide this post 0 Comments

ten downing street

Monday, 29 September 2008

Sunday, 28 September 2008

Thursday, 25 September 2008

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives