Saturday, September 9, 2017

Turkish Alaturca Pop Music - Demet Akalın - Ah Ulan Sevda

Freedom of the Press and Expression in Turkey - We Must Remain Defiant



By 


For 200 days now, Turkish-German journalist Deniz Yücel has been held in jail in Turkey. But the madness won't become routine just because time has passed.

In some quarters, people tend to exaggerate when they speak of the importance of journalism. It is true, though, that journalism is necessary in a pluralistic society. The fourth estate exposes abuses, condemns undesirable developments, highlights different perspectives and reveals possible ways forward. Articles, editorials and analysis pieces invite us to inform ourselves, but they also present us with new perspectives. Perspectives we agree with, but also those we don't; perspectives that may anger us and that we find incorrect. Even perspectives that we might find objectionable.

A spirit of defiance is inherent to democracy. This defiance is its strength. People can say, "yeah, so what!" when they don't like the opinions and views of others. Democracy is powerful enough to withstand these differences of opinion. Moreover, it demands them. Elections are no less than the manifestation of the fact that there are differences of opinion over what is right and what is wrong. The limits are defined by laws that are executed by independent courts. Democracy ensures peace by promoting tolerance - through freedom of expression and the free press.
Democracy can also be uncomfortable because it tells us: "You have to tolerate other opinions." Because there is something greater at stake than our own egos. What, though, does it say about the political elite when contrary political opinions are viewed as the greatest threat facing the country and those holding such opinions are persecuted. When the powers that be seek to eliminate contradiction and criticism by locking those who express such sentiment away in jail? As though one could silence critique by doing so?
A political system that views critics as the greatest evil has lost all perspective. It no longer pursues a larger, nobler goal. The only goal at that point is holding on to power. But that power is hollow if it doesn't serve the well-being of all.

There's More than One Truth


Turkish-German journalist Deniz Yücel, the Turkey correspondent for the German national daily Die Welt, has been in jail for 200 days now. With no charges against him. With no proceedings. Like so many other critical journalists, he has been accused of disseminating terrorist propaganda. The case says a lot about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and about Turkey's political mores. About its relationship with Germany. With the arrest of journalists Yücel and Mesale Tolus, also a Turkish-German, as well as human rights activist Peter Steudtner, Turkish leaders have shown Germany, a country that respects the rule of law, the middle finger. The detainees - and not just the German ones - are being exploited by Turkish politicians. "Journalism that seeks the truth ... has become a crime in the eyes of Erdogan's government," Turkish-German novelist Dogan Akhanli wrote in an editorial on SPIEGEL ONLINE on Thursday. Meanwhile, Mesale Tolu's father says: "Erdogan has taken my daughter hostage."
Deniz Yücel is allowed to exercise in the prison courtyard for one hour each week and he is permitted to talk on the phone for 10 minutes once every two weeks, his wife Dilek Mayatürk-Yücel said in an interview. The rest of his time is spent in solitary confinement. In fairy tales, it is called perdition. It is an unfathomable state of affairs for those of us who live in freedom. For those of us free to determine our own daily lives. In the time since Deniz Yücel's arrest, German chancellor candidate Martin Schulz has seen his chances of defeating Angela Merkel wax and wane. Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl passed away, France elected Emmanuel Macron as its new president and North Korea has conducted missile launches. The world is a different place than it was on Feb. 14. All of us have conducted countless conversations during that time - good ones, but also unpleasant ones. Yücel and the other detainees have been denied that right -- because a government has presumed to decide that that which it finds inconvenient cannot be true.
People can get used to madness. To the next German who is thrown in jail in Turkey. To the next intellectual who is persecuted. Our adaptability allows us to withstand a lot. But we cannot allow ourselves to become dulled. We cannot allow Erdogan to shape what is normal. We must remain defiant.

'Saudis shoot themselves in the foot bringing Qatar, Yemen, Syria & Iraq closer to Iran'


The Saudi regime has become so erratic that it turned against Qatar, one of the few regimes that have an identical ideology, and therefore brought Qatar closer to Iran, says professor of politics at Tehran University Seyed Mohammad Marandi.
Saudi Arabia has decided to suspend all dialogue with Qatar after Qatari media was accused of misreporting on phone conversations between the Emir of Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s defense minister.
Previously, US President Donald Trump urged the Gulf States to unite against Iran and expressed his willingness to act as a mediator between Doha and Riyadh.
However, in June, Trump alleged that Qatar was a sponsor of terrorism when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and the UAE first cut diplomatic and transport links with the Gulf nation.

RT: President Trump claims that the Qatar crisis is easy to solve. Why is it so hard to get the sides – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – to the negotiating table?
Seyed Mohammad Marandi: I think the most important problem is the Saud family itself and Mohammad bin Salman in particular. He is very young, he was born a billionaire. He has yes men surrounding him. He has created a mess, not just in his relationship with Qatar that we see this problem. He invaded Yemen. He has been killing the Yemeni people. His air force has been bombing hospitals, funerals, weddings, schools, and innocent civilians for almost three years now with Western support, with the US support both under Obama and Trump. And to no avail; he has lost the war effectively. He has been spreading Wahhabi extremism – he, his father, and the regime before his father have been spreading extremism n Syria, in Iraq, and across the world. Wahhabism is something the Saudis export.
What is extraordinary is that the Saudi regime has become so erratic and unpredictable that now it has turned against one of the few regimes that has an identical ideology… Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the two countries that explicitly declare themselves to be Wahhabi… It is not just an issue of sectarianism, the Saudis are even turning against Wahhabis like themselves. I don’t think the US will have an easy task in bringing these countries together. And even if they do, I don’t think the Qataris are going to trust the Saudis in the future. And Trump himself is not considered to be a very reliable partner, as the Republican Party has just discovered themselves.

The present dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the UAE is difficult to understand because it seems to be totally artificial, it doesn’t seem to have any reality behind it at all. As for President Trump’s offer to mediate, don’t forget he was asked at a press conference after the formal statements have been made, by journalists, whether he supported Kuwaiti mediation. And he said, “Yes, we do support Kuwaiti mediation.” And then he couldn’t resist adding, “I would be very ready to mediate myself if that would be useful.” I am not surprised that he said that. Maybe it is helpful. Any world leader might have said the same thing.- Oliver Miles, former UK ambassador to Libya
RT: The crisis boils down to Qatar’s alleged terrorist links with Iran. Are there any new developments on that front?
SMM: The Iranian-Qatari relationship has never been severed despite the Saudi pressure. And in fact, the Saudis have failed to disrupt the relationship between Iran and other countries, such as Oman. The Saudis, on the other hand, are putting enormous pressure on Kuwait to distance itself from Iran. But in the case of Qatar, I think it backfired. They went way too far by trying to humiliate the country and take away its sovereignty. The Qataris, which were blockaded not only by Saudi Arabia but its allies like the UAE and Bahrain from the land and the sea and air… they were preventing food from getting in. And the only way forward for Qatar was to turn to Iran. And of course, the Iranians felt that they had an obligation to support the Qataris. And this is something that the Saudis have been doing for a long time: the Iranian relationship with the people of Yemen has evolved, improved, and they have grown closer to each other because of the Saudi invasion of the country. The same is true with what the Saudis and their allies did in Syria and Iraq: they basically brought these countries closer to Iran because these countries saw the Saudis’ Wahhabi extremist ideology, which Al-Qaeda and ISIS and Boko Haram are linked to, as a threat to their existence, and they moved to Iran which they saw as a very reliable partner. That is, basically, the Saudis who have been shooting themselves in the foot time after time.

Video Report - ‘Exit from Brexit’: Protesters march in London to demand U-turn on EU withdrawal

The Rohingya Crisis: Reality, Rumors and Ramifications



Andrew Korybko

The world, and especially the Ummah, is incensed at what is being portrayed as genocide against Muslims in Myanmar, but the reality of what's happening there is a lot more complex than the simplistic rumors lead one to believe, and the geopolitical ramifications of this crisis could become very far-reaching.
Right off the bat, killing innocent people is wrong, and everyone is justified for feeling outraged when they believe this is happening, as it plainly is in some cases in Myanmar's coastal Rakhine State. The question, though, comes down to identifying who's doing the killing and why, and whether the victims were intentionally targeted or "collateral damage," be it from a military "anti-terrorist" operation or a "rebel" one against the government. It's also important to ponder what the geopolitical ramifications of all of this could be in terms of the larger dynamics at play in the New Cold War.
Rakhine Review
To oversimplify the situation for brevity's sake, the Rohingya are Muslims who live in the northern part of Rakhine State and claim to be native to the region, though the Myanmarese government says that they're just Bengali migrants and their descendants who began moving into the area after the late-19th-century imposition of British colonial rule. The other main demographic group in this territory is the Rakhine people, who are Buddhists that inherited the legacy of the long-standing Kingdom of Mrauk U.
The immediate post-independence period in Myanmar, called Burma until 1989, saw the many ethno-religious minorities of the country's resource-rich periphery rebel against the central authorities in favor of federalization or, as the Rohingyas wanted, unification with the neighboring state that they more closely identified with (East Pakistan, but Bangladesh since 1971), thereby setting off the world's longest-running and still-unresolved civil war.
Pertaining to Rakhine State, this conflict has ebbed and flowed throughout the decades, most recently climaxing in 2012, 2015 and just recently this summer, with the latest three escalations seeing reprisal violence by some of the hyper-nationalist Buddhist majority against the minority Muslim population. In response, the more impoverished Rohingya, who don't have citizenship rights because most of them don't qualify for such under the country's pertinent laws, had little to leave behind in Rakhine State and would flee en mass to Bangladesh for safety.
It's worthwhile here to point out that the Myanmarese military, known as the Tatmadaw, claims that its operations in their locales are triggered by the deadly attacks that Rohingya rebels — seen as terrorists by Naypyidaw and accused of having links to al-Qaeda and other such notorious groups — carried out against them and Buddhist villagers. The fog of war is such that civilians are obviously getting killed as a result, but it's unclear whether this constitutes genocide, or who's actually behind it all.
A "South Asian Kosovo"
It's impossible to tell at this moment exactly what's going on in Rakhine State and part of the reason is because of the heavy information war against Myanmar right now and Naypyidaw's refusal to let independent journalists into the region out of what it says are security concerns, but the general dynamics at play right now are oddly reminiscent of the run-up to NATO's 1999 War on Yugoslavia in carving the West's protectorate of Kosovo out of what is now Serbia.
Back then, the world suddenly became aware of a newly popularized sub-identity of Muslims called "Kosovars," just as they're now becoming quickly acquainted with the "Rohingyas," and they too claimed that their rights were being violated and that this therefore justified them committing acts of violence against the state and sometimes even civilians.
Another common thread is how much-publicized mainstream media images and stories, many of which were later proven to be fake or totally decontextualized, served to inspire the global Muslim community (Ummah) to rise up in rage and send volunteer fighters to help their co-confessionals, as is the traditional duty of this religion when they believe one of their own is being persecuted.
The problem, however, is that the situation is never as black and white as it's made out to be by the mainstream media, as anyone following the war on Syria for the past six and a half years knows by now, especially when it comes to the never-ending accusations that President Assad is also carrying out a "genocide" against Muslims like Milosevic before him and now the Tatmadaw apparently too. The intrinsic human urge for people to get upset by what they believe to be the senseless and deliberate killing of an entire identity group is often abused by "perception managers" to gin up support for their patrons' upcoming wars, and this is especially so when Muslim victims are involved.
Unfortunately, these sorts of situations have a track record of attracting international terrorists and leading to the explosion of domestic ones, like what happened with the "Kosovo Liberation Army" and its al-Qaeda backers in Yugoslavia; the "moderate rebels," al-Qaeda and eventually Daesh in Syria; and now the "Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army" and what increasingly looks to be Daesh's next Asian hot spot in Myanmar.
Correspondingly, each conflict was linked to either capturing the whole country or partitioning off a strategic corner of it, with post-conflict Kosovo hosting the US's gigantic Camp Bondsteel; all of Syria at one time being planned to become the US's pivot of control over the entire Levant; and a future "South Asian Kosovo" of "Rohingyaland" giving its patron powerful influence over the two oil and gas pipelines from coastal Kyaukphyu to China's Kunming and accordingly dominating this envisioned New Silk Road hub.
Yugoslavia 2.0
The point here isn't to whitewash what might eventually turn out to be proven is the Tatmadaw's excessive and disproportionate counterinsurgency operations against civilians, but to draw attention to how the overall conflict momentum is being guided in the direction of an externally provoked identity-centric hybrid war through a coordinated and one-sided information campaign. This is aimed most immediately at demonizing the Myanmarese state while deflecting attention away from the attacks of Rohingya "rebels," which contributed to the rapidly deteriorating military and humanitarian situation.
The medium-term purpose behind provoking such targeted global outrage is to inspire countless Muslim "volunteers" (some of whom will undoubtedly be actual terrorists) to flood into Rakhine State and then set the stage for a multilateral "humanitarian intervention" following the Kosovo model or an anti-terrorist campaign like what the US-led coalition experimented with in Syria in order to ultimately gain control of a territory indispensable to China's One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity.
Furthermore, remembering how none of this is taking place in a vacuum and that the country is still engulfed in a multi-sided civil war all along its periphery, it's possible that the ongoing federalization talks could give way to the all-out "Balkanization" of the former Burma along the lines of what happened to the former Yugoslavia. The end result of this tragedy would be the birth of a host of new states through their own bloody baptisms of fire, which would allow hostile foreign powers to more easily control this strategic space at the juncture of South, Southeast and East Asia.
Moreover, another fault line would instantly emerge in the so-called "Clash of Civilizations" (itself nothing more than a blueprint for dividing and ruling the Eastern Hemisphere through identity-centric Hybrid War) between not only Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine State, but possibly even eventually the Buddhists and Christians in the central part of Myanmar and its Northern-Eastern peripheries respectively. In addition, one could expect Buddhist and Christian "volunteers" from abroad to flood into the battlefield too, potentially catalyzing what might go on to one day become their religions' own form of Daesh.
Other than the geopolitical removal of Myanmar from the world map and the untold suffering of its over 50 million people, the other victim would of course be China, which would have to confront a Syrian-like Hybrid War along its porous southwestern border on top of the other many security challenges ringing its periphery (North Korea, East China Sea, South China Sea and India). Any plans for a CPEC-complementing Myanmar Corridor to the Indian Ocean would also be dashed, and Buddhist troublemakers in Tibet might become radicalized and inspired to commence another round of violence.
The likelihood of these forecasted scenarios could naturally compel China to take the lead in jump-starting emergency conflict resolution measures in Myanmar if the situation continues to spiral out of control there, which might help establish exactly which of the two sides started this whole mess and hopefully bring justice to all the perpetrators without the large-scale geopolitical consequences that threaten to unfold otherwise. 

Video - Between the Scenes - Government Shutdowns Are Not Normal: The Daily Show

Video Report - "YOU'RE A BIGOTED DUCK!!!" CNN Panel's BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump & His Lackey on DACA

Video Report - Keiser Report: RIP, Petrodollar? (E1121)

Video Report - Putin To Trump - I will arm your enemies if you send arms to mine

Video - Putin Explains Whether China's Mega Project "New Silk Road" Will Pass Through Russia

Music Video - Maluma - Felices los - Salsa - ft. Marc Anthony

Video Report - Hurricane Irma: Strong winds and waves batter Cuba''s northern coast

Video Report - Hurricane Irma: Millions urged to evacuate as storm looms

Video - President Barack Obama surprises students at McKinley Technology High School in Washington, D.C.

North Korea calls US ambassador Nikki Haley a 'prostitute swishing her skirt'



Emily Shugerman



    The comments come in response to Ms Haley's criticism from earlier this week.


    North Korea has responded to criticism from a US ambassador by calling her a “prostitute” who is “swishing her skirt".
    "She is crazily swishing her skirt, playing the flagship role in Trump administration's hideous sanctions and pressure racket,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said of Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.
    The agency added: “Nikki should be careful with her tongue though she might be a blind fool. The US administration will have to pay a dear price for her tongue-lashing.”
    The tirade appears to be a response to Ms Haley’s remarks at a UN Security Council meeting, in which she accused the North Korean regime of “begging for war” in the wake of their sixth-ever nuclear test. Ms Haley pressed the Security Council to impose even stricter sanctions, on top of the estimated $1bn in sanctions they imposed against the country last month.
    "Enough is enough," Ms Haley said at the meeting. "We have taken an incremental approach, and despite the best of intentions, it has not worked."
    Ms Haley is pushing for an oil embargo on North Korea, as well as a ban on its exports of textiles and the hiring of North Korean workers, according to a draft resolution obtained by Reuters. Even China, the North’s largest ally, has agreed that the UN must take more action.
    US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened a military solution to the conflict. At one point, he promised to send “fire and fury” to North Korea if the country continued to escalate its threats. The US recently deployed the USS Ronald Reagan, a nuclear-powered carrier, to waters between Japan and the Korean peninsula.
    Mr Trump, however, has toned down his rhetoric in recent days, telling reporters that war with North Korea is not inevitable. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also advocated for dialogue and diplomacy.
    North Korea conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test on 3 September, just days after test-flying a missile over the north of Japan. The country’s increasing displays of military might, coupled with its bombastic rhetoric, have set the international community on edge. Experts now believe the regime is close to developing a powerful nuclear weapon.
    Many expect North to launch even larger nuclear test on 9 September. The day marks its founding anniversary, and is usually filled with military displays.The country conducted its last nuclear test on 9 September of last year.

    Video Reporter - Massive Hurricane Irma threatens Florida and beyond, POWERFUL UNSEEN FOOTAGE OF HURRICANE IRMA!

    Video Report - Florida Keys residents leave rows of abandoned cars

    Video Report - Reporter struggles against Irma's wind, rain

    Video - Florida Hurricane Irma lands Inside view of those who didn't evacuate #Florida Key West #Irmageddon

    Video Report - Tracking Hurricane Irma 9-9-17 5pm Advisory

    Urdu Music Video - Ally&Moby - Sahara

    Donald Trump’s Ultimatum To Pakistan: Will US Walk The Talk? – Analysis


    By Bhaskar Roy
    On August 21, US President Donald Trump threatened Pakistan with heavy retribution if Islamabad did not close down terrorist havens on its soil and drive out these elements. He specifically mentioned the Afghan Taliban and the Al Qaeda, but in a manner referred to all Pakistan – supported terrorists (including understandably those that continuously target India). Before this, the US listed Hizbul Mujahidin as a terrorist organisation and its leader Sayed Salahuddin as a leader of the terrorist organisation. Pakistan protested that the Hizbul and Salahuddin were not terrorists but freedom fighters.
    Pakistan failed to read Trump and his cabinet and security establishment heads. He has in his cabinet ex-Generals who look at war and conflicts from a soldier’s point of view and not from the perspective of politicians and diplomats. Some of them have been tested in Afghanistan, but have been hamstrung by civilians in Washington.
    Defense Secretary James Mattis is a retired army general and reported to be a no nonsense man. Present White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly is a retired marine four star general. Head of National Security Affairs (NSA) H. R. Macmaster is also a retired general.
    There are very important players – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the senior most diplomat and Trump’s hand-picked man, the CIA, the FBI, as well as congressmen. Senator John McCain, the highly decorated Vietnam War veteran has prepared a bill to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terror. The final word is that of President Trump unless he withdraws his statement with one of his early morning tweets.
    In his address at Fort Myers military base in Arlington, Trump admitted he had contemplated withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was his instinct and he usually follows through with his instincts. But after his inauguration he tasked Defense Secretary Mattis and his security team to review all options in Afghanistan and South Asia. In conclusion, his address came at Fort Myers. Trump’s chief strategist Stave Banon, a strong votary for American withdrawal from Afghanistan exited the White House before this speech, which may have made Trump’s task a little easier. Another Banon acolyte, Sebastian Gorka, was recently shown the door from the White House.
    Trump was forthright. He made it clear that Pakistan was providing safe haven to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and others who were killing American personnel in Afghanistan while receiving billions of dollars in American aid. He, however, did not stop at American casualties but pointed out that these terrorists harboured by Pakistan pose a threat to the region and beyond. The meaning was clear, since it quite obviously included the threat to India. The 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai which was launched by the ISI using Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), has not been forgotten, and the 9/11 attack in the USA is still fresh in the minds of the American people.
    Trump has not closed the door on Pakistan, however. He recalled that in the past Pakistan had been a valued partner, with both militaries working together against common enemies. He also took into account the fact that Pakistani people had suffered from terrorism. But Pakistan had to change immediately, if the partnership was to continue. That message was emphatically conveyed. If Islamabad wants to continue to receive that aid, they have to expel the Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network.
    General John Nicholson, head of US forces in Afghanistan has recently reiterated that Taliban leaders live in safe havens in Quetta and Peshawar. They are known as the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura. Sartaj Aziz, former foreign policy advisor to now outsted Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, had admitted their presence in Pakistan. This is no secret to any interested Pakistan-watcher in the world.
    Yet, Pakistan’s foreign office brazenly and unashamedly repeats ad nauseam that no Taliban leaders or elements are in Pakistan, that Pakistan does not allow its soil to be used against any country. This has become an international joke.
    It would be recalled that in the aftermath of 9/11, 2001 President George W. Bush gave Pakistan the ultimation “you are either with us, or against us”. Pakistani President, General Parvez Musharraf was shaken. It is a well-kept secret that Musharraf made a hurried trip to China to seek their support and advice. The Islamabad airport was closed down at night and reopened late morning. The flying time between Islambad and Beijing is 7 hours. But the time difference is 5 hours east to west. Musharraf could easily have an hour or two’s discussion with the Chinese and be in his office in the morning. Even the Pakistani ambassador did not know about this, only one person in the embassy did. The Chinese apparently advised Musharraf to cooperate with the Americans.
    The international community heard other dire and threatening voices from Washington at that time. It is alleged that US Deputy Secretary of State. Richard Armitage had remarked to his Pakistani interlocutors, that “we can bomb you to the stone age”.
    Musharraf opened almost three-fourths of Pakistani air space to the Americans. They bombed the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan, but Osama Bin Laden and his top Shura members survived. A hundred thousand pairs of boots from the US and its allies and NATO were put on Afghanistan’s soil. The Taliban and their Pakistani military advisors and military personnel were pushed out from the stronghold in Kandahar. Pakistan was made a major non-NATO ally, a position it still enjoys. Billions of dollars were poured into Pakistan. Americans Afghan war financing reached two trillion dollars.
    Pakistan continued to do what they do best-obfuscate, lie, and use those American dollars and military assistance to fund the Haqqani network and the Taliban, and strengthen it military capacity against India.
    Declassified US intelligence has recorded that Pakistan’s ISI funded the Haqqani network to annihilate the all women CIA post near the Pakistan-Afghan border. The US, at the highest level, gave hard proof to Pakistan at the highest level, that intelligence provided to the Pakistani army and the ISI on terrorist locations were shared with the very same terrorists before a strike, so that they could move out. Frustrating, and the US must shoulder the blame for lack of a non-cohesive strategy.
    President Barack Obama’s decision to pull out troops from Afghanistan was premature. There are only just over eight thousand troops in Afghanistan to train and advise the Afghan army of around three hundred thousand. This cannot do the trick. The Afghan army is still not disciplined, cohesive and is riddled with corruption. They do not have sophisticated arms and intelligence gathering capability, especially technical intelligence gathering. At the top of the political hierarchy there are two heads namely President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Ashraf Ghani tried to play footsie with the Pakistan army at the instance of the US. He got his feet burnt. Dr. Abdullah totally distrusts Pakistani army and the deep state, the movers and shakers in Pakistan.
    Dr. Abdullah has gone through both the wars in Afghanistan. He was an acolyte of Ahmed Shah Masood, the lion of Panjsher who was assassinated by the ISI Taliban combine. Ashraf Ghani has been somewhat itinerant. The US needs to look at this duo strategically.
    Pakistan’s government, army and politicians were infuriated by two aspects of President Trump’s speech. First was insulting Pakistan publicly to the world. They called it “scape goating”, crying hoarse that they made the biggest sacrifice in lives and money while fighting terrorism.
    While it is true that a huge number of lives, both civilian and military, were lost, who were these terrorists that Pakistan was fighting against? It was mainly the Tehrik-e-Taliban, Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and some such others. These tanzims were created by Pakistan’s deep state to fight in Afghanistan, and attack and kill Shia Muslims. But this strategy blew up in Pakistan’s face. The TTP turned against the government because their demand for complete Sharia law was not moving. The LEJ was black listed because Iran, a Shia country which shares a border with Pakistan, was outraged. But killing of Shias and bombing their mosques continue. As Hillary Clinton, Secretary of state in Obama’s Presidency had told her Pakistani interlocutors. “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours … eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard”.
    Pakistan is in a bind because of the policy of using terrorism as a foreign policy initiative in the region, especially against Afghanistan and India, and periodically in Bangladesh, its erstwhile territory which broke away and became independent in 1971. The civilian government in Islamabad has little say in foreign policy in the neighbourhood, the USA and China. Those are controlled by the GHQ in Rawalpindi.
    This atmosphere is creating space for the ISIS which has declared its Khorasan initiative in the Pak-Afghan border region. According to unverified reports elements from the TTP, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network are joining ISIS Khorasan.
    Pakistan has got itself into a position even if, theoretically it wants to discard the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and the Al Qaeda, it will be besieged by these terrorists that they spawned. The chicken will come home to roost at some point of time. There will be mayhem, and Pakistan’s nuclear assets could be at risk. The military has no end game, and they have demolished political and intellectual discourse.
    The second issue is Trump’s speech was asking India to play a greater development role in Afghanistan. He did not ask India to play a military role in Afghanistan, and India would not do it anyway. But all sections in Pakistan went ballistic. The foreign office spokesman Nafees Zakaria said that India was “involved in state sponsored terrorism” and cannot bear effective partner in bringing peace to the region.
    The Pakistan National Assembly passed an unanimous resolution (Aug 30) rejecting US President Donald Trump’s “hostile and threatening” statements, condemned Washington’s call for increased Indian involvement in Afghanistan, and called on US, NATO, and Afghan government to ensure India was denied use of Afghan territory to attack Pakistan. But they have failed to provide any concrete evidence. In this connection it may be recalled that in 2009 when a visiting Sri Lankan cricket team suffered a terrorist attack, then Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik declared that he had proof that it was an Indian conspiracy, and he would “show it at the right time”.
    That “right time” never came. The truth came out in the Pakistani media. The attack was by a group of Pakistani terrorists, and a crude attempt by the deep state to frame India. Pakistan’s cricket lost and even today teams are unwilling to go on a Pakistan tour.
    Coming to reality, US needs Pakistan for their Afghan policy. Following Trump’s speech there was a reassessment of his Afghan policy statement. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford underlined Pakistan’s role in bringing peace to Afghanistan.
    The US has huge stakes in Pakistan. It requires Pakistan’s territory and airspace to feed their military in Afghanistan. The US could have found another route through Central Arian countries. But the visceral hatred for Russia, and poking Moscow in the ribs even today, has closed that option.
    Washington does not want Pakistan to fall firmly into the laps of China and Russia. Yet, it is doing so in more than one way. Softer words on Pakistan are coming out of Washington.
    Two take aways. President Trump said that involvement in Afghanistan is open ended, based on ground realities. Next, there will be no nation building. Afghanistan will decide its country’s politics including with the Afghan Taliban.
    This is the new reality. The Afghanistan situation is in for a long and bloody haul.

    Here we go again in Afghanistan



    By John Q. Bolton



    The newly announced Afghanistan strategy differs only in style, not substance, from the strategies of the past, and certainly from the current strategy. After 16 years we still lack a coherent strategy, once that aligns ways and means to achieve realistic ends.
    It’s true the administration promises to utilize all the elements of American power, but this is a bromide. While it renounces nation building and timelines (removed in 2014) and emphasizes “killing terrorists,” the new strategy’s purported end, ensuring that Afghanistan will not become a terrorist safe haven, is wildly out of line with the limited means the Pentagon is said to be planning (an increase of 3,000 to 5,000 troops and the concurrent call to end nation building. Put simply: If over 100,000 troops couldn’t kill enough terrorists, how will only 10,000?
    Furthermore, killing isn’t an end state. It is an operational tactic that can only provide the breathing space for destroying terrorist groups, reconciliation, or some other cessation of hostilities. Moreover, if Afghanistan really is a problem requiring the application of “all the elements of national power,” then it is a problem that exists on a nation-building scale, making killing more out of place.
    The problem with arguing that Afghanistan will become a haven for terrorists is that it is exactly the kind of open-ended, fight everywhere justification for forever war that the American people have opposed since at least 2008. Not only is this type of warfare deeply antithetical to our form of government, but assertions about enemy safe havens also rest on the faulty logic that the past will repeat itself, exactly. While the Taliban is the major enemy in Afghanistan, it is not al Qaeda in terms of scale and goals. It’s worth noting that the Taliban is not a declared terrorist group. This is partially true and partially political, a way to encourage reconciliation. However, it remains the truth that the Taliban’s aims are predominantly regional. It wants to rule Afghanistan. Indeed, it has an entire shadow government that works alongside, and sometimes in place of, Kabul.
    Therein lies the problem with a strategy of “killing terrorists.” Doing so ignores the root causes of radical violence as well as local factors. Killing terrorists in Afghanistan, such as they are, will do nothing to stop domestically organized, foreign-inspired killers like those in Barcelona, France, or the United States. We are continuing — indeed reemphasizing — a failed whack-a-mole strategy. It makes for good television, but is strategically unsound, operationally expensive, and tactically exhausting. It also elevates terrorist organizations to the same level as nation states — a status that makes them proud — when they are simply criminals. This strategy forces the military to run head on into problems it is not designed, equipped, nor trained to solve.
    Strangely, after so much time spent in Afghanistan, we have never really examined our military training paradigms or personnel structure, let alone made real changes in order to meet the needs of this supposedly crucial theater. This realization was echoed by Lieutenant General (ret.) Daniel Bolger: “Time after time, as I and my fellow generals saw that our strategies weren’t working, we failed to reconsider our basic assumptions; we failed to question our flawed understanding … in the end, all the courage and skill in the world could not overcome ignorance and arrogance.”
    There is another factor clouding our views of Afghanistan, one that distorts its actual place relative to American National Security: the U.S. military. For the military, especially its leaders, this war is personal. For them Afghanistan’s sunk costs are very real and often translate into lost friends and comrades. Conversely, the public may generally oppose the war, but to America at large, the costs are negligible. They are abstract. Therefore, the American people must evaluate calls to “support the commander of the ground,” while noting that the past 16 commanders in Afghanistan all wanted more troops. A harsh, realistic, appraisal is what a great nation owes itself. With that in mind, let us consider these hard facts:
    Americans are dying in Afghanistan because Americans are in Afghanistan. Promoting other paradigms of fighting global jihad or making the world safe for democracy ignores the reality that no military strategy has succeed in that far-away land. Setting aside the enormous costs of the war (direct spending of over $700 billion on everything from construction, payouts to families of killed civilians to nonsense like designer goats and a $36 million unused command center), an even harder truth is this: There is nothing beyond the most tenuous of linkages between Afghanistan’s security and governance and America’s national security. While the Taliban may have provided a haven for al Qaeda, they are hardly a threat to America’s security. Indeed, our own actions in the forever war have inflamed the Islamic world against us, sowed the seeds of domestic strife at home, and deeply, perhaps catastrophically, indebted the nation.
    We may applaud ourselves for staying the course in Afghanistan, but it is precisely our unwillingness to confront the harsh truths outlined above that we have become mired in a stalemate. This public apathy is underwritten by a social contract that has separated the American people from their military in a fundamentally destructive manner — one in which the public will do anything it wants for the military, “except take it seriously.” A wise people, seeing the situation for what it truly is, would grapple with these harsh truths, determine a way to stop fighting literally on the other side of the world, and seek a settlement, not as victors, but as an honorable people. We can find peace in Afghanistan while fighting other terrorist and regional threats in a coherent manner.
    The hills and valleys of Central Asia have unique strategic, historical, and geographic value and their people are deserving of the freedom, stability, and security that humans the world over are entitled to. Nevertheless, such desires are hardly worth the bones of a single American paratrooper, especially in the context of fighting and killing in a forever war. Those deeming otherwise ignore the lessons of history and seek to recast our own strategic folly into a generations-long endeavor to reshape a region of the world profoundly opposed to external influences.

    U.S. policy shadows Afghanistan talks

    Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani will arrive in Delhi on Sunday to attend the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council meeting that has been delayed for years. The minister is also expected to discuss new avenues for cooperation within the India-U.S.-Afghanistan grouping.
    However, officials said no new decisions on defence supplies or security cooperation were likely during the talks which will end with a joint statement on Monday.
    U.S. role
    All eyes will be on talks to discuss the way forward weeks after the U.S. President Trump unveiled his “new policy” for Afghanistan, where he proposed a larger role for India in development assistance to Afghanistan. Later this month, Afghanistan President Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and a senior U.S. trade or commerce official will travel to India for the first India-U.S.-Afghanistan trade expo, funded by USAID.
    “We are breaking new ground in working with another mission on this sort of project. Delhi is a natural market for Afghanistan, and we want to develop that,” a U.S. official told The Hindu. Senior Afghan diplomats said the emphasis of the Partnership Council talks would be on “capacity building” for Afghan security forces in training and enhancing existing cooperation as well as about 287 “small development projects (SDPs)” that India is is committing funding for including small dams, road and highway construction, agriculture, education and health of the SDP-Phase III that were signed in 2012.
    Air corridor issues
    The two sides will also discuss enhancing trade, especially the “air corridor” for freight that was inaugurated in June to circumvent Pakistan, and has faced teething troubles due to non-availability of cargo aircraft.
    However, the Afghan government has recently engaged private airline Kam Airways to carry freight, and officials said they would like to connect more Indian and Afghan cities including Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Herat for trade in cotton, fruit and dry fruit from Afghanistan and medical and electrical equipment from India.
    The air corridor agreement could be signed during Dr. Abdullah’s visit.
    In addition, Mr. Rabbani and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj will witness the signing of two agreements: the Motor Vehicles agreement, announced in 2014, and an agreement on Orbit Frequency Coordination for the South Asia satellite launched in May this year. Mr. Rabbani will also raise the problems of Afghans travelling to India for medical care and students face in obtaining a visa as the process requires repeated visits to the Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRRO). The minister is likely to request longer duration visas for them.
    According to the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed by President Hamid Karzai and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011, the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council was supposed to meet annually. When asked about the reason for the delay in holding the Partnership Council, which last met in May 2012, an official said elections in India and Afghanistan, as well as Ms. Swaraj’s ill-health had delayed the meeting.
    The Afghan Foreign Minister will be accompanied by four deputy ministers who head joint working groups on Trade and Economic Cooperation, Capacity Development and Education, and Social, Cultural, Civil Society and people-to-people contacts, and will meet with Ms Swaraj for talks.
    Mr. Rabbani is also the head of the Jamiat-e-Islami party that is part of the National Unity Government in Kabul, and officials said he would call on Mr. Modi and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi during his visit.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-policy-shadows-afghan-talks/article19652230.ece

    ډاکټر سرفراز: نړۍ فکر کوي چې په پاکستان کې وسله والې ډلې فعالې دي

    د نړۍ د مخ پر ودې اقتصادي قدرتونو مشرانو په اول ځل په خپله اعلاميه کې د ځينو پاکستان مېشته وسله والو ډلو نومونه ياد کړي او د هغوی پر ضد د جدي اقدام غوښتنه يې کړې ده.د پېښور پوهنتون يو استاد او د نړيوالو اړيکو شنونکی ډاکټر سرفراز خان وايي، نړيوال له يوې مودې راهيسې له پاکستانه غواړي چې پر خاوره يې د فعالو وسله والو ډلو او کسانو پرضد کاروايي وکړي. نوموړی زموږ دا خبرې د مشال راډیو له خبریال هارون باچا سره په مرکه کې کړې دي. هغه ویلي ، چې پاکستان د نړيوالې ډپلوماسۍ په چارو کې د هند مقابله نه شي کولی د ډاکټر سرفراز خان مرکه دلته واورئ

    (مژده جمالزاده - اوبه درته راوړم ( به یاد بود احمد ظاهر

    Pashto Music - Ma Kave Thaposona - Ghazal Enayath

    Pashto Music - Haroon Bacha - Stergey Ghazal

    Pashto Music - حساب کتاب | عبدالغني خان | سردارعلي ټکر

    Pashto Music - Sardar Ali Takkar - JUDAI - جدائي ـ عبدالغني خان

    In 2014 a record number of blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistan


     By Madeeha Bakhsh
     


    The phenomenon of accusing Christians of committing blasphemy has been on the higher side in past year.

    According to details, last year saw the highest number of blasphemy cases registered in Pakistan. This was revealed during a seminar held recently in Karachi. The seminar was titled, “Human Rights, Religious freedom, Social Inclusion & Political Participation of Minority.” Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) had organised the seminar.

    In line with details, a senior lawyer of Pakistan Syed Mumtaz Shah while addressing the audience at the seminar stated that in 2014, the record numbers of 14,00 blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistan. This was, as explained by him, the highest number as compared to recent years.

    Last year, the phenomenon of blasphemy cases was reached apex if record of last few years was compared. He said this was a disquieting situation as the rising trend points out to growing religious intolerance in the country. A considerable number of cases were registered against Christians and as is general trend blasphemy accusations are followed by mobs attacking the family and houses of the accused.


    This seminar was attended by various representatives from civil society, leaders from various walks of life and people from different religions. It was revealed at the seminar that out of 14, 00- 800 cases were registered against Muslims. The participants were all of same accord that “Muslims should take to the streets against the abuse of this law.”

    On the other hand, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), noted that during 2014, out of all the 14,00 blasphemy cases the Pakistani courts sentenced three people to death and six to life imprisonment, while three other culprits received two years’ detention for blasphemy.

    Another participant of the seminar, Nisar Shar- who is a spokesman for the lawyers association in Karachi, said, “Even for lawyers it has become dangerous to do their job and defend a defendant accused of blasphemy.” Nisar Shah further mentioned the case of a lawyer Rashid Rehman who was murdered because he took the defence case of a blasphemy accused.

    Pakistan - IDPs From North Wazirstan Continue Suffering Amid Ongoing Political Crisis



    According to the latest government figures, 75 per cent of those who have fled from North Waziristan as a result of ongoing military offensive are women and children. The UNHCR is limited in its relief operations and so far there is not enough being done on government’s part.

    Pakistan: Lahore admin caught NAP-ping as anti-Ahmedi banners displayed across city



    Banners inciting religious hatred have been put up in several areas of the provincial capital, singling out Ahmedis and congratulating the entire Muslim community on a day when they were declared “infidels” by parliament, Pakistan Todayhas observed.
    The banners put up by the Pakistan Khatam-e-Nubuwwat Forum term ‘Khatam-e-Nubuwwat Day’ as its Defence Day.
    The banner further reads: “This is the day when parliament unanimously declared Qadianis (Ahmedis) infidels.”
    Permission to display banners on city roads and junctions is granted by the Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA), however, a senior official denied that they had given any such permission to the Forum.
    “Lahore is a big city. People put up banners overnight all the time, and sometimes we don’t even know about it,” said Shahzad Tariq, a deputy director in PHA.
    Interestingly, the inciting banners were not put up overnight and no action has been taken by the authority to take them down either.
    Pakistan Khatam-e-Nubuwwat Forum General Secretary Muhammad Hassan told Pakistan Today that they don’t need permission from any authority to put up banners as the whole nation celebrates the day as Defence Day.
    He further said that they have put up these banners in the past too and have never gotten into trouble with the authorities.
    “As far as the National Action Plan (NAP) is concerned, it is only limited to the two majority Muslim sects in the country,” he claimed.
    Maulana Abdul Naeem, a member of the Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatam-e-Nubuwwat, while talking to Pakistan Today, said that NAP doesn’t apply to any matter pertaining to Ahmedis, so the banners are not violating any law.
    Imran Maqbool, public relations officer of the District Coordination Office, said that the banners are put up either with the permission of Metropolitan Corporation or PHA. The police department is responsible in case any violent incident takes place, he added.
    “The DCO office has nothing to do with the matter,” he said before hanging up the phone.
    Salim Ud Din, spokesman for the Jamaat-e-Ahmediya, said that display of such banners incited more hatred against the community.
    “No group or individual should be allowed to display banners that may provoke religious sentiments against any community,” he said.
    Commenting on the matter, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) Director Najamuddin said that religious outfits were quite capable of putting up such banners.
    “Both the federal and the provincial governments are responsible for implementing NAP in letter and spirit,” he said.
    Former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir condemned the targeting of the minority Ahmedi community.
    “We do not even try to hide our bigotry and then we wonder how we have a poor image,” she said.
    Repeated calls were made to Lahore Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations) Dr Haider Ashraf but he did not respond.
    However, Lahore Police Spokesman Syed Hammad Raza said that he is not aware of any such banners displayed in the city.
    “The PHA and Metropolitan Corporation are to be blamed if such banners are put up in the city,” he said.
    The National Action Plan (NAP) bans literature, newspapers, and magazines promoting hatred, violence, sectarianism, extremism, and intolerance. It also says that stern action will be taken against religious persecution, and the act comprises various other points that deal with religious intolerance or promotion of it in any way.

    The conspired murder of the “Daughter of Destiny”- Assassination of Benazir Bhutto





    By Zahra Khan


    In April of 1979, 26 years old Benazir Bhutto witnessed the beginning of a bloodied epoch, only to be destined to a fate similar to that of her father and her brothers’ years later. The Oxford University graduate, assumed command of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in 1980 following the hanging of her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Chairperson PPP and elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, he was convicted of criminal charges and faced the death penalty one year after dictator Zia Ul Haq overthrew Bhutto’s elected government.
    Benazir Bhutto was the first elected female Prime Minister in the Muslim world. Till today, she is described as a woman of substance – empowered and courageous – she stood graceful and dignified with her chin up despite witnessing the horrific death of her father and brothers. Nothing could bring this woman down – she had survived immense tragedy. After the hanging of her father in 1979, her brother Shahnawaz Bhutto was murdered in his apartment, in 1980, it is said that Shahnawaz was poisoned to death, however, no charges had been brought forward. Another tragic atrocity occurred in 1996, whilst Benazir was in power, when her brother Murtaza was assassinated in a police encounter in Karachi.
    In a country like Pakistan where women like Ayesha Gulalai are subjected to abuse for raising their voice against sexual harassment or women like Malala are shot in the face for demanding an education, the nation where women such as Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy are welcomed with a string of online abuses and threats, even after returning to Pakistan being the only Pakistani to receive two Oscars for raising awareness on acid attacks and honour killings, in such a country Bhuttto stood as a powerful woman, firm and brave, speaking up for what she believed in. She was the symbol of resilience and defiance, every time she stood on stage she shattered the stereotype of a Muslim woman, her speeches were so passionate you could almost romanticise her presence, she was a symbol of victory for Muslim women around the world, she posed a threat to the military and the Islamists of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that this very triumphant courageous persona of hers later became the reason behind the tragic murder of Benazir Bhutto.
    The men of this country were so intimidated by her presence that one army General is said to have refused to salute Bhutto because she was a “female Prime Minister”, she won her first election in 1988, soon after she gave birth, but her tenure came to a halt in 1990 and she was instead found defending herself in court against charges of misconduct. She won another election in 1993 before once again having her tenure terminated on grounds of corruption. In 1996, she fled to Britain and remained there in a self-imposed exile, and finally in the year 1999 she was convicted and was sentenced to three years in prison.
    Bhutto returned to Pakistan in 2007 – in a triumphed return to Pakistan, she aimed to regain her seat after spending 8 years in exile. She describes her return as emotional, and states in her book that this was the first time she had cried in public –“tears are a symbol of weakness” Bhutto stated and didn’t want her opposition to believe that she was weak. She tried to hold back her tears but upon seeing her homeland after 8 years the tears were uncontrollable, however, her homecoming rally was hit by suicide attack, which killed over 100 people. Bhutto survived the attack by the skin of her teeth she backed down behind her bombproof vehicle and survived.
    Unfortunately the next attempt to take her life did not go in her favour.
    December 27th 2007 a gloomy day in Pakistan’s history – Bhutto had just finished her homecoming rally and was standing in her carwaving to her diehard supporters, through the sunroof of her car, in Rawalpindi when an assassin opened fire followed by a suicide bomb. It is said that Bhutto’s cause of death was not in fact the bomb or gunshots but she hit her head in a metal piece of the sunroof.
    Ten years later, the anti terrorism court of Pakistan located in Rawalpindi finally came to a verdict declaring General Pervez Musharraf a fugitive, two police officers party to the crime have been sentenced to 17 years in jail for “mishandling the crime scene”, whilst five alleged Taliban militants have been acquitted. Musharraf fled Pakistan in 2016 in a self-proclaimed exile. The verdict has angered PPP supporters and her son Bilawal Bhutto stated that the verdict is “disappointing” and “unacceptable”, saying they will explore other legal options.